CRZ
Big Brother Administrator Level: 239
Posts: 14249/17695 EXP: 212424992 For next: 1735807
Since: 9.12.01 From: ミネアポリス
Since last post: 8 days Last activity: 2 days
| #1 Posted on 4.1.12 0216.18 Reposted on: 4.1.19 0216.23 | Took long enough, but it turned out to be a squeaker - just 8 votes separated first and second.
(Via AP - 100% of precincts reporting) Romney 24.6% 30,015 votes Santorum 24.5% 30,007 Paul 21.4% 26,219 Gingrich 13.3% 16,251 Perry 10.3% 12,604 Bachmann 5.0% 6,073 Huntsman 0.6% 745 No pref. 0.1% 135 Other 0.1% 117 Cain 0% 58 Roemer 0% 31
Promote this thread! | | ekedolphin
Scrapple Level: 147
Posts: 4770/5747 EXP: 39237427 For next: 200768
Since: 12.1.02 From: Indianapolis, IN; now residing in Suffolk, VA
Since last post: 490 days Last activity: 14 days
| #2 Posted on 4.1.12 0440.12 Reposted on: 4.1.19 0442.41 | Once every four years (and twice in non-encumbent elections), the state of Iowa has the opportunity to show the rest of the world just how batshit crazy it is, and they never miss an opportunity. This year was no exception. Ron Paul in third place? Gingrich in fourth? Oh, boy.
I think it's hilarious that both Jon "I'm Ranked So Low They Can't Even Caluclate the Percentage Most of the Time" Huntsman and "No Preference" got more votes than Herman Cain. In fact, Huntsman freaking annihilated him. I know Cain has suspended his campaign, but he hasn't actually withdrawn yet. But based on this result, the former frontrunner should quit right now before he humiliates himself any further, if he has a brain in his head.
(Which he doesn't.) | redsoxnation
Scrapple Level: 165
Posts: 7412/7534 EXP: 58188784 For next: 747021
Since: 24.7.02
Since last post: 3923 days Last activity: 3923 days
| #3 Posted on 4.1.12 0700.03 Reposted on: 4.1.19 0702.10 | Originally posted by ekedolphin Once every four years (and twice in non-encumbent elections), the state of Iowa has the opportunity to show the rest of the world just how batshit crazy it is, and they never miss an opportunity. This year was no exception. Ron Paul in third place? Gingrich in fourth? Oh, boy.
I think it's hilarious that both Jon "I'm Ranked So Low They Can't Even Caluclate the Percentage Most of the Time" Huntsman and "No Preference" got more votes than Herman Cain. In fact, Huntsman freaking annihilated him. I know Cain has suspended his campaign, but he hasn't actually withdrawn yet. But based on this result, the former frontrunner should quit right now before he humiliates himself any further, if he has a brain in his head.
(Which he doesn't.)
Should look back to 1976 when uncommitted won the Democratic Caucus and finishing 2nd was spun as a victory for Jimmy Carter. Personally wishes the Republican Party went Brewster's Millions and ran None of the Above this year. Would be the strongest candidate in the general election. | Mr. Boffo
Scrapple Level: 124
Posts: 3616/3844 EXP: 21369029 For next: 467633
Since: 24.3.02 From: Oshkosh, WI
Since last post: 3895 days Last activity: 3856 days
| #4 Posted on 4.1.12 1047.07 Reposted on: 4.1.19 1048.09 | What is the threshold? Hurray for Buddy Roemer for getting 31 people behind him, but can we assume everyone else had even less? Gary Johnson and Fred Karger, are not a surprise to see excluded. They both skipped Iowa to focus on New Hampshire. Maybe some votes for Donald Trump or something?
As I went to the Huffington Post to see who got left out, I see Michelle Bachmann has already dropped out following her lackluster 6th place finish. | lotjx
Scrapple Level: 129
Posts: 2242/4785 EXP: 24950958 For next: 98763
Since: 5.9.08
Since last post: 1681 days Last activity: 1520 days
| #5 Posted on 4.1.12 1102.41 Reposted on: 4.1.19 1102.59 | Perry is also heading back to Texas to reassert his campaign. Its a weird vote. One one hand, Mitt got a win that I think we thought he would loss. He will destroy everyone in New Hampshire, probably skip crazy South Carolina and win Florida while everyone else fights for scraps. He is all, but in name and minus some weird event the nominee.
Yet, he couldn't even get a third of the vote. Iowa went with either a crazy old guy or a religious zealot both of them have no chance of winning the primary let alone against Obama. Its like the ultra-conservatives were playing a game of what candidate will make Mitt look bad if we voted for him. The Answer: A Senator who had government money send his kids out of state for education while telling gays they are evil or an old man who might have more than likely wrote for a racist newsletter. I just find it amazing that someone with a level head like Huntsman can't even get a double digit vote.
