The W
Views: 141871913
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
20.3.12 1627
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Iowa GOP caucus results - finally
This thread has 2 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
(3 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (15 total)
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 229

Posts: 14249/17370
EXP: 181849266
For next: 2672705

Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#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: 141

Posts: 4770/5662
EXP: 33753270
For next: 366828

Since: 12.1.02
From: Indianapolis, IN; now residing in Suffolk, VA

Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 2 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  I know Cain has suspended his campaign, but he hasn't actually withdrawn yet.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: 159

Posts: 7412/7534
EXP: 51004270
For next: 806600

Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 2088 days
Last activity: 2088 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: 119

Posts: 3616/3844
EXP: 18773276
For next: 156070

Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 2061 days
Last activity: 2021 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: 122

Posts: 2242/4762
EXP: 20384222
For next: 253850

Since: 5.9.08

Since last post: 17 days
Last activity: 9 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: 59

Posts: 353/745
EXP: 1603951
For next: 69187

Since: 7.3.02

Since last post: 901 days
Last activity: 887 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: 141

Posts: 4772/5662
EXP: 33753270
For next: 366828

Since: 12.1.02
From: Indianapolis, IN; now residing in Suffolk, VA

Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 2 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: 102

Posts: 2572/2743
EXP: 10791112
For next: 298893

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 511 days
Last activity: 413 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: 104

Posts: 2692/2781
EXP: 11531604
For next: 330561

Since: 16.4.02
From: Green Bay, WI

Since last post: 1798 days
Last activity: 432 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: 159

Posts: 7413/7534
EXP: 51004270
For next: 806600

Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 2088 days
Last activity: 2088 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: 49

Posts: 464/481
EXP: 836045
For next: 47844

Since: 7.1.02
From: Central PA, USA

Since last post: 1437 days
Last activity: 555 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: 122

Posts: 2243/4762
EXP: 20384222
For next: 253850

Since: 5.9.08

Since last post: 17 days
Last activity: 9 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: 59

Posts: 354/745
EXP: 1603951
For next: 69187

Since: 7.3.02

Since last post: 901 days
Last activity: 887 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: 84

Posts: 1349/1747
EXP: 5599971
For next: 62005

Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#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: 85

Posts: 1720/1760
EXP: 5854269
For next: 44295

Since: 2.1.02
From: The City of Subdued Excitement

Since last post: 1176 days
Last activity: 131 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
Thread ahead: Andrew Breitbart 1969-2012
Next thread: The village is strong, we can defeat the Dalrok
Previous thread: 10 Brands disappearing in 2012 (or, wait a minute, maybe not)
(3 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Iowa GOP caucus results - finallyRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2019 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.075 seconds.