Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Iowa Caucus

As I'm sure many of you know, Mitt Romney pulled out a win by 8 votes over Rick Santorum at the Iowa Caucus last night, with Ron Paul trailing behind by a few percentage points. I'd just like to provide a bit of commentary on this event.

First, is anybody else surprised they would call it with only an 8 vote lead? Given the margins for human error in polls, I'm really surprised this wasn't done again just to be sure, or Santorum didn't call for a recount or something. (Maybe there's a rule to keep Caucuses from being too large that they don't recount? I'm not sure)

As you might have gathered, I myself was pulling for Ron Paul all the way. I still find it a bit fishy that Rick Santorum exploded out of nowhere to effectively lead the state. Nobody seems to take him seriously, he performs poorly at debates, and he's friggin' crazy. (Has anybody seen the story he has confirmed where one of his children died at a premature birth? He and his wife took the dead fetus home, introduced it to their children, played and talked to it, and slept with it in their bed. Yeah. A sane fellow to be in the White House.)

I might sound like a typical Paulbot, but I sense chicanery. This virtual nobody in the debates that has very little following whatsoever, and was far back in the preliminary polls, jumps out of fricking nowhere to nearly take the whole state, all while the counting facilities were moved to an undisclosed location? I'm probably being paranoid, but it seems quite sketchy to me. Oh well, there's many other states for Paul to take, or for somebody sane to rise up in.

I am quite happy that Newt Gingrich performed so poorly. He has some decent ideas on domestic policies, although I don't agree with much of it. He falls into the war-mongerer category (With everybody except Paul it seems) when it comes to foreign policy, however. And of course, he has some serious shadiness when it comes to inside dealings and corruption. Let's hope he doesn't take all the other states by storm.

Michelle Bachmann dropped out of the race this afternoon after her poor performance. I don't think I know *anybody* who would have been willing to vote for her. Her vocabulary consists of "Obama", "Fault", "Obamacare", "Iran", and "Weapons". Did she really expect to get anywhere at all?

Enough rambling by me! Who are you guys pulling for in the GOP Primaries? I imagine I might see quite a bit of Huntsman. I hear a bit from some of my intelligent friends, but haven't gotten a chance to look into him yet. Seems he performed poorly in Iowa, sadly.

22 comments:

  1. What the f @ that fetus story, it's completely insane if true. :/

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well Rick Santorum was actually in Iowa more than any of the other candidates, he just spent his time away from the media. He tries to make himself look like another average American, driving a pickup truck to his rallies and whatnot. It is just that they didn't poll for a while, and when they did, he was in third behind Romney and Paul. Then the media picked him up like crazy and helped him get a victory. They really are making him look like a good guy in all of this, I don't like the media agenda on elections tbh.

    ReplyDelete
  3. By my research it is infiniteplans.
    Random Guy: That clears up a bit. Still crazy that he took such a jump so quickly. And I don't like the media agenda either :/

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yeah, Santorum was a definite surprise for me. I didn't know about his campaigning in Iowa either -- I just assumed he was the next GOP flavor of the week. As far as the other candidates, I'm pulling for Huntsman (not bloody likely though), with Paul as my second choice.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I am not sure yet... We will have to wait and see.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Everyone googling Santorum is getting that lovely definition that the internet gave him a few months ago.

    I hope he enjoys those few minutes of fame.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Alex Rowe: I'll have to check into Huntsman. Sounds like he's not doing too well, but it's worth a look!

    BragonDorn: Best of luck finding someone to match your views!

    DWei: Lolol :P

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yeah i didnt know it would be only 8 votes apart. Keep the posts coming :)

    ReplyDelete
  9. That's why Ron Paul needs to run as a third party candidate in the general election...there is no way he is getting a fair shake in these GOP primaries.

    ReplyDelete
  10. gingerpoww: Will do!
    Jimmy Fungus: See, if he was running third party, there's honestly no way he could win. The system is established as only Republicans and Democrats at this point. It's *very* sad, but very true. As soon as Washington left the office, the bastards decided that they should form parties against Washington's final address as president, and it all went down from there.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Politics bums me out nowadays (although it's been bumming me out for a couple of years really). I don't agree with too many of Ron Paul's policies, some of them because I don't think the country is ready (or rather, not designed for them), but compared to all the other candidates, I'd automatically default to Ron Paul. No one else seems to have that leader quality and it's really obvious most people are just playing a game amongst each other.

    I don't consider Ron Paul a lesser evil however. He seems like a genuine guy to me, so things like this always interest me.

    ReplyDelete
  12. All candidates seem little bit bland tbh

    ReplyDelete
  13. Can anyone shed any light on an article i saw the other day that stated it wasn't the amount of votes that was important, it was the total number of delegates? Am not sure how it all works over in the USA to be honest but i will be sticking around to hopeful learn more :)

    ReplyDelete
  14. Casper: Not sure exactly what you mean. In the actual November election it's based on electoral votes (The people in the state choose these. They're *supposed* to base their choices on the vote count in the state, but sometimes change from that. The *ELECTORAL* votes select president. Was designed in a time when resources were not as available to have a full election, the general population was, quite frankly, not incredibly intelligent, etc. Nowadays a straight democratic election is feasible, IMO)

    ReplyDelete