Iowa Presidential Caucus

Don't have 100% of the results in yet, but MSNBC is calling it for Santorum, with Romney a close second. Source. So far, CNN and Fox are both not calling the winner yet, but are willing to put Ron Paul in third.

It's too bad, if Santorum hadn't done as well as he did, this primary could have quickly been over in Romney's favor. I still think Romney's going to win - Santorum's main strength was his Iowa numbers - but this means it could drag on a bit longer than it otherwise would have.

Even if Romney doesn't take Iowa, New Hampshire's probably more important, and polls show him with a big lead there.

Romney's performance in Iowa is nothing short of amazing - he was dismal in 2008 and frankly had discounted Iowa entirely until a few months ago when it looked like he might be competitive. He'll have a very strong finish in NH, which might give him a chance at taking out Gingrich for SC given his poor performance so far. I think that it's obviously too early to know yet, but Romney still looks to be in great shape.

Also, the 'winner' doesn't matter as much, as I believe delegates are distributed by votes, which means that Romney and Santorum have effectively the same number of delegates (Paul might also have the same, probably not); the bigger issue is momentum, and given the low expectations for Romney's showing in Iowa (and the very high chance he'll seriously trounce in NH), I'm inclined to think he's in a decent position.

We'll have to see how Perry and Gingrich fare in the next few contests before we write them off, though I think Perry's definitely past his sell-by date.

edit: I'm still discounting Santorum's votes as a fluke - we'll have to see what happens later, but I don't see him as a serious contender. Obviously Paul isn't, so no need to even mention him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

Also, the 'winner' doesn't matter as much, as I believe delegates are distributed by votes, which means that Romney and Santorum have effectively the same number of delegates (Paul might also have the same); the bigger issue is momentum, and given the low expectations for Romney's showing in Iowa (and the very high chance he'll seriously trounce in NH), I'm inclined to think he's in a decent position.

---

I have little doubt about Romney's eventual victory, but there seems to have been a general feeling that if he took Iowa and completely owned New Hampshire as much as he's expected to, it'd kill the momentum on the other candidates so much that the primaries would essentially be over.

Quote:

---

edit: I'm still discounting Santorum's votes as a fluke - we'll have to see what happens later, but I don't see him as a serious contender. Obviously Paul isn't, so no need to even mention him.

---

He's just the latest in the musical chairs game of the 'not-Romney' side of the Republican primaries. Although he had the best timing of the bunch, just like everybody else who held that chair, voters will tire of him quickly and move on. He's not a serious threat to Romney.

Hmm. I just don't think Romney ever had a serious chance to trounce in Iowa - he doesn't work well with evangelical social conservatives, who make up a large proportion of caucus-goers in the Iowa GOP. He spent a boatload of money and time there in 2008 only to disappoint with a distant second to Huckabee (not surprising he was popular in Iowa), but this time he's neck-and-neck with the social conservative favorite, Santorum, even when a lot of his traditionally strong counties (mostly in the eastern portion of the state) saw a big gain in Paul supporters, probably cannibalizing some of Romney's votes - and it has NOT been a campaign priority for him. This is a very strong finish for Romney, and Iowa has always been a bit of an outlier. I have no doubt Santorum will be a distant memory in NH.

The primaries aren't decided in one or two contests, except for eliminating the very bottom (Bachmann and the like; probably Huntsman in another few weeks). It'll take some serious weight in delegates before Romney is the sole candidate, even if he won Iowa completely.

I think the interesting race will be SC. If Gingrich can recover by then (I'm sure he's going to be a non-factor in NH), it will be very interesting to see how he and Romney stack up. If Romney beats Gingrich in SC, then that means something and will give him some serious momentum going into FL, which has some serious weight in delegates. If not, then we'll be in for a bit of a slog.

edit: Wow, the difference is down to 30-odd ballots with a few thousand left to count. Crazy close.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

Hmm. I just don't think Romney ever had a serious chance to trounce in Iowa - he doesn't work well with evangelical social conservatives, who make up a large proportion of caucus-goers in the Iowa GOP.

---

I don't think he ever could have trounced there (~50% of the voters self-identify as "very conservative", and Romeny's strength is with everyone left of that) but the difficulties he faces in Iowa are I think why winning there would have been such a huge victory from him. He almost had it, but oh well. In the long run, it's not that important.

Quote:

---

I think the interesting race will be SC. If Gingrich can recover by then (I'm sure he's going to be a non-factor in NH), it will be very interesting to see how he and Romney stack up. If Romney beats Gingrich in SC, then that means something and will give him some serious momentum. If not, then we'll be in for a bit of a slog.

