Posted by Jane Aitken on DailyPaul.com

Note: Not all these State Reps are actually supporting Dr. Paul, some are, some aren’t, and some other Rep supporters are not listed but I have contacted them so they can add their names too. They are for the kind of fairness we are used to in NH. – J

Fergus Cullen
New Hampshire Republican Party
January 3, 2008

We, the undersigned present and past New Hampshire House Republican State Representatives, respectfully request that unless Fox News agrees within the next 24 hours to invite Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter to participate with the other candidates at their Forum on Jan 6, 2008 you:

1) Pull all Republican cooperation from the Fox Forum,

2) Ask the candidates included to back out, and

3) Go public with a formal press conference denouncing of the exclusionary anti-representational policies of Fox News

Sincerely,

Hon. Paul Ingbretson
Hon. Al Baldasaro
Hon. Howie Lund
Hon. DJ Bettencourt
Hon. Jason Bedrick
Hon. Moe Villeneuve
Hon. Dan Dumaine
Hon. Andrew Renzullo
Hon. Duncan Chaplin
Hon. Laurie Boyce
Hon. Paul Hopfgarten
Hon. Lynne Ober
Hon. Steve Hellwig
Hon. Paul Mirski
Hon. William O’Brien
Hon. Jordan Ulery
Hon. Pamela Manney
Hon. Dan Itse
Hon. Bob Boyce
Hon. Mike Harrington
Hon. Nancy Elliot
Hon. Bob Mead

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/20657

I notice, though, that they don’t use the same baseline year so it may be an apples to oranges comparison.

Iowa:

REPUBLICANS
2004- George W. Bush* (unopposed)
2000- George W. Bush* (41%), Steve Forbes (30%), Alan Keyes (14%)
1996- Bob Dole (26%), Pat Buchanan (23%),
1992- George H. W. Bush (unopposed)
1988- Bob Dole (37%), Pat Robertson (25%),
1984- Ronald Reagan* (unopposed)
1980- George H. W. Bush (32%), Ronald Reagan* (30%),
1976- Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan

Analysis:
Iowa is 3/5 on the nomination process when you extract an unopposed Republican candidate. (correct 60% of the time)

Iowa is 1/5 in selecting the republican winner that wins the white house when you extract the unopposed candidates. (Correct 20% of the time)

******
End result: Iowa Republicans are correct 80% of the time at selecting the loser in the General election.*****

DEMOCRATS :
January 19, 2004 – John Kerry (38%), John Edwards (32%)
January 24, 2000 – Al Gore (63%), Bill Bradley (37%)
February 12, 1996 – Bill Clinton* (unopposed)
February 10, 1992 – Tom Harkin (76%), “Uncommitted” (12%)
February 8, 1988 – Richard Gephardt (31%), Paul Simon (27%)
February 20, 1984 – Walter Mondale (49%), Gary Hart (17%)
January 21, 1980 – Jimmy Carter (59%), Ted Kennedy (31%)
January 19, 1976 – “Uncommitted” (37%), Jimmy Carter* (28%) Birch Bayh (13%)
January 24, 1972 – “Uncommitted” (36%) and Edmund Muskie (36%)

Analysis:

Iowa is 5/8 on the nomination process when you extract an unopposed Democratic candidate. (correct 63% of the time)

Iowa is 0/8 in selecting the democrat winner that wins the white house when you extract the unopposed candidates. (Correct 0% of the time or Incorrect 100% of the time)

New Hampshire:

RUBLICANS

January 27, 2004: President George W. Bush (no serious opposition)
February 1, 2000: Senator John McCain defeated Governor George W. Bush,
February 20, 1996: Pat Buchanan defeated Senator Bob Dole
February 18, 1992: President George H. W. Bush defeated Patrick J. “Pat” Buchanan
February 16, 1988: Vice President George H. W. Bush defeated Senator Bob Dole,
February 28, 1984: President Ronald Reagan (no serious opposition)
February 26, 1980: Governor Ronald Reagan defeated Ambassador George H. W. Bush,
February 24, 1976: President Gerald R. Ford defeated Governor Ronald Reagan
March 7, 1972: President Richard Nixon defeated Congressman Paul N. “Pete” McCloskey, Jr.
March 12, 1968: Vice President Richard M. Nixon defeated Governor George Romney
March 10, 1964: Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. defeated Senator Barry M. Goldwater,
March 8, 1960: Vice President Richard Nixon (no serious opposition)
March 13, 1956: President Dwight D. Eisenhower (no serious opposition)
March 11, 1952: General Dwight D. Eisenhower defeated Senator Robert Taft

