Ron Paul gets equal number of Delegates than Romney, Santorum

Paul campaign awaits Bachmann, Perry exit to perhaps collect more delegates.

Paul J. Watson
January 4, 2012

Ron Paul heads to New Hampshire having more than doubled his 2008 Iowa vote tally, secured an equal number of Republican delegates as Romney and Santorum, and is projected to beat Santorum into a strong second-placed finish in next week’s primary.

After weeks of intense and sustained smear attacks by the establishment media, during which Paul was labeled everything from “dangerous,” to “disgusting,” to “racist” and even called a “terrorist,” the Texan Congressman still managed to secure 26,219 votes compared to 11,841 votes in 2008 – finishing third behind Romney and Santorum.

Crucially, Paul has obtained an equal number of delegates to both Santorum and Romney – seven in total.

“Paul may actually be the real winner of the first Republican voting contest,” writes Grace Wyler. “That’s because Paul’s massive organizational push in Iowa focused on both winning votes, and also on making sure that Paul supporters stuck around after the vote to make sure they were selected as county delegates — the first step towards being elected as a delegate to the Republican National Convention.”

In comparison to Ron Paul doubling his tally, Mitt Romney received marginally less votes than he did in 2008 despite the millions of dollars his campaign spent in the state. Indeed, as Michael Brendan Dougherty notes, “75 percent of Republican Caucus-goers want someone that isn’t Mitt Romney – a result that reflects polls nationwide.” Romney is also expected to perform poorly in the southern states, where his brand of big government isn’t welcomed.

Saying he was the recipient of “one of three tickets out of Iowa,” Paul noted that Rick Santorum’s surprise showing is highly unlikely to be replicated anywhere else, and that he and Romney were the top two going into next week’s primary.

Santorum received a blow on the eve of voting yesterday when his own nephew penned an op-ed warning that his uncle was “another big-government politician who supports the status quo,” urging people to vote for Ron Paul.

Although Romney is the clear frontrunner in New Hampshire, Paul is currently running a strong second according to the New York Times’s caucuses projection. Paul is forecast to take 19.1 per cent of the vote, with Santorum significantly behind with just 5.2 per cent of the projected vote.

Two recent polls out of New Hampshire also show Paul holding down a strong second-placed finish, with Santorum nowhere to be seen. Paul is also forecast for a 3rd place finish in South Carolina and Florida behind Gingrich and Romney.

“We’ve had success reintroducing some ideas Republicans have needed for a long time. And that is the conviction that freedom is popular,” Paul said in his speech last night. “Let’s go back to to this real old fashioned idea, this dangerous idea: let’s obey the Constitution,” he added, urging his supporters to press on to New Hampshire with renewed momentum.

Ron Paul On The Way to Beat Iowa Polls

by Nate Silver
December 30, 2011

I’m not always a big fan of dissecting individual polls — mostly because there are liable to be a plethora of them in Iowa and New Hampshire over the next several days and their errors will tend to be mitigated as more are added to the average.

Nevertheless, the new CNN poll of Iowa contains a methodological quirk that is worth bringing to your attention and which will probably result in the survey underestimating the support for Ron Paul.

The issue is that CNN’s Iowa poll was conducted by using a list of registered Republican voters and registered Republicans only:

Sample was drawn from the complete list of registered Republican voters provided by the Iowa Secretary of State.

What’s wrong with using a list of Republican voters for a Republican caucus poll? The answer is that it’s extremely easy for independent and Democratic voters to register or re-register as Republicans at the caucus site. Historically, a fair number of independent voters do this.

According to entrance polls in Iowa in 2008, for instance, about 15 percent of participants in the Republican caucus identified themselves as independents or Democrats on the way into the caucus site. Although the way that voters self-identify is not technically the same thing as which party they are officially registered with, this is probably a good proxy for what percentage of voters changed their registration to Republican when they signed in at the caucus location.

Read Full Article…

Establishment GOP moving Iowa vote count to ¨Undisclosed¨ Location

Note: This measure has arrived after unfounded threats against the voting process were made public in Iowa. The GOP wants to make sure they are the only ones who will know what the result of the voting really is.

By Jonathan Martin
December 28, 2011

Threats to disrupt the Iowa Republican caucuses next week have prompted state GOP officials to move the vote tabulation to an “undisclosed location,” POLITICO has learned.

The state party has not yet told the campaigns exactly where the returns will be added up, only that it will be off-site from the Iowa GOP’s Des Moines headquarters. The 2008 caucus results were tabulated at the state party offices, which sit just a few blocks from the state capitol.

Activist groups including the Occupy movement have indicated that they’ll attempt to interrupt rallies in the closing days before next Tuesday’s caucuses.

The AP reported today that Occupy is making plans to even attend some caucuses and vote “no preference,” but not disturb the voting process.

But Iowa Republicans are also bracing for other threats, sources say, including hacking.

Iowa GOP Chair Matt Strawn wouldn’t comment on the plan to move the vote-counting except to say they’re increasing security measures.

“The Iowa GOP is taking additional safeguards to ensure the Caucus results are tabulated and reported to the public in an accurate and timely manner,” Strawn said. “We are not commenting on specific security procedures.”

Exposing Lies about Ron Paul

by Bob Livingston
Personal Liberty
December 26, 2011

The Republican establishment has become apoplectic over Congressman Ron Paul’s growing strength in Iowa.

Last week, Iowa Governor Terry Branstad attempted to delegitimize his own State’s vote when he said that if Paul wins the Iowa Caucus, it won’t matter. Of course, if Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney wins, he won’t say that. In fact, according to Branstad, a second- or third-place finish by Gingrich or Romney will be more important than a Paul win.