---

Maybe, I just checked and Gingrich is doing better than I thought he was. I'm sure Obama's rooting for him.

edit: "Perry returning to Texas to reassess his election campaign." Prelude to concession?

It's a very interesting dynamic you bring up. By far the majority of the votes cast in Iowa went to either Romney or two nobodies who don't have a chance at the nomination. On the one hand, it means Romney's main rival, Gingrich, placed dismally low, which should be marginally good for his campaign. On the other hand, it suggests that votes for Paul and Santorum were more protest votes or exasperation at the poor choices than real strategic votes. That continues the long-term trend of deep GOP dissatisfaction with Romney as a candidate, but a lack of adequate alternatives. So, maybe good, maybe bad.

SC is really key here. Gingrich has been leading there for a long time, and as the primaries move into the south Romney will be more and more challenged to take him on directly. Gingrich is no slouch at rhetoric or debates, which means Romney can't just wait for him to self-destruct like Perry or Cain. So they might really duke it out until Super Tuesday, and it might not even be clear by then. Probably good news for Barack Obama, if it falls out like that. Then again, voters might ditch Gingrich just like every other fad. Hard to know.

CNN has 99% reporting, and has Romney winning by one vote. That's impressively close.

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/383...ionresults.png

edit: Also, McCain is on his way to New Hampshire to endorse Romney.

Michele :(

Sorry, Nessus. Maybe she could be Veep, and then assassinate Romney. There's still hope!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wraith

Sorry, Nessus. Maybe she could be Veep, and then assassinate Romney. There's still hope!

---

She was the anti-thesis of hope. In her, I saw the endless rows of men and women with shaved heads, those figures who had long since passed hope. Those figures whose faces cried out for only death. She was the figurehead for all those rows upon rows of people, people like wooden logs. She would have created them. All those people.

Now I must wait some more. Which is fine, as time is all I have. But I know that those faces without hope will show up, one day. I do not know which side of the barbed wire I will be, then. With Michele, I would have been on the outside. Maybe that is why I liked her so?

But I do not think so. It does not truly matter which side of the barbed wire I am on. Usually, the barbed wire is electrified. They would permit me the freedom to touch it. The only freedom those people so akin to wooden logs were permitted. For me, for her sake? Is that not enough?

I will wait. There is nothing humanity so loves as those faces, the faces of men and women as wooden logs. I think that is what humanity truly desires.

Looks like Romney won, probably by 14 8 votes (not that it matters; they'll get the same number of delegates, no?). What's crazy is that Buddy Roemer actually got more votes than the difference between Romney and Santorum here. Crazy. (h/t to 538 for that comparison)

1% of republicans have a smidgen of intelligence. Not too shabby.

I salute 744 men and women :tiphat:

Actually, Ziggy, if you looked at Huntsman's positions in detail you probably wouldn't like him much, either. I do agree in principle, though, that's he is one of the more reasonable candidates out there.

I don't like any of 'em. On either side. But if I had to pick one ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust

1% of republicans have a smidgen of intelligence. Not too shabby.

I salute 744 men and women :tiphat:

---

:up:

poor Huntsman :(

Yeah, who knew that someone who made little attempt to campaign in Iowa, has no name recognition, no charisma, and who's the ideological equivalent to someone who does have charisma and name recognition would do so poorly. :bored:

At this point I would want a Ron Paul Victory, I think he's the best candidate, even though some of his policies I am skepticial of; however, I am reassured that there is no way he can change the government ot the degree he wants, but him trying I think would be an improvement. For example, reducing some foreign aid, and some military prescence, and pushing for fewer regulations. That's cool... The GOP even dislikes Ron Paul which makes me like him more, it means he's not completely accepting their stuff up his arse. If Obama were to lose, I think I'd want Ron Paul to be president.

Are you insane?

This is the same guy who earlier supported Cain. It takes an incredibly intelligent left-winger to support a Republican candidate just because that candidate is hated by the Republican establishment...for being too right-wing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lebanese Dragon

The GOP even dislikes Ron Paul which makes me like him more

---

Always the best reason to support a candidate or position! Much easier too. Examining things on their own is so much more work than simple partisanship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lebanese Dragon

At this point I would want a Ron Paul Victory, I think he's the best candidate, even though some of his policies I am skepticial of; however, I am reassured that there is no way he can change the government ot the degree he wants, but him trying I think would be an improvement. For example, reducing some foreign aid, and some military prescence, and pushing for fewer regulations. That's cool... The GOP even dislikes Ron Paul which makes me like him more, it means he's not completely accepting their stuff up his arse. If Obama were to lose, I think I'd want Ron Paul to be president.

---

You seem to be something of a bipolar partisan, Lebbie.

