~~~The Official Iowa Caucus discussion Thread~~~

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

But for curiosity's sake, if Paul did poorly in New Hampshire what does this mean for his campaign? He has all those millions of dollars and it'll seem like such a waste if hes finished so soon.

So how will the kiddies who saved and donated their allowance money feel?

20 million dollars is a lot of allowance money

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Good post OrooOroo. Look at the numbers, the top three dems pulled in 97% of the vote and all are creatures of the Senate without any executive experience.

The numbers are deceptive for second-tier Democratic candidates since they must meet a 15% "viability" threshold at a given caucus location in order to be counted. If the candidate has less than 15% support, his supporters are required to move to their second choice. The process continues until everyone attending has grouped with at least 15% of the other people attending. Only then do they report results.

In other words, at each caucus location, a Democratic candidate who cannot broker at least 15% support is reported as having 0% support. This is why people like Biden and Richardson did so poorly. They had good support, but couldn't crack that 15% threshold.

The Republicans do not have this "viability" requirement. Their totals reflect everyone's first choices.

Looking at the wiki link, the top three repubs got 72% of the vote with the top two being Governors of States, with only Fred being a creature of the Senate.

I also see Iowa had this wonderful device of uncommitted that used to always win. Did that consensus choice candidate die in 1976?

The rules changed after 1976.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

But for curiosity's sake, if Paul did poorly in New Hampshire what does this mean for his campaign? He has all those millions of dollars and it'll seem like such a waste if hes finished so soon.

So how will the kiddies who saved and donated their allowance money feel?

Grow up. You consistently act far more childish than the most zealous Paul supporters.


I'm not a Paul supporter at all, but the truth is he actually did pretty well in Iowa. Paul was a party outsider who was dismissed by most Republicans and by the media. His candidacy now has the credibility needed to share the stage with the RNC-endorsed candidates. That may end in another state or two, but for now he's alive. That's better than he had any right to expect.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

But for curiosity's sake, if Paul did poorly in New Hampshire what does this mean for his campaign? He has all those millions of dollars and it'll seem like such a waste if hes finished so soon.

So how will the kiddies who saved and donated their allowance money feel?

Grow up. You consistently act far more childish than the most zealous Paul supporters.


I'm not a Paul supporter at all, but the truth is he actually did pretty well in Iowa. Paul was a party outsider who was dismissed by most Republicans and by the media. His candidacy now has the credibility needed to share the stage with the RNC-endorsed candidates. That may end in another state or two, but for now he's alive. That's better than he had any right to expect.

rofl...credibilty,,,as in 5th place finish...sheese....your the one who needs to grow up!!

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

But for curiosity's sake, if Paul did poorly in New Hampshire what does this mean for his campaign? He has all those millions of dollars and it'll seem like such a waste if hes finished so soon.

So how will the kiddies who saved and donated their allowance money feel?

Grow up. You consistently act far more childish than the most zealous Paul supporters.


I'm not a Paul supporter at all, but the truth is he actually did pretty well in Iowa. Paul was a party outsider who was dismissed by most Republicans and by the media. His candidacy now has the credibility needed to share the stage with the RNC-endorsed candidates. That may end in another state or two, but for now he's alive. That's better than he had any right to expect.

rofl...credibilty,,,as in 5th place finish...sheese....your the one who needs to grow up!!

I rest my case.

Your village called. They miss you.

 

[alchemize]

I couldn't have asked for much better results, realistically. Much rather have Obama than Billary or Edwards, much rather have Huckabee than Romney, Paul got some good numbers. We'll see how things turn out in the east...but if this was a foreshadow of things to come, this isn't going to be a regular "get yout your base" election.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Hmm..the sweet, sweet scent of 5th place. I guess they should change the tag line to [OVER]lution.

Its not over yet, sorry

Actually, it was over before it even started, you paulbots just cant see it thats all.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Good post OrooOroo. Look at the numbers, the top three dems pulled in 97% of the vote and all are creatures of the Senate without any executive experience.

The numbers are deceptive for second-tier Democratic candidates since they must meet a 15% "viability" threshold at a given caucus location in order to be counted. If the candidate has less than 15% support, his supporters are required to move to their second choice. The process continues until everyone attending has grouped with at least 15% of the other people attending. Only then do they report results.

