What's new
By:

Seriously? No thread on the Iowa caucuses yet?

LogGrad98

LogGrad98

Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Ok, I will start one. What does everyone think about the Iowa voting? Mitt won by fewer votes than the average mormon family has kids. Santorum is suddenly "the guy" after being pretty non-existant over the first months of this campaign. Bachman has dropped out, with Perry likely soon to follow.

Anyone by chance in Iowa who can give us a first-hand account from local media? All I can get is the coverage on NPR right now, which is pretty good.

Anyone happy/mad/sad/ecstatic/bored/frightened/orgasmic about the outcome?
 
As a Canadian I haven't really been following the political race that closely, but I do know a slight amount of info from each candidate. At this point in time, Ron Paul seems like an awesome candidate, and I was just wondering why some of you more-knowledged individuals think that Ron Paul isn't doing that great (especially in this Iowa caucus, which Im aware doesn't dictate THAT much seeing as McCain didn't even win it 4 years ago)? What are some of his political criticisms? He seem alike a much more earnest guy that Santorum and Romney, to say the least.
 
Santorum is the latest flash-in-the-pan candidate. I give him less than a month before he goes away.

As far as Ron Paul...the national media doesn't take him seriously. He's a nut job to them.
 
They pick corn in Iowa, not presidents.

That said, I agree that Santorum is the latest flash in the pan. He simply timed it just right to coincide with the caucus voting. Regarding Paul, I like his domestic policy but his foreign policy is very unrealistic.
 
dalamon said:
As a Canadian I haven't really been following the political race that closely, but I do know a slight amount of info from each candidate. At this point in time, Ron Paul seems like an awesome candidate, and I was just wondering why some of you more-knowledged individuals think that Ron Paul isn't doing that great (especially in this Iowa caucus, which Im aware doesn't dictate THAT much seeing as McCain didn't even win it 4 years ago)? What are some of his political criticisms? He seem alike a much more earnest guy that Santorum and Romney, to say the least.
Click to expand...

Ron Paul is not a toe the line conservative, nor is he a religious extremist. So it's hard for him to get the Republican base riled up. His foreign policy stand is criticised, which I find funny. He's essentially a libertarian who supports limited government and that stance carries over to our military and foreign affairs activities. So while Republicans continue to claim ownership of supporting freedom and liberty they continue to not support it unless it has to do with guns or taxes.

My own take is that Ron Paul is too old to be our first Libertarian Pres. He will get little support on either side of the isle and he'll quickly be labled a quack, which will set back any future chances of a larger Libertarian movement. I don't think the Pres should be the first step for a Libertarian movement. I think a few congress and senate seats here and there first, followed by increasing awareness of the overall vision driving the Libertarian philisophical base. Only once libertarianism steps away from the Republican party/christian extremism will it have any chance at success.
 
dalamon said:
As a Canadian I haven't really been following the political race that closely, but I do know a slight amount of info from each candidate. At this point in time, Ron Paul seems like an awesome candidate, and I was just wondering why some of you more-knowledged individuals think that Ron Paul isn't doing that great (especially in this Iowa caucus, which Im aware doesn't dictate THAT much seeing as McCain didn't even win it 4 years ago)? What are some of his political criticisms? He seem alike a much more earnest guy that Santorum and Romney, to say the least.
Click to expand...

Ron Paul makes the voter base uncomfortable by straying too far from the status quo.

https://www.votesmart.org/voteeasy/

As always, these are at least partially flawed, but I get 94% on Paul, 30% on Obama, between 70-80% on the rest. To me, a vote for Paul is the only one that is not just a vote for "more of the same".

Now, if you'll excuse me...since I've officially joined the ranks I believe I must be off to hang some signs on some overpasses.
 
bordelais7 said:
https://www.votesmart.org/voteeasy/

As always, these are at least partially flawed, but I get 94% on Paul, 30% on Obama, between 70-80% on the rest. To me, a vote for Paul is the only one that is not just a vote for "more of the same".
Click to expand...

Interesting... I'm apparently 85% Huntsman. Then Bachman, Perry, Romney, and Santorum are all exactly tied for my second place at 65%.

But most of those are very simplistic questions about very complex matters.

Edit: Why do the candidates all have yellow ribbons under their pictures that all say "LACKS COURAGE"?
 
colton said:
Interesting... I'm apparently 85% Huntsman. Then Bachman, Perry, Romney, and Santorum are all exactly tied for my second place at 65%.

But most of those are very simplistic questions about very complex matters.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the graphics are cute and entertaining.
 
Jon Stewart did a nice bit last night on the inevitability of Romney, especially the part where he got some (metaphorical) santorum on his plain choclate.
 