Santorum got lucky with the timing. It was his turn to be on top of the heap before falling off. If he'd been vetted by the press after his "surge", his crazier opinions (like birth control being 'unnatural' and states being allowed to ban it---plus his biblical/Catholic DOMA and homophobia) he'd be down there with Bachmann.

The longer the fundies remain divided, the higher the chance Romney wins the primary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Santorum got lucky with the timing. It was his turn to be on top of the heap before falling off. If he'd been vetted by the press after his "surge", his crazier opinions (like birth control being 'unnatural' and states being allowed to ban it---plus his biblical/Catholic DOMA and homophobia) he'd be down there with Bachmann.

---

Sure. Eventually though, the core conservatives are going to winnow out enough candidates so they'll have to settle on one rather than cycling through all of them on repeat. As Loki says, one of the main questions is whether they will manage this before its too late for them to stop Romney. Another is if whether the person they settle on is someone who can Romney at all when the time comes. Santorum certainly isn't, IMO. My prediction is that things will come down to Romney and Gingrich after the South Carolina and Florida primaries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Sure. Eventually though, the core conservatives are going to winnow out enough candidates so they'll have to settle on one rather than cycling through all of them on repeat. As Loki says, one of the main questions is whether they will manage this before its too late for them to stop Romney. Another is if whether the person they settle on is someone who can Romney at all when the time comes. Santorum certainly isn't, IMO. My prediction is that things will come down to Romney and Gingrich after the South Carolina and Florida primaries.

---

What is so astounding that none of this makes you least of all afraid.

The only chance that the Republicans have of winning the Presidency is with Romney.

If the next president is not Romney or Obama, I will eat my hat.

Some news: Results since this caucus are somewhat predictable, with Romney gaining in national polls, Gingrich is falling, and Santorum seems to have picked up everyone who abandoned Gingrich. Santorum's still nowhere near a threat to Romney, but he may have succesfully ended Gingrich's turn as a contender. We'll see if Gingrich's slide in the polls continues, I guess.

Gingrich's news stories lately make him look like he's flailing angrily a bit, focused more on doling out blame for his eventual loss than on campaigning. This started before he even started falling in the polls. I don't know what the hell his strategy is right now, but I don't think it's working.

edit: Poll source.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

What is so astounding that none of this makes you least of all afraid.

---

Yeah. Go figure that the thought there are human beings who are as capable of thinking and interests as I am who may do something as terrible, powerful, and influential as vote doesn't really faze me. What I don't get is how any of that scares you. Neither Gingrich nor Romney would likely be a shitty President. Obama hasn't been and I think the increase in unfunded expenditures we've seen under him *piled atop the ones from Bush Jr which are what I hated most about his Presidency* are as bad anything we'd likely see from either of them. Of course I also don't particularly think anyone in the GOP race is going to beat Obama even under the current economic conditions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Yeah. Go figure that the thought there are human beings who are as capable of thinking and interests as I am who may do something as terrible, powerful, and influential as vote doesn't really faze me. What I don't get is how any of that scares you. Neither Gingrich nor Romney would likely be a shitty President. Obama hasn't been and I think the increase in unfunded expenditures we've seen under him *piled atop the ones from Bush Jr which are what I hated most about his Presidency* are as bad anything we'd likely see from either of them. Of course I also don't particularly think anyone in the GOP race is going to beat Obama even under the current economic conditions.

---

I am happy that you feel this way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

I am happy that you feel this way.

---

Yeah well, you've been terrified of Palin for five years, it's not like I can expect you to ever grasp acknowledge reality rather than cling to your nightmares. No more than I can ever expect Chaloobi to pick up on who has been steadily winning the US "culture wars" for the last forty years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Yeah well, you've been terrified of Palin for five years, it's not like I can expect you to ever grasp acknowledge reality rather than cling to your nightmares. No more than I can ever expect Chaloobi to pick up on who has been steadily winning the US "culture wars" for the last forty years.

---

As I said. I am glad that you are able to be happy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Sure. Eventually though, the core conservatives are going to winnow out enough candidates so they'll have to settle on one rather than cycling through all of them on repeat. As Loki says, one of the main questions is whether they will manage this before its too late for them to stop Romney. Another is if whether the person they settle on is someone who can Romney at all when the time comes. Santorum certainly isn't, IMO. My prediction is that things will come down to Romney and Gingrich after the South Carolina and Florida primaries.

---

The GOP is fighting to define their "core", social vs. economic conservatism. IMO it's a shame they start with religious-based values in their "winnowing", and let that dominate their narrative. It's a huge turn-off for Independents and swing voters, not to mention the youth vote. I do think it's a bit 'scary' when people are defined (and courted) as Evangelicals, Catholics, Southern Baptists or whatnot...and religious leaders hold conventions to figure out which candidate to support and endorse, encouraging their congregations to vote their religions....while being careful not to do it from the pulpit (and lose their tax exempt status).

