Dr. No in Iowa

For anyone who was hoping Ron Paul would come in 3rd in Iowa, the caucus was surely somewhat of a disappointment. However, a closer look reveals quite a few positive signs about Ron Paul's campaign.

Overall, Ron Paul placed 5th with 10% of the votes, about 3% behind McCain and Thompson who were tied for 3rd. This was basically in line with the 9% figure he got in recent straw polls and is definitely a solid piece of evidence to show that Ron Paul's campaign is able to convert internet support into real support. For a long time the mainstream media has ridiculed Ron Paul supporters as 2 people who live in their mother's basements voting 50000 times in each online poll. Many doubted the 9% straw poll number as well because of that. It's clear now that Ron Paul has the support of real life people in addition to night elves, rogues, and shamans.

A look at CNN's entrance polls is even more uplifting for Paulites.

1. For all caucus goers who said they were angry about the Bush administration (Choices were: Enthusiastic, Satisfied, Dissatisfied, Angry), a whopping 54% voted for Ron Paul. Second place? McCain with only 13%. Of course, this segment was only 5% of caucus goers (it is a GOP caucus), but it is a strong testament to Paul's electability in a general election. Only Obama comes close to matching Paul's anti-war and anti-Bush credentials. And even Obama can't say he really put his political future on the line for his principles. And finally, Ron Paul was unique in the GOP field in that how much the voter liked Bush had an INVERSE relationship of how likely they were to vote for Ron Paul.

2. 13% of caucus goers identified themselves as "Independent". And Ron Paul took a clear first place among them with 29% of that segment. This is a strong positive indicator for New Hampshire, which has traditionally had a very strong independent and libertarian streak.

3. Income was a reverse indicator for Ron Paul. Lower income classes were more likely to have voted for Ron Paul in Iowa. Amongst people making less than $50k/yr, Paul actually tied McCain for 3rd place at 14%. Ron Paul gets a LOT of flak for wanting to get rid of social programs like Medicare, Social Security, etc etc. Many in the mainstream media hurl the word "Libertarian" as a curse at Paul and would very much like to tell everyone that Paul is a mean, nasty, racist, cold-hearted old kook who doesn't care about anyone but himself. Last night, Iowans gave strong indication that wanting to get rid of welfare doesn't mean you hate old poor people and that wanting to get rid of Medicare doesn't mean you hate sick poor people. As Dr. Paul said time and time again, "Only Freedom truly has compassion".

4. Paul's strongest issue was domestic policy, specifically the economy. This was corroborate by the fact that 37% of caucus goers who placed no importance in current events in Pakistan voted for Ron Paul, placing him in a close 2nd in this category (1% behind Huckabeast). Turn the table, and Paul's foreign policy was his weakest issue in the GOP caucus. To me, this is another piece of evidence of his electability in a general election. It's fairly clear that the general population is much more amenable to Ron Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy than Iowan GOP caucus goers.

5. Other miscellaneous/interesting facts about people who voted for Ron Paul:
-Ron Paul placed 3rd among young voters (17-29), only 1% behind 2nd place Romney.
-Whether you were an evangelical Christian made no difference.
-95% of voter for Ron Paul said his top quality was either "Says what he believes" or "Shares My Values". Only Huckabee had a similar breakdown.
-Among people who decided very early, Ron Paul placed 3rd at 15%.


I'm sure we'll see the mainstream media stay consistent on message after Iowa. Whereas a few days ago they predicted a massive disappointment and that the poll numbers would disappear when it came to real voting time, now they are sure to say that this was indeed a massive disappointment because Paul didn't come in 3rd place. Never mind the criterion has changed; as long as the conclusion that "Ron Paul is a loser" is still reached, the media is happy.

I still hope that ABC will change their minds and invite Dr. Paul to their debate, but I'm not holding my breath. I think Dr. Paul will do better in New Hampshire than he did in Iowa, which would add great strength for his campaign. I wish him the best of luck in the planned "counter-event" that's slated to parallel the Faux News debate. And I hope more and more Americans will be saying "YES" to Dr. No.