|
Title: What's better for Paul's campaign? Post by: Peeperkorn on January 26, 2012, 02:29:34 PM You know that Paul strategy is winning delegates, especially in small nobody-cares-states.
What would be better for him? A Newt or a Romney victory in Florida? Title: Re: What's better for Paul's campaign? Post by: Lief 🗽 on January 26, 2012, 02:30:02 PM Newt, without a doubt.
Title: Re: What's better for Paul's campaign? Post by: tpfkaw on January 26, 2012, 02:52:50 PM Newt, even if the Trojan Romney theory is true.
Title: Re: What's better for Paul's campaign? Post by: Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P! on January 26, 2012, 03:02:40 PM Newt, obviously.
Newt lacks the staying power to have an effect in the upcoming caucuses, and his appeal there is limited anyway. However, a weak Romney coming off of two big losses could actually lose states that were either safely with him or fairly safe (Nevada, Maine and Colorado come to mind). Title: Re: What's better for Paul's campaign? Post by: Mehmentum on January 26, 2012, 03:17:18 PM Newt, obviously. Newt lacks the staying power to have an effect in the upcoming caucuses, and his appeal there is limited anyway. However, a weak Romney coming off of two big losses could actually lose states that were either safely with him or fairly safe (Nevada, Maine and Colorado come to mind). Title: Re: What's better for Paul's campaign? Post by: Lief 🗽 on January 26, 2012, 03:20:09 PM Also, if the nomination fight is over before the state's hold their state conventions, Paul probably gets many fewer delegates from his caucus victories.
Title: Re: What's better for Paul's campaign? Post by: Angel of Death on January 26, 2012, 03:31:55 PM Ron Paul is unarguably the Condorcet loser among the remaining four main candidates and thus clearly needs an as much evenly divided field as possible. Romney may have been damaged so far, but a win in Florida will very likely have the Republican electorate rally behind him in a show of unity.
|