In other words, at each caucus location, a Democratic candidate who cannot broker at least 15% support is reported as having 0% support. This is why people like Biden and Richardson did so poorly. They had good support, but couldn't crack that 15% threshold.

The Republicans do not have this "viability" requirement. Their totals reflect everyone's first choices.

Looking at the wiki link, the top three repubs got 72% of the vote with the top two being Governors of States, with only Fred being a creature of the Senate.

I also see Iowa had this wonderful device of uncommitted that used to always win. Did that consensus choice candidate die in 1976?

The rules changed after 1976.

Exactly. I've been trying to tell people this and no one quite gets it. There is no way to compare the voting because the process is so different.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: alchemize
I couldn't have asked for much better results, realistically. Much rather have Obama than Billary or Edwards, much rather have Huckabee than Romney, Paul got some good numbers. We'll see how things turn out in the east...but if this was a foreshadow of things to come, this isn't going to be a regular "get yout your base" election.

Yeah, I agree except for the part about RP2. almost 10% wasn't a "revolution" it was only about 13K votes here in Iowa - hardly something to brag about but at the same time it wasn't a poor showing. He'll have to step things up because he's not winning any new supporters with a <~10% showing.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
look at the history of iowas wisdom

it is a list of poor choices and eventual losers. cept for bill clinton, which they slapped down at 3%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucus#Democrats

Democrats

* January 3, 2008 - Barack Obama (38%), John Edwards (30%), Hillary Clinton (29%), Bill Richardson (2%) and Joe Biden (1%)
* January 19, 2004 - John Kerry (38%), John Edwards (32%), Howard Dean (18%), Richard Gephardt (11%) and Dennis Kucinich (1%)
* January 24, 2000 - Al Gore (63%), Bill Bradley (37%)
* February 12, 1996 - Bill Clinton (unopposed)
* February 10, 1992 - Tom Harkin (76%), "Uncommitted" (12%), Paul Tsongas (4%), Bill Clinton (3%), Bob Kerrey (2%) and Jerry Brown (2%)
* February 8, 1988 - Richard Gephardt (31%), Paul Simon (27%), Michael Dukakis (22%) and Bruce Babbitt (6%)
* February 20, 1984 - Walter Mondale (49%), Gary Hart (17%), George McGovern (10%), Alan Cranston (7%), John Glenn (4%), Reubin Askew (3%) and Jesse Jackson (2%)
* January 21, 1980 - Jimmy Carter (59%), Ted Kennedy (31%)
* January 19, 1976 - "Uncommitted" (37%), Jimmy Carter (28%) Birch Bayh (13%), Fred R. Harris (10%), Morris Udall (6%), Sargent Shriver (3%) and Henry M. Jackson (1%)
* January 24, 1972 - "Uncommitted" (36%) and Edmund Muskie (36%), George McGovern (23%), Hubert Humphrey (2%), Eugene McCarthy (1%), Shirley Chisholm (1%) and Henry M. Jackson (1%)[6]

Hey genius - Slick willy didn't campaign here because Harkin was running. You know - the "favorite son" excuse.
Your list doesn't make your case very well. Just because they are losers(like kerry, Mondale, etc) doesn't mean iowa picked wrong.

 

[lozina]

Ron Paul did better than I had hoped for! And what was funny is I was watching the action on CSPAN (they had some pretty neat live coverage of people counting votes and such) and they allowed people to call in. Just about everyone who called in were praising Ron Paul. So this is just the beginning! Ron Paul has only started to finally get some mainstream media attention during his money bombs late in 2007.

Also it's funny to see some of the prejudices against Ron Paul here. His supporters are "fanatically", he is a "loony". All from people who probably don't understand him. Whenever Ron Paul makes a good showing somewhere in some poll it's always a hack and it's always by "zealous fanatic supporters". Nice over-loaded word usage. However when another candidate makes similar gains- it's a "genius strategy" by "organized supporters". Lol

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: Perry404

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
I think people dismiss Huckabee too quickly when matched up against Obama. The gloves have not come off yet against Obama. While I resent both of them merely because they are politicians, I especially resent the fact that Obama was so overtly groomed by the Democratic party as their next candidate. Nobody knew who the hell he was until he was introduced at the last Democratic convention as the next "rising star of the democratic party". He's doesnt seem to be his own man. He's there merely because he's a black guy with speaking skills, and has kept the race card in his pocket. He'd better keep it there, because if he introduces race into his campaign, white America will turn on him in a heartbeat. Huckabee can at least claim executive experience, though him being a baptist minister is a big black mark after the likes of Bush.

