iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Ron Mwangaguhunga

GET UPDATES FROM Ron Mwangaguhunga
 

What If Ron Paul Wins The Iowa Caucus?

Posted: 12/08/11 04:39 PM ET

Ron Paul's PAC recently started pushing the results of a commissioned poll saying that their man is now in the lead in the Iowa. In the poll, Paul has 22 percent of support among Iowans while Romney is at 17 percent in the Hawkeye state. Earlier this month a Bloomberg poll found Ron Paul in the top tier in Iowa. Nearly everyone in the field has gotten a chance to be a GOP frontrunner -- sorry Huntsman, sorry Santorum. So why shouldn't Paul get his 15 minutes on the revolving carousel after Trump, Bachmann, Perry, Cain and now Newt?

It is not inconceivable that Ron Paul's timing -- his campaign upsurge -- has the good fortune of reaching its peak just as the Iowa straw caucus poll begins and all the other not-Romney wannabes have fallen. There is, one cannot fail to note, a "felt need" within the party for anyone other than Romney that is so strong it would to consider an astonishing buffoon like Herman Cain. Ron Paul, though at times he can appear a bit Magooish, is not Herman Cain. That having been said, I fully expect Mitt Romney to win the GOP nomination. Mitt Romney is making the fewest mistakes; Mitt Romney is a solid debater; Mitt Romney -- and this is my most important point -- has, quite simply, the best hair. It's a truly fucking awesome head of hair, graying at the temples just as it ought. Romney is quite frankly good at projecting an image of inevitability, of quiet competence. It is impossible, however, to ignore entirely that telling 25% ceiling that his campaign cannot seem to crack no matter how "competent" his projected surface. Mitt, who knows that numbers don't lie, would understand my skepticism here. A quarter of Republican support is a fragile house upon which to build an American Presidency.

It has been said that with regards to elections, Democrats fall in love and Republicans fall in line. Another extreme oversimplification coming right up: the Dems are the "Mommy Party" -- concerned with education, healthcare, human rights. The Reps are the "Daddy Party" -- all fiscal discipline and national security, rigid and hierarchical (and they don't ask for directions). It is, in GOP terms, by the logic of hierarchy, Mitt's turn by virtue of the fact that he won the silver medal in 2008, just like it was McCain's turn in 2008 because he got the silver back in 2004. Fair play and all that; it's all very white of them.

In my guestimation the GOP primary ultimately plays out something like this: Romney makes it into the top tier in Iowa, maybe third, quite possibly second -- no big deal, as he has lowered expectations already -- and then wins New Hampshire. New Hampshire is the key to Mitt's campaign, the place where the Team Romney makes its stand. I wouldn't be surprised that someone as -- how does one say this? -- calculating as Mitt Romney didn't think of Wolfboro for a second home because of the added bonus of the Presidential campaign calendar. New Hampshire is also where, in all likelihood, another Mormon on the trail, Jon Huntsman, will make his concession speech saying that he would never have forgiven himself if he didn't give it a try. Mitt Romney has an 11 acre estate in Wolfeboro, was Governor of neighboring Massachusetts (most of the New Hampshire population lives in the Boston media market) and is thus a known quality in the state.

Next up: the South. Romney will lose South Carolina GOP primary, because he is simply not conservative enough and because he is not Christian enough. At around that time Mitt will be rolling out a shitload of endorsements - those carefully cultivated IOUs that he has kept close to his chest. Those will minimize the blow, make him look inevitable even while he is having his ass handed to him south of the Mason-Dixon line. That steady stream of endorsements will jettison Mitt into Florida at the end of January and give him just the right kind of momentum into Super Tuesday. The endorsements -- from party superheavyweights like Jebby and Chris Chrystie -- and the great money advantage should put him over. This is all good so as long as Ron Paul doesn't win Iowa. In that event all theoretical bets are off.

So I ask -- what if Ron Paul happened to win Iowa. It is not an inconceivable event, not beyond the realm of possibility anyway. Ron Paul's support in Iowa has always been above a respectable 10%. Paul is, however, starting to surge in the run up. And, curiously, Mitt Romney may be noticing. Even as President Obama was making his historic trans-Pacific pivot, Romney, on a far less grand geopolitical scale, was pivoting to compete in Iowa. Does "Mittens," as Rachel Maddow so un-affectionately calls him, want to put this thing away with a quick one-two combination punch in Iowa, then New Hampshire? Is Romney worried that a surging Ron Paul might win in Iowa, thus radically boosting Team Paul's chances in also taking New Hampshire, a state perfectly tailored to Ron Paul's libertarianism, a state that happens to love the art of the political comeback? Remember Pat Buchanan, another arguably loveable paleoconservative "outsider" in the Granite state in 1992?