I like a lot of what Paul has to say about domestic policy, and even his basic tennets of foreign policy. I think we need to focus more on securing individual liberties and we need to pull back on our interventions world-wide. I could support him for this, and for me his view of the role of government is the most moderate and sensible out of the current crop. But I can't see how his supporters can view his foreign policy ideas as anything but myopic, naive isolationism. In the debates he has given a few weird answers, like this:

But to declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims, and say all Muslims are the same -- this is dangerous talk. Yeah, there are some radicals. But they don't come here to kill us because we're free and prosperous. Do they go to Switzerland and Sweden? I mean, that's absurd.
Click to expand...

Well, first of all, yes they do go to other countries. There have been terror attacks in England, Germany, Denmark, even, yes, Switzerland and Sweden. Does he not know this or is he ignoring it to make his point? Neither is a good answer really. Secondly, "there are some radicals"? Really, you think? Can you downplay this significance any more than that? I don't disagree that we need to pull back on being the "world police" but to marginalize the impact of terror world-wide to make that point shows either a lack of understanding or a willingness to bury his head in the sand.

I also disagree with a few statements from his book. I do not think we are an "empire by any definition of the word", which has been a topic of discussion on NPR as well recently. I think that thinking like that shows an extreme lack of understanding about America's impact on the world-stage.

In this day and age we can't afford to have a president who doesn't recgonize there are options besides "I'm locking the doors and closing the blinds and pretending no one else is there" and "WE WILL RULE THE WORLD".
 
colton said:
Interesting... I'm apparently 85% Huntsman. Then Bachman, Perry, Romney, and Santorum are all exactly tied for my second place at 65%.

But most of those are very simplistic questions about very complex matters.

Edit: Why do the candidates all have yellow ribbons under their pictures that all say "LACKS COURAGE"?
Click to expand...

Apparently lacks courage means that candidate refused to take the same test you just took.

Also, how do you get an aggregate? I can see the comparison for each topic seperately but is there a way to get it aggregated?

Edit: I figured it out.

Mine goes:

Gingrich, Paul, Obama, Hunstman

None of mine are over 60%.

Interesting.
 
They are going into NH where Romney has a commanding lead. Since he won Iowa that will look great for him. He is unveiling a McCain endorsement which should help him in NH. (McCain won it the last 2 primaries). After that Romney will be 2 for 2 and going into S.C and Florida. S.C. will be the real test for Romney. Can he get that southern religious vote?

Santorum has the same problem the rest had. Flash in the pan to counter Romney. He will get torn apart by the other candidatese vying for the same vote. It happened to Bachman, Cain, Perry and Gingrich. The more people that stay in the race the better off Romney is. The more that drop out the better off the others are.

Bachman dropped out today and Perry is "reassesing" his campaign. If he drops that is huge for the others.

Also of Note: everyone but Romney and Paul will not even be on the Virginia ballot, as of right now anyways.
 
No time really for Santorum to make a push in NH. With Romney winning Iowa and looking like he should win NH fairly easily he is probably getting the nomination. Romney is the only person with a legit shot at beating Obama.
 
Santorum is simply the flavor of the week, same as Bachmann, Perry, Cain and then Newt were in the past. All the polls were always "who this week is stacking up against Romney's numbers."

As for Barack's skype town hall meeting yesterday, I loved the "we have things in the works, but need 4 more years for them to take shape" mentality. Sounds like despiration.
 
One Brow said:
Jon Stewart did a nice bit last night on the inevitability of Romney, especially the part where he got some (metaphorical) santorum on his plain choclate.
Click to expand...

Wondering if you argue the finer points with your television when watching Jon Stewart.


sktwstdfrk said:
Santorum is simply the flavor of the week, same as Bachmann, Perry, Cain and then Newt were in the past. All the polls were always "who this week is stacking up against Romney's numbers."
Click to expand...

"Flarov of the week" = anyone except establishment Romney or establishment Gingrich.
 
Okay, thanks for the replies.

What does everyone think of Romney?? Does he seriously offer a drastic change to the current government?
 
dalamon said:
Okay, thanks for the replies.

What does everyone think of Romney?? Does he seriously offer a drastic change to the current government?
Click to expand...

I like his business sense but apart from Paul how different are any othem really. They all want to go back to Bush years. Well Bush started the ball rolling and Obama sent it flying.

Even if one of them tries something drastic Congress will fight them tooth and nail.
 
65% Obama
50% Gary Johnson
45% Huntsman
36% Ron Paul

Interesting. First, I'm not voting for Obama. I did the first time around, and while I agree with his ideas, he lacks the backbone and balls to do the right thing, and has caved at every opportunity to stand up and be a leader. Secondly, who the F is Gary Johnson? I'm serious, I don't think I've heard his name, and if I have, it wasn't enough for me to remember. Thirdly, I like Huntsman, but I don't think I'll vote for him either. Fourthly, I'm voiting for Paul -- only because Bordy is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top