I also wonder if the GOP is breathing a sigh of relief as well. They have a nominee that doesn't scare the hell out of everyone, just bores them to tears. They can know focus on bashing Obama for the next ten months, what fun that will be, and hope they can win the White House or at least take over the Senate. The only thing standing in their way is a Tea Party revolt at the convention. Anyone want to lay odds on that?
(edited by lotjx on 4.1.12 1104) | wannaberockstar
Frankfurter Level: 61
Posts: 353/745 EXP: 1825160 For next: 51447
Since: 7.3.02
Since last post: 2735 days Last activity: 198 days
| #6 Posted on 4.1.12 1147.16 Reposted on: 4.1.19 1151.16 | Dear GOP:
You actually have a sane, rational candidate that can make this election about the *issues* rather then stupid bomb-throwing, social issues and grandiose statements in John Huntsman.
Please stop listening to the crazy nuts and actually choose him.
Can you imagine? An election that would be cordial, respectful, and about meaningful issues?
(edited by wannaberockstar on 4.1.12 1248) | ekedolphin
Scrapple Level: 147
Posts: 4772/5747 EXP: 39237427 For next: 200768
Since: 12.1.02 From: Indianapolis, IN; now residing in Suffolk, VA
Since last post: 490 days Last activity: 14 days
| #7 Posted on 4.1.12 1203.35 Reposted on: 4.1.19 1211.07 | Originally posted by wannaberockstar Dear GOP:
You actually have a sane, rational candidate that can make this election about the *issues* rather then stupid bomb-throwing, social issues and grandiose statements in John Huntsman.
Please stop listening to the crazy nuts and actually choose him.
Can you imagine? An election that would be cordial, respectful, and about meaningful issues?
(edited by wannaberockstar on 4.1.12 1248)
I was born in 1982 and have only started following American elections firsthand since 1992, so, no-- I, personally, can't imagine that. But it would be very nice!
I don't know too much about Huntsman, to be honest, so my gentle bashing of him in the previous post was merely based on his (to put it mildly) lackluster numbers, and nothing against him personally. But it doesn't surprise me that someone thought of as the most rational candidate is dead-last among serious GOP candidates. It does not surprise me at all. | DrDirt
Banger Level: 106
Posts: 2572/2743 EXP: 12422124 For next: 249860
Since: 8.10.03 From: flyover country
Since last post: 2345 days Last activity: 2247 days
| #8 Posted on 4.1.12 1234.37 Reposted on: 4.1.19 1238.13 | Originally posted by wannaberockstar Dear GOP:
You actually have a sane, rational candidate that can make this election about the *issues* rather then stupid bomb-throwing, social issues and grandiose statements in John Huntsman.
Please stop listening to the crazy nuts and actually choose him.
Can you imagine? An election that would be cordial, respectful, and about meaningful issues?
(edited by wannaberockstar on 4.1.12 1248)
Even if Romney is the nominee, it won't happen. even if Romney and Obama fight a clean campaign, which they won't, the plethora of ads from outside the official campaigns won't. And I doubt if Romney can afford to ignore the Tea Party totally.
IMO it is somewhat of a myth that only over the last thirty years or so that campaigns have gotten sleazy. A cursory look over the history of our presidential campaigns over 200 years will easily disprove that. They are worse and more negative but that says more about us than the candidates. | The Thrill
Banger Level: 108
Posts: 2692/2781 EXP: 13131428 For next: 389115
Since: 16.4.02 From: Green Bay, WI
Since last post: 3633 days Last activity: 232 days
| #9 Posted on 4.1.12 1303.49 Reposted on: 4.1.19 1303.53 | Hunstman didn't even campaign in Iowa. He's all-in for New Hampshire. If he doesn't take a top 2 finish there, you have to figure it's over for him.
And Perry tweeted this morning: "And the next leg of the marathon is the Palmetto State...Here we come South Carolina!!!"
I saw this morning that after an upcoming debate in New Hampshire, Perry'll hit the South Carolina campaign trail. Gotta figure he'll do better down south...heck, he HAS to.
(edited by The Thrill on 4.1.12 1304) | redsoxnation
Scrapple Level: 165
Posts: 7413/7534 EXP: 58188784 For next: 747021
Since: 24.7.02
Since last post: 3923 days Last activity: 3923 days
| #10 Posted on 4.1.12 1310.03 Reposted on: 4.1.19 1310.05 | Agree with the good Dr. Compared to the campaigns of the 1800's this is a cotillion. With Huntsman, being chosen by Obama for anything is not something to stress in a Republican primary. Might make you the darling of the left, but they don't decide the Republican nominee. Main concern for the Republicans right now is keep the House and reclaim the Senate and hope they finally develop a new generation of candidates for 2016. | Kei Posiskunk
Kolbasz Level: 51
Posts: 464/482 EXP: 953292 For next: 60653
Since: 7.1.02 From: Central PA, USA
Since last post: 684 days Last activity: 680 days
| #11 Posted on 4.1.12 1312.20 Reposted on: 4.1.19 1316.13 | Originally posted by wannaberockstar Dear GOP:
You actually have a sane, rational candidate that can make this election about the *issues* rather then stupid bomb-throwing, social issues and grandiose statements in John Huntsman.
