Already discrediting a Paul win in Ames

Known by many as the beltways source for politics, the website Politico has already figured out the best way to completely discredit a potential Ron Paul win at the Ames Straw Poll. They have done it in two magnificent ways. First they stated that a win by Paul would technically be a win for Perry or Romney because it would show Michele Bachmann does not even have that strong of a base in her home state of Iowa. Second a win by Paul would only show that these straw polls only bring out a slice of the electorate and thus we should not take that as being representative of the party but rather just a small faction, of course.

Source

The general consensus on the voting today is that if Ron Paul wins at Ames - a possibility that's quite real - it is good for Rick Perry. It keeps Michele Bachmann from galvanizing her support base, prevents a potential Mitt Romney alternative (Tim Pawlenty) from resurrection and gives Perry a major window.

But it's also not a terrible scenario for Romney, who is skipping Ames but is also engaged in a delicate dance over how heavily he competes in a state he has a complicated relationship with.
Continue Reading


Romney's best hope is a clear Bachmann win. But a Paul win would help to diminish the overall process in Iowa to outsiders, and could potentially confirm the critiques that GOP caucus-goers are a slender electoral slice that doesn't represent much of the rest of the Republican party.

How low do you have to sink when you begin discrediting a straw poll before it is even finished if the candidate the establishment hates wins it? Yet they did not seem to try and discredit the straw poll in the event Bachmann or Pawlenty wins, no because then it would be representative of the party whole. Only if Ron Paul wins could it possibly be representing only a slice of the electorate.

Nice to see the political spin and propaganda machine has already revved up their engines for 2012.

The lame-stream media meme goes something like this: the media only talks about candidates that have potential, which is why they do not discuss Ron Paul, but if that is the case, why do they talk about Mitt Romney whose only support is Utah?

So I guess this poll counts for nothing....seems like a bit more than a "slice of the electorate"...



If they are going to consider sources, they have to consider them ALL or it just displays their lack of credibility and their bias.

~Namaste

ETA: Not sure why it isn't scrolling to the right, but the rest of the country is almost entirely green.

Originally posted by filosophiawhy do they talk about Mitt Romney whose only support is Utah?

Not anymore.. www.topix.com...

Haha. RP has the map covered now.

IMO mainstream can bash him and lie all they want. In the end, they are only discrediting themselves.

And as for this Perry guy. Give me a break. He'd be better off as a preacher.

Well nothing they said is incorrect. Your sounding as if everyone should drop to their knees and worship Paul for pulling off a win here.

Frankly these comments are correct as the National polling data still has him far behind with eveh Sarah Palin ahead of him and she's not even in the race.

I read the article and did not see any discrediting but only them pointing out obvious facts. This poll has been shown in the past to not represent how the candidates will fair later on in the race. Didn't he win this last time too or was that Huckabee, regardless the point is that the winner of this straw poll usually ends up not being the candidate in the long run.

reply to post by kro32


Sometimes I wish ATS was a little more like Reddit. I'd down vote everything you've ever said...ever.