“People are going to look at who comes in second and who comes in third. If Romney comes in a strong second, it definitely helps him going into New Hampshire and other states,” Branstad reportedly said. What Branstad did not say was that he’s been offered a potential Vice President spot on a Romney ticket.

Branstad and his elite bedfellows are trying to draw you into an alternate universe. Never mind that two out of the past three winners of the Iowa Caucus have gone on to win the Republican nomination, a Paul win will mean the Iowa vote is irrelevant.

According to a new Iowa State University/Gazette/KCRG poll of likely Republican caucus-goers, Paul has moved into first place – the fifth candidate to hold that spot since the mid-August Iowa GOP Straw Poll. This is the second recent poll showing a Paul lead.

In the ISU poll, Paul is the first choice for 27.5 percent of the registered Republicans and registered independents contacted. That’s up from 20.4 percent in November. Gingrich is the second choice with 25.3 percent, and Romney was third at 17.5 percent.

For months, the Republican elites and corporate media have treated Paul like that cranky old uncle that continues to show up at family gatherings. They’ve tried ignoring him and they’ve tried dismissing him. They’ve been running a continuous communication loop that says, “Ron Paul can’t win.” Yet, here he is, on the cusp of an Iowa victory and showing remarkable strength in New Hampshire.

A common refrain from Republicans is: “I like most of what Ron Paul says, but I can’t vote for him because of his ‘isolationist’ foreign policy.” When they say that, what are they saying?

After all, many Republicans say they can easily vote for Gingrich even though they don’t agree on some of his positions: i.e. infidelity, national database of gun owners, support for the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that permits the indefinite detention of Americans upon the President’s order, support of cap-and-trade, support of individual mandates to purchase healthcare, support of TARP and bailouts, etc. And many Republicans say they can vote for Romney, the author – essentially — of Obamacare (through his Romneycare), who has flipped and flopped on core Republican issues like a fish in the bottom of a boat. And they say they can vote for Michele Bachmann, who voted for the USA Patriot Act and the NDAA.

They are saying, simply, that they have been so terrorized by their government and the mainstream media they are willing to surrender all their freedom and wealth to the military industrial complex and big government so people in a foreign land can be bombed into submission and subjugation. Years of government propaganda and years of war have cemented in their minds the need for perpetual war.

For my conservative friends who don’t like Paul because of his noninterventionist — because that’s what his policy is, and he describes what that means here — foreign policy, consider how long we have been at war in the Mideast.

America and the CIA have been meddling in the affairs of Middle Eastern countries for decades. Read The Secret History of The American Empire, by John Perkins. In 1990, after an American ambassador hinted to Saddam Hussein that the United States would not stand in his way were he to take over territory that was in dispute between Iraq and Kuwait, President George H.W. Bush and the United Nations formed a coalition to bloody his nose. We have been in a shooting war in the region ever since.

After 21 years of war in the region, are things any better? Apparently not, because the war has expanded from Iraq into Afghanistan, Pakistan and Libya, and it is about to expand into Syria and Iran. And American troops are in Central Africa in an “advisory” role. Yet Americans thirst for more war and the top Republican candidates, according to the elites, are advocating more.

“But,” Republicans say, “Iran is about to get The Bomb. We can’t let Iran get The Bomb!” And how do we know that Iran is about to get The Bomb? From those same people who told us — inaccurately, it turns out — that Iraq was about to acquire nuclear weapons.

Iran, which is OPEC’s second largest oil producer, can’t even refine enough gasoline for its own people. It has no reliable missile system. And we are to believe it’s technologically capable of producing a nuclear weapon?

“But what about Israel?” Republicans then ask. Israel has a couple hundred, at least, nuclear weapons sitting at the ready and is perfectly capable of defending herself.

Consider that there is much more at work here than meets the eye. To understand what is really going on, you must peel back the layers of conventional wisdom, like peeling an onion. There are nefarious maneuverings of nongovernment organizations (NGOs) at work. Few are able to escape their normalcy bias to see this.

The plan for the takeover of the vast oil reserves and riches of the region have been in the works for a long time. NGOs have worked behind the scenes and in secret to shape the policy. But the Brookings Institute became so confident the policy had reached the point of no return that it released its blueprint in 2009.

This is why Presidential candidates are vetted by the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg group before receiving approval to run. They must sign on to the New World Order to receive the proper backing and financial support. And it’s why the knives will be out in full force in the coming weeks to destroy Paul and his candidacy. (Previously debunked claims of racism surfaced again last week.)

Another question to ask yourself: If a potentially nuclear-armed Iran is such a danger to us, what about an actually nuclear-armed North Korea? Why are we the elites not cowering in fear that North Korea could launch a missile at any second? After all, North Korea actually has a missile that can reach our friends and fellow democracies in South Korea and Japan — and can probably reach portions of the U.S. West Coast.

What about a nuclear-armed Pakistan, which likes us less and less with each drone strike and violation of their territorial integrity?

What about Russia and China, who will be very offended if the United States leads an assault on Iran and Syria? Russia has already stationed warships near Syria, and China is unhappy with President Barack Obama’s military buildup in Australia and is responding by beefing up its military in the Indian Ocean. And you think this militarism is making the United States safer?

Finally, my conservative friends, one last question for you to consider: If Paul’s foreign policy is “crazy,” as many of you say, why have members of the military given more to his campaign than to anyone else’s? Could it be they have seen the dark core that lies beneath?

And before the “Ron Paul can’t beat Obama. We must elect someone who can defeat Obama,” chorus chimes in, a new CNN/ORC International Poll shows Paul faring the same against Obama in a head-to-head matchup as the “more electable” Romney. Gingrich fares far worse.

Related Links:









Partner Links