Were Ron Paul to win Iowa, he would definitely alter the dynamics of the primary race in New Hampshire, a key state for Mitt Romney. Were Ron Paul to win Iowa and then, quite possibly, New Hampshire as well, Mitt Romney would be headed down South -- enemy territory -- and would not reach his allies in Florida until January's end. And what if Ron Paul's paleoconservatism and his momentum were enough to win him South Carolina, the hat trick? Then Mitt Romney, allies in Florida or not, would be very, very fucked. And the big winners of such a scenario - not so very far-fetched -- would be Ron Paul.

And, of course, President Barack Obama.

 

Follow Ron Mwangaguhunga on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RonMwangaguhung

 
 
  • Comments
  • 175
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (7 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:30 AM on 12/22/2011
Slight correction to my last post: The economy is already doing well in the undergarment business due to Paul's leading in the Polls in Iowa-Mostly sales to Republicans-If he wins Iowa then he'll kick the New Year Off Great with More Underwear sales to them!! LOL
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:25 AM on 12/22/2011
If that happens there will be plenty of sales for undergarments for Republicans on that day, which should help the holiday sales and end the 4th quarter of 2011 very well, thereby boosting the economy which is what we need In This Country!!

"What If Ron Paul Wins The Iowa Caucus?"
04:53 PM on 12/21/2011
Why talk about Romney Hair?! is that how you measure a president by his hair?

This must have been written by a full time beauty saloon worker and part-time opinion bullpoo writer.
03:04 PM on 12/21/2011
I'd say this so-called writer has a serious under-"guestimation" of Ron Paul.

Pro-tip: End your editorials one line short.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:52 PM on 12/19/2011
Ron Paul is the only one of the Republican candidates who can beat Obama.
Mickey1
Some things I know, and some things I don't.
10:24 AM on 12/20/2011
The debate will be epic.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/

Populist Patriots not Pillaging Plutocrats
Ron Paul / Bernie Sanders 2012
Bernie Sanders / Ron Paul 2012
11:40 AM on 12/24/2011
No. Really. None of them can. Ron Paul has a lot of down side.
04:34 PM on 12/19/2011
Not registered to either party. There is a huge difference between Obama and Ron Paul compared to Obama and Romney. My 1st choice is Ron Paul, 2nd choice is Obama. Likely quite a few would share similar view. So not sure one can say automatically the big winner would be Obama from Ron Paul win.
12:48 AM on 12/19/2011
Ron Paul would DESTROY Obama in the debates!
06:08 PM on 12/18/2011
I see Paulbots in force here. Ron Paul supporters always seem to forget one thing.....we have a little something called CONGRESS.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realfloopyguy
10:50 AM on 12/19/2011
I think you most likely don't know what Congress has the power to do. Paul could end all the wars, end the war on drugs, and severely diminish gun control in the course of a week without the support of Congress. You realize the President gets to pick the head of all the agencies, right? Do you see a Ron Paul appointed head of an agency like ATF not changing the laws? You do realize that the ATF lead gets to basically make up the laws on his own without Congress, right? They can just issue an 'opinion' and it completely changes the rules. Do you see a Ron Paul DEA head spending billions going after marijuana? If Obama can decide to 'not bother medical marijuana users' then Paul can say "don't bother any Marijuana users". War... you realize that Congress has to approve a wars/attacks ect. He has to ask for money for all this. The President does not have to ask for Permission to end wars, nor does he have to ask for permission to withdrawal troops from Iraq/Afghanistan/ect ect. I suggest you improve your general knowledge before you attempt to discuss this.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:27 AM on 12/19/2011
A congress who has such contempt for the US citizen that they just passed the NDAA chipping away; Patriot Act like; at even more essential provisions of the constitution.
Obama will sign, and the Left's benign acceptance of this fascist charter will be complete.
And to think we used to have a strong, vibrant and intelligent Left in this country...
I don't think playing the "I love congress" card will really hurt Paul.
01:30 PM on 12/21/2011
Did you read the Senate-passed version of the NDAA? It excludes U.S. citizens. Aside from your false reading of the bill, Ron Paul's foreign policies are pie-in-the-sky untenable. If Ron Paul becomes President, he will change his tune on many of his Pollyanna Policies once he receives daily CIA briefings.
12:23 PM on 12/18/2011
Anyone questioning Ron Paul's foreign policy should Youtube this:

You Like Ron Paul, Except on Foreign Policy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=I8NhRPo0WAo
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
shadenelkhatib
12:52 AM on 12/21/2011
Its the best part of his campaign!
03:38 PM on 12/17/2011
Well written article. I would go further to say that Ron Paul has a very good shot at beating Obama in the general election. Two points in his favor. 1) Incumbents are usually voted out of office when unemployment and GDP growth are at the levels they are today; and 2) Paul will get a much greater share of independent voters than McCain did in the last election--stealing much of what swung Obama into office. Many independents who voted for Obama (like myself) are disappointed with the President's performance and are hoping the Republicans put some up against him who will be an improvement. So far, the best such candidate is Ron Paul.
11:17 AM on 12/15/2011
Does anyone here think Ron Paul will finally get the spotlight? Will the media still continue to ignore him if he wins Iowa?

