Iowa Caucus results

93EXCivic wrote: ..I didn't expect Santorum..

Santorum is just the next in line to get slagged, he just got lucky to have not been "gotten to" yet.

Now I off to google Santorum to learn about this "new" guy...

aircooled wrote: Now I off to google Santorum to learn about this "new" guy...

LOL....Good luck with that. Dan Savage has done a wonderful job re-defining that name.

http://spreadingsantorum.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_for_%22santorum%22_neologism

aircooled wrote:

93EXCivic wrote: ..I didn't expect Santorum..

Santorum is just the next in line to get slagged, he just got lucky to have not been "gotten to" yet. Now I off to google Santorum to learn about this "new" guy...

I can say he is my least favorite candidate other then Bachmann.

Iowa is telling because what I just heard this morning was that nearly 60% considered their number #1 issue to be Abortion.

Really? The economy in shambles, out of control spending, Iran threatenting the Straight of Hormuz (not that it would last long)..........and that's what they are concerned with...........I really wish people would get out of others lives.

/flounder

AngryCorvair wrote: Ron Paul is currently 76 years old, yes? how many people won't vote for him because he's older than their grandpa, and could very well die in office?

People said that about Bob Dole back in '96 and he's still alive now, 16 years later.

N Sperlo wrote: Thats basically my feelings on it. They make themselves look so divided that I don't think they will have a single person that the majority of republicans will be happy with. The dems will continue to run the Whitehouse. I don't care to pay attention to the primaries anymore. Its a joke.

There isn't really a candidate that seems to be one must-have choice. More like a couple OK but not exciting choices and a couple clearly bad choices. With a slate like that, I'm not surprised there isn't overwhelming demand for a specific candidate.

z31maniac wrote: Iowa is telling because what I just heard this morning was that nearly 60% considered their number #1 issue to be Abortion. Really? The economy in shambles, out of control spending, Iran threatenting the Straight of Hormuz (not that it would last long)..........and that's what they are concerned with...........I really wish people would get out of others lives. /flounder

This is why I absolutely cannot stand discussing politics with my mom, she's one of those people.

I even asked her once, what happens when there is no country left to defend pro-life. "Well it's just not right to kill babies." Ugh.

I can't muster any respect for anyone who actually wants that job.

Interesting outsider perspective

z31maniac wrote: Iowa is telling because what I just heard this morning was that nearly 60% considered their number #1 issue to be Abortion. Really? The economy in shambles, out of control spending, Iran threatenting the Straight of Hormuz (not that it would last long)..........and that's what they are concerned with...........I really wish people would get out of others lives. /flounder

Not exactly.

60% of Santorum supporters considered it their #1 issue. Not 60% of Iowa caucusers. Given that, I'm actually kinda surprised it wasn't a higher percentage. I thought that was the only group Santorum could get.

jrw1621 wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/michele-bachmann-drops-presidential-race-155845621.html Bachmann Out!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olZwOtk-7aw

^Thank you for the correction.

z31maniac wrote: Iowa is telling because what I just heard this morning was that nearly 60% considered their number #1 issue to be Abortion. Really? The economy in shambles, out of control spending, Iran threatenting the Straight of Hormuz (not that it would last long)..........and that's what they are concerned with...........I really wish people would get out of others lives. /flounder

This is the biggest problem the Republican Party faces. Catering to a specific brand of religious voter got them a lot of mileage, but has alienated the more traditional type of conservative. The GOP is now at a point where a large segment of their base won't accept a candidate who does not proclaim to be an evangelical Christian. Most Americans can't really get behind Santorum because his statement that states should have the right to ban all forms of birth control is beyond extreme, and out of touch with the sentiments of most Americans.

Whatever a person's views on abortion, the average American has far more pressing matters to attend to in their lives. The same goes for same sex marriage, and a host of other things.

oldtin wrote: Interesting outsider perspective

I find it very similar to my perspective. Almost dead on.

I'll be reading BBC more often, I think.

N Sperlo wrote:

oldtin wrote: Interesting outsider perspective

I find it very similar to my perspective. Almost dead on. I'll be reading BBC more often, I think.

I liked the article until it got to Ron Paul. It seems that they had nothing really incriminating to write against him, so wrote that he was endorsed by a looney.

I think people overestimate the mileage that the R's get out of the abortion vote. In a rural state, the guy who was the most anti abortion of them all, got 25% of the vote. 60% of his voters said that was their biggest issue. 60% of 25% = 15% of the electorate in rural Iowa let that be the steering mechanism behind their decision. You can't ignore 15%, but it's hardly the overwhelming issue that those on the left make it out to be.

DILYSI Dave wrote: I think people overestimate the mileage that the R's get out of the abortion vote. In a rural state, the guy who was the most anti abortion of them all, got 25% of the vote. 60% of his voters said that was their biggest issue. 60% of 25% = 15% of the electorate in rural Iowa let that be the steering mechanism behind their decision. You can't ignore 15%, but it's hardly the overwhelming issue that those on the left make it out to be.

15% would have been enough to swing the win in the direction of any of the top 5 (and almost the top 6) candidates, that's pretty substantial imo.