Analysis:

-New Hampshire is correct 7/10 times in selecting the nominee for the Republicans when there is no opposition. (70% correct)

-New Hampshire is correct 5/10 times in selecting the next Republican President. (50% correct)

DEMOCRATS:

January 27, 2004: Senator John Kerry defeated Governor Howard B. Dean III,
February 1, 2000: Vice President Al Gore defeated Senator Bill Bradley
February 20, 1996: President Bill Clinton (no serious opposition)
February 18, 1992: Senator Paul Tsongas defeated Governor Bill Clinton
February 16, 1988: Governor Michael Dukakis defeated Con Richard A. “Dick” Gephardt
February 28, 1984: Senator Gary Hart defeated Vice President Walter Mondale,
February 26, 1980: President Jimmy Carter defeated Senator Edward Kennedy
February 24, 1976: Governor Jimmy Carter defeated Congressman Mo Udall,
March 7, 1972: Senator Edmund Muskie defeated Senator George McGovern
March 12, 1968: President Lyndon B. Johnson defeated Senator Eugene McCarthy
March 10, 1964: President Lyndon B. Johnson (no serious opposition)
March 8, 1960: Senator John F. Kennedy defeated businessman Paul C. Fisher
March 13, 1956: Senator Estes Kefauver defeated Governor Adlai E. Stevenson II
March 11, 1952: Senator Estes Kefauver defeated President Harry S. Truman

ANALYSIS:

-New Hampshire is correct 5/14 time in selecting the nominee for the democrats when there is no opposition. (38% correct)

-New Hampshire is 4/12 in selecting the next democratic president (33% correct)

I doubt he’s going to want to blow a big chunk of that on his campaign, though, especially if he’s not getting much in the way of contributions elsewhere.

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, January 4, 2008

Ron Paul supporters have mixed views on whether the Congressman’s 10% showing was a success or not, but the larger issue in the aftermath of the Iowa caucus has to be the question of whether the Ron Paul effect has sunk the presidential aspirations of the top two Neo-Cons in the race – Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton.

The polling had Giuliani in the mid-teens in Iowa right up until last week but he ended up with a paltry 4% – meanwhile Congressman Paul was polling at around 6% but ended up with 10%. Which candidate took away Giuliani’s support? Huckabee’s success only explains part of it because the strong religious right support for him in Iowa has been there all along.

It can be argued that both Ron Paul’s masterful schooling of Giuliani during the debates and his success in dividing voters has effectively torpedoed the former New York Mayor’s campaign.

It is now common knowledge that Giuliani is completely broke despite the fact that he hardly spent any money in Iowa. It will be virtually impossible for him to regain any momentum, and it’s largely thanks to Ron Paul.

The Neo-Cons would have loved to insert another Bush clone into the White House and carry on the imperial looting of the world while America collapses and decays under the weight of its own decadence but thanks to the Ron Paul effect it’s not going to happen.

Their only other option was to run a dead horse against another arch Neo-Con, Hillary Clinton, but that too is on the skids.

Obama and Edwards’ anti-war rhetoric has reached fever pitch and it’s no coincidence that they turned up the volume after noting the exponential popularity of Ron Paul’s meteoric rise after his anti-establishment, anti-war message catapulted him to the coattails of the Republican frontrunners.

The fact that Obama and Edwards saw off Clinton in what many judged to be a surprise result just shows how hurtful Clinton’s pro-war Neo-Con sympathetic record has been to her.

We’re not for a moment suggesting that CFR Obama or Bilderberg Edwards offer any kind of hope for America, they are establishment lackeys like all the rest, but the numbers clearly indicate the devastating blow the Ron Paul effect has dealt to the Neo-Cons’ preferred candidates, Clinton and Giuliani.

Now that the Ron Paul Revolution has slapped the so-called “national frontrunners” upside the head it’s necessary to take this one step further and ask the question, can Paulism go the whole hog and bury Neo-Conservatism for good?

Even Fox News’ own talking heads think decision to exclude from presidential forum should be reversed.

Ron Paul’s double digit support in Iowa has shocked establishment media figures who have long derided the Congressman as an insignificant candidate with just 2 or 3 per cent of the vote. Even Fox News’ own talking heads now agree that Paul should not be excluded from the upcoming presidential forum as campaign momentum builds.

Dr. Paul blew “national frontrunner” Rudy Giuliani out of the water, who got just 4% of the vote, and is handily placed behind McCain and Thompson heading into New Hampshire.

The Congressman’s strong showing has led to new calls for Fox News to reverse the decision to exclude him from the January 6th presidential forum, not from Ron Paul supporters but from Fox News’ own flagship hosts.

“Ten per cent is not insignificant – that’s a huge number,” said Fox’s Greta van Susteren, appearing with host Shep Smith last night. Smith noted that Paul had more than doubled Giuliani’s total.

“Should Fox News reconsider?” asked Smith, to which Susteren responded, “I’m not sure why he’s out of it (the forum).”

“Here you have a candidate that 10 per cent of the people caucused in his party really want him and it’s not like he’s an insignificant player,” she added.

“He didn’t just drop in yesterday to the process, he has been running for president for a long time, and certainly many of the issues he’s raised are rather provocative and certainly stimulate the debate, that’s not a bad thing – and why not pull up another chair?” Susteren concluded.

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer and Larry King also noted Paul’s double digit finish during a discussion last night.

“Ron Paul I think is gonna be a factor in New Hampshire on the Republican side much more than he was in Iowa given all the Independents there so let’s not neglect Ron Paul when we’re talking about this,” remarked Blitzer.

LOL. Based on Ms. Spears’ actions last night, I’m guessing she was a Giuliani supporter!

Eric, what would you do in this situation?

How do you really feel?

Are you all satisfied with the results?”

I tried to keep my hopes in check. The fact I care about third party politics at all and post on a website called “Third Party Watch” shows I’m a bit of a romantic, I understand that, and so always hope more than usually occurs.

He got around the percentage I thought he’d get. I was expecting 4th behind McCain mainly cause I thought Thompson would do worse than he did (Romney and Giuliani had lower vote counts than I was expecting as well, which of course means those votes have to go somewhere).

I’m glad Rudy got destroyed, even if he wasn’t campaigning (Miami…good luck with that). I’m not glad that a populist won Iowa, but what can you do? However I said elsewhere that when you take the two candidates of the six that got support last night that were least acceptable to the GOP party establishment, between them combined they got 44%. That’s a huge number for a party that doesn’t have pure elections usually and are more managed from the top down.

New Hampshire is going to be interesting to watch for Huckabee’s support. He’s a terrible fit for the state. A WaPo editor last night said that based on entrance polling, 60% were evangelicals and Huckabee got half of them, which is 30% out of everybody. Huckabee got 34% of the total vote. So only 10% of the people that were not evangelical supported him.

The Republicans are in a lot of trouble. Look at these numbers: Democrats had 239,000 show up last night. The Republicans had 114,000. This is a 50/50 state in the general election people. The Republicans better pray Hillary Clinton pulls off a comeback.

http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?26020893465

Root could have some problems though if the LNC recruits Giuliani after Huckabee wins the GOP nomination.

Maybe Milnes and Milsted can get together and work up the numbers on a RG/RP-LP vs WAR/RP-RLC-LP scenario. Maybe if you add 2/3 of the top left quadrant with the lower 17% of the Authoritarian quadrant, then divide by 22% minus a reliable 3%, then multiple by zero it will all add up.