I can find more recent articles about Palin and McCain's daughter then I can the top tier GOP candidate Dr. Paul. Isn't there something wrong with that?

I guess all we can do is tell our friends and family and hopefully it will be enough.

RP 2012.
03:47 PM on 12/19/2011
I hope he will. However since Paul takes on the Federal Reserve banksters and the military industrial complex those insititutions will pull all their strings to black him out from the media and slander him. They'll do anything to maintain their grip on power.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cornelius F Brantley Jr
01:24 PM on 12/13/2011
Ron Paul wins Iowa by a wide margin if he builds a progressive/libertarian coalition with Blue and Green Republicans. And if progressives decide they want a different general election debate and a divided GOP, they will register to vote in 2012 Republican primaries and caucuses: http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/2011/12/what-is-green-republican-coalition.html
Mickey1
Some things I know, and some things I don't.
10:45 AM on 12/20/2011
Thank you for the link. Progressives for Ron Paul makes so much common sense.
You first have to ignore the plutarchy's mainstream media propaganda.
The truth is reflected in that the Ron Paul yard sigh is in full bloom in Iowa.

Populist Patriots not Pillaging Plutocrats
Ron Paul / Bernie Sanders 2012
Bernie Sanders / Ron Paul 2012
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cornelius F Brantley Jr
05:20 PM on 12/20/2011
We really do need a coalition of progressives and libertarians to ally for 4 years and wrest control from the corporatists who have both parties deep in their back pockets.
12:00 PM on 12/24/2011
Progressives for Ron Paul makes absolutely no sense. Libertarianism and Progressiveness are in direct opposition, as one is predicated on the idea that government action and programs, are necessary manifestations for the public will , the other believes that those things are abridgments of civil liberties. Lets say you lived in a town with a large factor that produced a great deal of pollution and there was a chance that this pollution could make you or your children sick. A progressive would say that its definitely a problem, and government should step in and place restrictions on how much pollution the factory can dump into the environment. A libertarian would say that whether or not this pollution is a problem is determined by the axiom of revealed preference. If the people of the town are aware of it, but elect to stay in the town because they like having a steady job at the factory, they have shown that the pollution is not a problem. However, should enough of the towns people decide to move, and the factory cannot function for lack of workers, then the pollution is a problem that needs to be corrected...by the owners of the factory. According to Ron Paul, the government, or at least the federal government, does not have power to regulate business (he believes the current interpretation of the Commerce Clause to be in error) nor does it have the right to subsidize business. Oil, meet water.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cornelius F Brantley Jr
09:57 PM on 12/24/2011
The blog acknowledges the huge differences between libertarians and progressives. It does however point out how similarities in foreign policy present an opportunity for temporary coalition to overthrow a corporate duopoly with its regressive spending priorities.

Ron Paul's candidacy presents an opportunity to change the direction of the country. He can win only in coalition with progressives. We are not going to get the 60 Senators in the next election. What we can do is team up with libertarians to cut spending on the military industrial catastrophe and use the savings to lower debt and build green infrastructure through the states. Democrats and our president is either unwilling or unable to do anything better.

We could redirect $3 trillion over 4 years. 1.5 trillion could be given to the states according to population in block grants. If we allow the states to use that money as they wish, progressive state could build modernized schools and high speed rail. This is a better deal than we are getting under the current stalemate.
Even if Ron Paul will not agree to such a coalition, having him in the general election debate will relieve Obama of the need to kowtow to the wishes of the MIC and force him to deal with the stupidity of things like the war on drugs, the madness of undeclared wars, and the assault on civil liberties. This blog is dedicated to political strategy. You might want to read it a little more closely.
11:26 PM on 12/12/2011
I agree with everything in this article except the last sentence.
11:26 PM on 12/12/2011
This would not be helpful to Obama, I am many other pissed off ex-obama voters would much sooner trust Ron Paul to handle things in a responsible way than the Great Compromiser who can't get his own side to win 3% of the battle, or for that matter keep promises to those who voted for him.

Ron Paul is the ONLY republican with a chance of winning. He would get all kinds of support from disappointed democrats who can see clearly that their president has sold out. The rest of the republican contenders are political clowns, who I couldn't stand to support. I would rather endure the do-nothing compromiser-in-chief than see what havoc the mainline republicans are capable of. Bush was as bad as it ever has to get.

Democrats who read this - re-register as republican, and support Ron Paul in the primary. Obama needs some serious competition on the progressive side.
07:42 PM on 12/12/2011
*When* Ron Paul wins the Iowa caucus.