If Romney wins Iowa, it's over, right?

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

No, if it's a very unconvincing win because there is a split field, the primary battle will continue. The average GOP primary voter just won't accept Romney as the nominee and will coalesce around the one anti-Romney who performs well in Iowa (probably not Gingrich because he has no momentum and it won't be Paul).

One thing is for certain:
1. Paul will drag this thing out as long as possible and his supporters won't give up.

The MSM doesn't matter and has tried to crown Romney as the nominee for over a year now. Their opinions are invalid. If they mattered, Cain would have never been the frontrunner for over two months.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

One thing is for certain:
1. Paul will drag this thing out as long as possible and his supporters won't give up.

Ok but that's meaningless when it's 90% vs. 10%.

I'd say it's more like 70-30 or 65-35 which is still fairly meaningless but it would still give us something to watch. Maybe Paul could win Montana one on one against Romney.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Watching Obama beat Romney would be very satisfying as I've grown to hate Mittens with a passion so I'd be okay with that election.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

New Hampshire has a history of bucking conventional wisdom and resisting leadership coming out of Iowa. Those same rules could apply to Romney, as they have to many other past candidates.

Huntsman just received the endorsements of a few minor papers in New Hampshire; his momentum is continuing there. I suppose it's possible that he could have a last minute surge if he actually put some attack ads on the air. His failure to do so could cost him the race.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

One thing is for certain:
1. Paul will drag this thing out as long as possible and his supporters won't give up.

Ok but that's meaningless when it's 90% vs. 10%.

I'd say it's more like 70-30 or 65-35 which is still fairly meaningless but it would still give us something to watch. Maybe Paul could win Montana one on one against Romney.

Are you out of your mind? You think 30-35% of this party identifies with Ron Paul? Please get serious.

One third of the party would rather vote for Ron Paul than Mitt Romney.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

One thing is for certain:
1. Paul will drag this thing out as long as possible and his supporters won't give up.

Ok but that's meaningless when it's 90% vs. 10%.

I'd say it's more like 70-30 or 65-35 which is still fairly meaningless but it would still give us something to watch. Maybe Paul could win Montana one on one against Romney.

Are you out of your mind? You think 30-35% of this party identifies with Ron Paul? Please get serious.

One third of the party would rather vote for Ron Paul than Mitt Romney.

That is an absurd statement.

One third of voters, according to polls, is something like Paul's absolute ceiling. And that's before people really start to pay attention.

I think 10-12% is about right, nationally, though higher in some states.

You think that only 10% of GOP primary voters would vote for Paul over Romney? Do you have data to back this up? Paul has the favorability numbers of Romney in most states, while I agree that after a long campaign that this would change but Paul isn't as hated as most of you would like to believe. The polling data simply doesn't back you up.