The best thing the GOP could do is fracture itself, and split into two distinct "conservative" parties. Do every voter a favor and be clear about what their conservatism actually means; religious or economic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Neither Gingrich nor Romney would likely be a shitty President. Obama hasn't been and I think the increase in unfunded expenditures we've seen under him *piled atop the ones from Bush Jr which are what I hated most about his Presidency* are as bad anything we'd likely see from either of them. Of course I also don't particularly think anyone in the GOP race is going to beat Obama even under the current economic conditions.

---

I think Gingrich would be a shitty President. For those who think Obama is too aloof, or an "academic elite", Gingrich would add an arrogance and polarity of Us vs Them that would take new heights (or race to the bottom). Romney would be less shitty than Gingrich even though he's considered out of touch with 'real people in the real economy, and an "economic elite".

Romney is among the top 3,000 wealth owners in a nation of over 300 million people. He's a financial engineer and master marketer, born with a silver spoon in his mouth, at a time when the rich easily get richer by using broken financial markets....and the middle class is shrinking. Because he's shown he can be "moderate" and govern for the circumstances (aka RomneyCare in MASS), that's also his (core no-core) problem according to the GOP Values Voters.

But we'll just let the Newtron bombs bury Romney, and re-elect Obama.

Hate to quote Ann Coulter, but if Romney wins the GOP nomination, it's a sure bet for Obama's re-election.

Glad to know that you think higher of Coulter's opinions than all existing polling data.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Glad to know that you think higher of Coulter's opinions than all existing polling data.

---

Donkey-cherry-picking post? :rolleyes: You should already know I'm not a fan of either Coulter, let alone polls. I don't conflate their "data" with anything but a snap-shot in time. Polls can only measure certain things, and even then not necessarily very well, depending on the questions asked/numbers of people polled/who and how they're polled. :bored:

And why would anyone with even the slightest knowledge of politics think that the least extremist of the Republican candidates (barring Huntsman, who has no shot of winning the primary), who also happens to have the largest operations on the ground and the most resources from those candidates, is the candidate with no shot at winning? Oh right, punditry BS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

And why would anyone with even the slightest knowledge of politics think that the least extremist of the Republican candidates (barring Huntsman, who has no shot of winning the primary), who also happens to have the largest operations on the ground and the most resources from those candidates, is the candidate with no shot at winning? Oh right, punditry BS.

---

It's called having an OPINION, Dr. Loki. Based on everything I've read, the people I've talked with, the debates I've followed....along with my perceptions (which include, obviously, a degree of subjectiveness).

Republicans may "fall in line" and vote by party, or follow what McCain's mother did and hold their nose while voting for Romney, but that would merely get him the GOP party nomination. It's still up for grabs, though. Marginalizing Ron Paul voters or Tea Partiers <by calling them "crazies"> seems effective, but ignores how religious zealots can be just as "crazy". Or would that be the "crazed" and fissured GOP that can't decide on what to do, or agree on...well, pretty much anything? Are they afraid of a brokered Republican convention more than they fear hate Obama? :hmm:

It's all punditry and psychology at this point, yet you dismiss both. While also proclaiming Huntsman has no shot....:rolleyes:

Maybe you should become better informed, so your opinion is actually based on some facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Maybe you should become better informed, so your opinion is actually based on some facts.

---

Ah, using the old Ignorance strategy to dismiss an Opinion. That's part of punditry and propaganda. :rolleyes: Paul had no chance of gaining support five years ago. Written off as appealing to the "lunatic fringe", a phenomenal fluke dismissed as a temporary trend. Funny how he's gained more supporters since then, huh. Just more ignorant people?

Nah, temporary trends mean folks like Huckabee, Palin, O'Donnell, Bachmann, Cain. That's just from the "conservative base". They "trend" popular because they spark a flash-interest, almost like Reality TV shows. Most opinion polls reflect that Americans have the attention span of a gnat, and are predominantly driven by new and shiny things. Gnats vs Moths isn't the best way to elect leaders, but it's good for entertainment value.

Quote:

---

Hmm. I just don't think Romney ever had a serious chance to trounce in Iowa - he doesn't work well with evangelical social conservatives, who make up a large proportion of caucus-goers in the Iowa GOP.

---

This reminded me of this video I saw recently,don't take it personal :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLZZ6JD0g9Y

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/us...efense.html?hp

It's amusing to see Gingrich and Perry get so desperate that they're attacking Romney for being pro-free market.