I am a very conservative anti-abortion, Zionist republican and I would vote for any of the democrats before I voted for Huck or Rudy. I think you're going to have a tough time with that argument.

How about voting for none of them. Isnt that an option?

 

[TheSlamma]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Hmm..the sweet, sweet scent of 5th place. I guess they should change the tag line to [OVER]lution.

Its not over yet, sorry

Actually, it was over before it even started, you paulbots just cant see it thats all.

Most people who thrive on the loss of something because of others having a big interest in it, is usually a sign you were either left out of a lot of things when you were young or probably beat up a lot in school.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: lozina
Ron Paul did better than I had hoped for! And what was funny is I was watching the action on CSPAN (they had some pretty neat live coverage of people counting votes and such) and they allowed people to call in. Just about everyone who called in were praising Ron Paul. So this is just the beginning! Ron Paul has only started to finally get some mainstream media attention during his money bombs late in 2007.

Also it's funny to see some of the prejudices against Ron Paul here. His supporters are "fanatically", he is a "loony". All from people who probably don't understand him. Whenever Ron Paul makes a good showing somewhere in some poll it's always a hack and it's always by "zealous fanatic supporters". Nice over-loaded word usage. However when another candidate makes similar gains- it's a "genius strategy" by "organized supporters". Lol

The prejudices against RP are based in reality.

Many of Ron Pauls supporters are fanatical and loony, yourself included (see fed link in sig). Sorry, abolishing the Federal Reserve is supported by about .1% of the population. Name one mainstream, recognized economist that supports it.

I understand Ron's positions just fine, probably researched his more than most other candidates. RP's supporters were overrunning online polls, as this 10% turnout shows.

He didn't get .4% predicted, but he certainly wasn't at the 80+% shown in most online polls. I think with this showing he does deserve mainstream media attention now.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: alchemize
The prejudices against RP are based in reality.

Many of Ron Pauls supporters are fanatical and loony, yourself included (see fed link in sig). Sorry, abolishing the Federal Reserve is supported by about .1% of the population. Name one mainstream, recognized economist that supports it.

Murray Rothbard

Until you read an analysis by Murray Rothbard, you really have no clue what the argument against the Federal Reserve is. Yeah, not many people support the idea, but what the hell does that mean? Most people will rather read about Britney Spears' latest stint than read something political.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: The:laugh:Slamma

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Hmm..the sweet, sweet scent of 5th place. I guess they should change the tag line to [OVER]lution.

Its not over yet, sorry

Actually, it was over before it even started, you paulbots just cant see it thats all.

Most people who thrive on the loss of something because of others having a big interest in it, is usually a sign you were either left out of a lot of things when you were young or probably beat up a lot in school.

:laugh:

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: The:laugh:Slamma

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Hmm..the sweet, sweet scent of 5th place. I guess they should change the tag line to [OVER]lution.

Its not over yet, sorry

Actually, it was over before it even started, you paulbots just cant see it thats all.

Most people who thrive on the loss of something because of others having a big interest in it, is usually a sign you were either left out of a lot of things when you were young or probably beat up a lot in school.

:laugh:

Laugh it up guys; too bad you couldn't spam the caucus like you do the polls huh?

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: alchemize
The prejudices against RP are based in reality.

Many of Ron Pauls supporters are fanatical and loony, yourself included (see fed link in sig). Sorry, abolishing the Federal Reserve is supported by about .1% of the population. Name one mainstream, recognized economist that supports it.

Murray Rothbard

Until you read an analysis by Murray Rothbard, you really have no clue what the argument against the Federal Reserve is. Yeah, not many people support the idea, but what the hell does that mean? Most people will rather read about Britney Spears' latest stint than read something political.

Most people have no idea how economics works these days. I don't care if 50% of the population supported Ron Paul abandoning the Federal Reserve in favor of the gold standard. That doesn't make it a good idea. In fact, I'd say that modern economics are so far beyond most of our population (myself included) that why can't we leave it to the experts?