Also, this really bothers me about Santorum:

"Rick and Karen Santorum would not let the morgue take the corpse of their newborn; they slept that night in the hospital with their lifeless baby between them. The next day, they took him home. 'Your siblings could not have been more excited about you!' Karen writes in the book, which takes the form of letters to Gabriel, mostly while he is in utero. 'Elizabeth and Johnny held you with so much love and tenderness. Elizabeth proudly announced to everyone as she cuddled you, "This is my baby brother, Gabriel; he is an angel."

I understand losing a child like this would be awful and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. But sleeping with it through the night, then bringing it home for your other kids to see? That's just sick.

I don't want someone in office who clearly lets emotion get the better of their common sense and reason.

In reply to mtn:

Yes, I shrugged my shoulders at that part and said "so?"
Meh.. Minor details.

In reply to neon4891:

Didn't know about Bush and the word I used was nominated.

Ron Paul is a looney. The man wears eyebrow toupees for gods sake.

N Sperlo wrote:

oldtin wrote: Interesting outsider perspective

I find it very similar to my perspective. Almost dead on. I'll be reading BBC more often, I think.

Make that + 2

DILYSI Dave wrote: I think people overestimate the mileage that the R's get out of the abortion vote. In a rural state, the guy who was the most anti abortion of them all, got 25% of the vote. 60% of his voters said that was their biggest issue. 60% of 25% = 15% of the electorate in rural Iowa let that be the steering mechanism behind their decision. You can't ignore 15%, but it's hardly the overwhelming issue that those on the left make it out to be.

All these social issues are the big issue for many hard-line Evangelicals. I'm sure there are a few here, so trying to be polite...

Abortion is a huge, huge issue. How many votes did the pro-choice candidate get? Oh, wait.

Many republicans, like many democrats, simply wouldn't vote for someone who fell on the wrong side of the abortion issue. Pro-choice though I am, I get it. If I honestly believed that America was murdering millions of children every year, I'd be out there on the picket lines with them.

As for how it relates to our "bigger problems"? There are a large number of evangelicals in this country who think the economy is in the toilet because we've lost our moral compass. From an article over on Slate that I'm reading in another browser tab:

"Everyone talks about the economy," said Bill Yewell of Augden, "but Santorum comes at it from a different way. If we take care of the social issues and the family, the economy will come around."

That's pretty tame compared to a lot of what you read. People are always saying God is punishing us for this or that. When everything in your life is micromanaged by God, you need reasons to explain away his wrath.

These folks are the GOP's base and are a big reason Romney isn't crushing the field. They'd rather vote for Gingrich and his 20 wives or Paul and his drug/whore legalization or Bachman and her stupid or Cain and his raping than to vote for the impeccably clean Mormon. God would punish us HARD CORE STYLE if we let an LDS guy rule us, amirite?

e_pie wrote: People said that about Bob Dole back in '96 and he's still alive now, 16 years later.

But only because he wasn't President. That job kills people =)

BAMF wrote: This is the biggest problem the Republican Party faces. Catering to a specific brand of religious voter got them a lot of mileage, but has alienated the more traditional type of conservative.

That should read "alienated almost all moderate Conservatives". I agree that it is hurting them more than helping them. Likewise, the Democrat's pandering to the extreme left wing hurts them just as much. I think anybody with half a brain realizes that the majority of voters in the country lean towards the middle.

ppddppdd wrote: God would punish us HARD CORE STYLE if we let an LDS guy rule us, amirite?

They said the same thing about Catholics. Coming from the other end of the spectrum, it doesn't matter to me one bit which flavor of religion a candidate has.

Also, if you want real odds on how the election is shaping up, go here, as real money is on the line (standard disclaimer about not being affiliated in any way applies): http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventId=84328

Brett_Murphy wrote:

e_pie wrote: People said that about Bob Dole back in '96 and he's still alive now, 16 years later.

But only because he wasn't President. That job kills people =)

BAMF wrote: This is the biggest problem the Republican Party faces. Catering to a specific brand of religious voter got them a lot of mileage, but has alienated the more traditional type of conservative.

That should read "alienated almost all moderate Conservatives". I agree that it is hurting them more than helping them. Likewise, the Democrat's pandering to the extreme left wing hurts them just as much. I think anybody with half a brain realizes that the majority of voters in the country lean towards the middle.

ppddppdd wrote: God would punish us HARD CORE STYLE if we let an LDS guy rule us, amirite?

They said the same thing about Catholics. Coming from the other end of the spectrum, it doesn't matter to me one bit which flavor of religion a candidate has. Also, if you want *real* odds on how the election is shaping up, go here, as real money is on the line (standard disclaimer about not being affiliated in any way applies): http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventId=84328

I was quoting Intrade quite a bit in the Herman Cain discussions. Many here insisted Cain was the frontrunner even though Intrade said he had no chance. People with money on the line tend to be far more honest in their opinions than pundits or people being polled.

I'll say only this.

Romney has already won. It becomes more and more clear every day. The others might as well join Bachman and pack it in now. In about a week we'll see it much more clearly.