Please stop listening to the crazy nuts and actually choose him.
Can you imagine? An election that would be cordial, respectful, and about meaningful issues?
(edited by wannaberockstar on 4.1.12 1248)
GOP probably shouldn't let HuffPo and Mother Jones decide who their candidate should be.
I don't like either side anymore, but even so, "The right should nominate someone who skews to the left" doesn't make sense on its face.
0.00 rating for not being Progressive enough, here I come.
(edited by Kei Posiskunk on 4.1.12 1412) | lotjx
Scrapple Level: 129
Posts: 2243/4785 EXP: 24950958 For next: 98763
Since: 5.9.08
Since last post: 1681 days Last activity: 1520 days
| #12 Posted on 4.1.12 1314.05 Reposted on: 4.1.19 1322.59 | Yeah, elections are always going to be dirty. Romney has already called Obama a failure and so on. He is also going to fall into the trap Dr.Dirt mentioned, the Tea Party. They don't like him at all. He is going to have to get someone for the VP spot who falls inline with the Tea Party which will make other voters leery of him. Its the Palin trap. Sure, it energizes the base, but you lose an all the independents and economic conservatives who vote GOP. Perhaps someone like Huckabee will do it who doesn't scare too many people, because he is sociable. Yet, the base is voting for the VP which never ends well since the VP thinks he or she is the new darling of the party. Then they make a pain of an ass out of themselves which leads to media stories about dysfunction than issues. Also, after how Huckabee and McCain screwed Romney in 2008, I doubt we see him.
Voters sorta know what they are getting with Obama. Big Government with a strong foreign policy and a slow, but steady economy. Yet, he has thrown NASA, due process and a few other issues under the bus, who knows anymore. I do think the Obama campaign is going to be Its either me or a white flip flop Mormon version of me. I don't know if that will work, but how low the turnout was for this thing might be an inductor that the GOP will punt on the White House will securing the Congress. Electoral Vote's website has a strong Dem of 253 votes to 125 strong Republican, that is pretty fricking ridiculous even for it being less than a year. | wannaberockstar
Frankfurter Level: 61
Posts: 354/745 EXP: 1825160 For next: 51447
Since: 7.3.02
Since last post: 2735 days Last activity: 198 days
| #13 Posted on 4.1.12 1358.13 Reposted on: 4.1.19 1359.01 | Originally posted by Kei Posiskunk
I don't like either side anymore, but even so, "The right should nominate someone who skews to the left" doesn't make sense on its face.
0.00 rating for not being Progressive enough, here I come.
(edited by Kei Posiskunk on 4.1.12 1412)
Neither party should nominate someone who leans to the left or the right - they should nominate someone that can work outside enough to make compromises and get things done.
Right now the political process just consists of "lie enough to the left/right so that I get the nomination so I can lie enough toward the centre so that I can not get anything done as president/senator/congressman". | Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong Level: 88
Posts: 1349/1782 EXP: 6607836 For next: 42854
Since: 11.2.03 From: Hackettstown, NJ
Since last post: 61 days Last activity: 30 days
| #14 Posted on 4.1.12 2135.42 Reposted on: 4.1.19 2147.28 | Originally posted by The Thrill Hunstman didn't even campaign in Iowa. He's all-in for New Hampshire. If he doesn't take a top 2 finish there, you have to figure it's over for him.
He's currently fourth, at half the support of second-place Ron Paul. He's ideologically closest to Romney, who as the governor of the state where NH gets a lot of its media from is very well-known in the state. Do you really see a scenario where he does take a top 2 finish? | Karlos the Jackal
Lap cheong Level: 89
Posts: 1720/1760 EXP: 6653848 For next: 262080
Since: 2.1.02 From: The City of Subdued Excitement
Since last post: 3011 days Last activity: 1966 days
| #15 Posted on 9.1.12 1944.33 Reposted on: 9.1.19 1945.21 | Originally posted by Peter The Hegemon
Originally posted by The Thrill Hunstman didn't even campaign in Iowa. He's all-in for New Hampshire. If he doesn't take a top 2 finish there, you have to figure it's over for him.
He's currently fourth, at half the support of second-place Ron Paul. He's ideologically closest to Romney, who as the governor of the state where NH gets a lot of its media from is very well-known in the state. Do you really see a scenario where he does take a top 2 finish?
He's gaining and it actually looks possible at this point.
http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2012/primary/rep/nh/
Still, I don't think it will do much for him in the long run even if it happens.
--K | ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |