So what happens if Ron Paul wins Iowa and New Hampshire?

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

This isn't very likely but it is probably at least worth discussing at this point. If Romney loses New Hampshire, it would be a massive body-blow to his campaign and the sense of inevitability he has shrouded himself in.

Would this provide an opening for Newt, Perry or someone else to make a comeback in South Carolina and Florida? Would Paul finally have a shot at taking one or two of those states himself?

There's no way how Paul could win South Carolina. However, a glimmer of hope for the Florida primary could rise.

He has a far better chance at South Carolina than Florida. Florida is full of neo-cons and Zionists, neither of whom have a very good view of him. South Carolina is full of evangelicals, government workers, and pro-gun rights supporters. He could probably win over enough evangelicals and gun-rights people to win South Carolina under the right circumstances, but I don't see him winning of the neoconservatives and Zionists short of endorsement from the Likud party.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

This isn't very likely but it is probably at least worth discussing at this point. If Romney loses New Hampshire, it would be a massive body-blow to his campaign and the sense of inevitability he has shrouded himself in.

Would this provide an opening for Newt, Perry or someone else to make a comeback in South Carolina and Florida? Would Paul finally have a shot at taking one or two of those states himself?

There's no way how Paul could win South Carolina. However, a glimmer of hope for the Florida primary could rise.

He has a far better chance at South Carolina than Florida. Florida is full of neo-cons and Zionists, neither of whom have a very good view of him. South Carolina is full of evangelicals, government workers, and pro-gun rights supporters. He could probably win over enough evangelicals and gun-rights people to win South Carolina under the right circumstances, but I don't see him winning of the neoconservatives and Zionists short of endorsement from the Likud party.

Wow.

Thought the Paultards were currently trying to prove that they are NOT anti-Semites. Guess you missed the memo.

Obviously we aren't anti-Semites, that would imply a hatred of Arabs (which just about every other Republican has, ironically enough).

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

This isn't very likely but it is probably at least worth discussing at this point. If Romney loses New Hampshire, it would be a massive body-blow to his campaign and the sense of inevitability he has shrouded himself in.

Would this provide an opening for Newt, Perry or someone else to make a comeback in South Carolina and Florida? Would Paul finally have a shot at taking one or two of those states himself?

There's no way how Paul could win South Carolina. However, a glimmer of hope for the Florida primary could rise.

He has a far better chance at South Carolina than Florida. Florida is full of neo-cons and Zionists, neither of whom have a very good view of him. South Carolina is full of evangelicals, government workers, and pro-gun rights supporters. He could probably win over enough evangelicals and gun-rights people to win South Carolina under the right circumstances, but I don't see him winning of the neoconservatives and Zionists short of endorsement from the Likud party.

Wow.

Thought the Paultards were currently trying to prove that they are NOT anti-Semites. Guess you missed the memo.

Obviously we aren't anti-Semites, that would imply a hatred of Arabs (which just about every other Republican has, ironically enough).

That's not what "anti-Semite" means.

From a literalist view, yes, that is what anti-Semite means.  But obviously in modern discuss the term refers only to those who hate Jews.

No, that's not what it means in any view, because nobody refers to Arabs as Semites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semites

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oops!

-----

I'm not being entirely serious here, before you ask. I just find it amusing that we spend several pages (possibly from a different thread, but still) distinguishing "Anti-Zionist" from "Anti-Semite", whereupon I say mean things about Zionists and am classed an anti-Semite.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

This isn't very likely but it is probably at least worth discussing at this point. If Romney loses New Hampshire, it would be a massive body-blow to his campaign and the sense of inevitability he has shrouded himself in.

Would this provide an opening for Newt, Perry or someone else to make a comeback in South Carolina and Florida? Would Paul finally have a shot at taking one or two of those states himself?

There's no way how Paul could win South Carolina. However, a glimmer of hope for the Florida primary could rise.

He has a far better chance at South Carolina than Florida. Florida is full of neo-cons and Zionists, neither of whom have a very good view of him. South Carolina is full of evangelicals, government workers, and pro-gun rights supporters. He could probably win over enough evangelicals and gun-rights people to win South Carolina under the right circumstances, but I don't see him winning of the neoconservatives and Zionists short of endorsement from the Likud party.

Wow.

Thought the Paultards were currently trying to prove that they are NOT anti-Semites. Guess you missed the memo.

Obviously we aren't anti-Semites, that would imply a hatred of Arabs (which just about every other Republican has, ironically enough).

That's not what "anti-Semite" means.

From a literalist view, yes, that is what anti-Semite means.  But obviously in modern discuss the term refers only to those who hate Jews.

No, that's not what it means in any view, because nobody refers to Arabs as Semites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semites

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oops!

-----

I'm not being entirely serious here, before you ask. I just find it amusing that we spend several pages (possibly from a different thread, but still) distinguishing "Anti-Zionist" from "Anti-Semite", whereupon I say mean things about Zionists and am classed an anti-Semite.

Hey, as long as we're quoting Wikipedia as authority:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism#Usage

Specifically:

"Despite the use of the prefix anti-, the terms Semitic and anti-Semitic are not directly opposed to each other. Antisemitism refers specifically to prejudice against Jews alone and in general,[4][5] despite the fact that there are other speakers of Semitic languages (e.g. Arabs, Ethiopians, or Assyrians) and that not all Jews speak a Semitic language.

The term anti-Semitic has been used on occasion to include bigotry against other Semitic-language peoples such as Arabs, but such usage is not widely accepted.[6][7]"

He wasn't disputing the use of "anti-Semite", he was disputing the characterization of Arabs as "Semitic", which is entirely wrong regardless of what "anti-Semite" means.

Again, I wasn't being especially serious. We've covered the difference between anti-Zionists and anti-Semites in the past, I don't much feel the need to reiterate every time an Israel-Firster makes an accusation.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

IIRC the Wikipedia article on Florida's demographics says that there is like an only 3% Jewish population in the entire state of Florida.  Outside of a few urban areas there isn't a lot of them (according to the research).  I don't get the whole "OMG Florida is Jew Heaven!" talk.
If the population of Florida is 18.8 million that means only 564,000 Jews in the state.
I wouldn't really call that enough to sway a Republican primary, much less an accurate depiction of Florida.

In fact, you would be better off calling Florida Paddy Land, according to the population figures.
Still a gross mischaracterization, but less so than what seems to be the stereotypical depiction of Florida I hear too often.

Zionists, not Jews. A lot of the most rabid Zionists are evangelical Christians.