Unless one has a PhD in economics and some peer-reviewed publications, why should one's opinion count for anything? Why should it even be entertained?

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Hmm..the sweet, sweet scent of 5th place. I guess they should change the tag line to [OVER]lution.

Its not over yet, sorry

Actually, it was over before it even started, you paulbots just cant see it thats all.

Most people who thrive on the loss of something because of others having a big interest in it, is usually a sign you were either left out of a lot of things when you were young or probably beat up a lot in school.

lol. Neither are the case but thanks for your deep analysis.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: alchemize
The prejudices against RP are based in reality.

Many of Ron Pauls supporters are fanatical and loony, yourself included (see fed link in sig). Sorry, abolishing the Federal Reserve is supported by about .1% of the population. Name one mainstream, recognized economist that supports it.

Murray Rothbard

Until you read an analysis by Murray Rothbard, you really have no clue what the argument against the Federal Reserve is. Yeah, not many people support the idea, but what the hell does that mean? Most people will rather read about Britney Spears' latest stint than read something political.

I hope you aren't putting Rothbard forward as a mainstream, recognized economist I think libertarianism, in it's purest form, is much like communism in it's purest form. They sound great in theory, but horrible in practice. Human nature (greed, lust for power, etc.) overrides any extreme economic theory. But we digress...that's for a different thread.

 

[palehorse]

Maybe all they (PaulBots) want is a pat on the back, a collective "Nice try kids!", or an 'A for effort'?... or perhaps just a hug?

I think they need to start figuring out what to do with the rest of his money... throwing away 10's of millions, between now and November, for the sake of being heard, might not be the brightest idea... especially for self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives!

Maybe he can use it to buy each of his supporters a shiny new gaming mouse, or something...?

In all seriousness, 11% is actually respectable, and we're all very proud of you. Congrats!

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: alchemize
I hope you aren't putting Rothbard forward as a mainstream, recognized economist I think libertarianism, in it's purest form, is much like communism in it's purest form. They sound great in theory, but horrible in practice. Human nature (greed, lust for power, etc.) overrides any extreme economic theory. But we digress...that's for a different thread.

Are you suggesting Mr. Rothbard is not qualified ?! What do you want, some government sanctioned economist that they put in 5th grader text books? Be rational, you're not going to find a "mainstream" person who goes against the "mainstream" grain.

And I don't quite understand your criticism of libertarianism. Name one libertarian country which is horrible in practice.......

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: alchemize
The prejudices against RP are based in reality.

Many of Ron Pauls supporters are fanatical and loony, yourself included (see fed link in sig). Sorry, abolishing the Federal Reserve is supported by about .1% of the population. Name one mainstream, recognized economist that supports it.

Murray Rothbard

Until you read an analysis by Murray Rothbard, you really have no clue what the argument against the Federal Reserve is. Yeah, not many people support the idea, but what the hell does that mean? Most people will rather read about Britney Spears' latest stint than read something political.

I hope you aren't putting Rothbard forward as a mainstream, recognized economist I think libertarianism, in it's purest form, is much like communism in it's purest form. They sound great in theory, but horrible in practice. Human nature (greed, lust for power, etc.) overrides any extreme economic theory. But we digress...that's for a different thread.

Libertarianism is the only system in which greed and lust for power can be contained. In our current "democracy" those human failings are rewarded. Those with a lust for power are given vast ability by the state to reward the greedy. The rich and powerful scratching each others backs using our money. Libertarianism is about protecting individual rights. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: alchemize
(see fed link in sig)

The only link in your sig...
http://blogs.salon.com/0002762...17/drugWarVictims.html

I think Paul is the only candidate that supports that position. In fact, I haven't even heard one word on this issue from the other candidates.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Maybe all they (PaulBots) want is a pat on the back, a collective "Nice try kids!", or an 'A for effort'?... or perhaps just a hug?

I think they need to start figuring out what to do with the rest of his money... throwing away 10's of millions, between now and November, for the sake of being heard, might not be the brightest idea... especially for self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives!

Maybe he can use it to buy each of his supporters a shiny new gaming mouse, or something...?

In all seriousness, 11% is actually respectable, and we're all very proud of you. Congrats!

:roll:

Go kill a brown person.