(I stole this idea from Drudge.)
Feel free to talk about the Iowa Caucuses in the comments. Also, a lot of us are doing the USA Today "Candidate Match Game" — suggested by Freeman Hunt over in the "Shhh" thread, where quite a few of us — including me and Meade —have revealed our results on the test.
३ जानेवारी, २०१२
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
६३ टिप्पण्या:
I know I keep referring to Santorum as a protest vote, but I think that involves presupposing a level of sanity for the Iowa folks that may have involved a serious miscalculation on my part.
I'm picking Santorum for the win.
But I'm worried about on site registration and NO photo ID requirements. If you're not FOR photo ID, that makes you FOR voter fraud!
Anyone who is voting for Gingrich, Romney, or any of the "establishment" candidate are voting for the destruction of the US Constitution and our freedoms as individuals.
Don't you have more important things to be doing than posting weblog comments, Dr Paul?
Since i don't see T-Paw nor Ronald Reagan, I voted for Romney as the most serious real candidate on the least.
And to think it wasn't that long ago a lot of Republicans though Herman Cain was the man. Talk about your short 15 minutes of fame.
Ron Paul - 57%
Michelle Bachmann - 49.3%
Newt Gingrich - 49.3%
Yes, the Mayan Doomesday Prophecy is real.
On DOMA, my answer was "Why should I believe that lawmakers would follow a damn constitutional amendment? How well did that Second Amendment work out?"
garage, I don't care if Hillary Clinton wins this poll via vote fraud. Its a poll that no-one will remember 2 weeks from now. Not a vote for higher office that could affect the nation for decades.
Romney (and Gingrich, though no longer a viable threat) is a threat to the Constitution??
Who is pouring this particular Kool-Ade? I hope not the Tea Party. I don't want to think they've gone fringe on us. There is such value in what they achieved in 2010.
garage said: If you're not FOR photo ID, that makes you FOR voter fraud!
Let's take the double negative out to reveal what you really said:
If you're FOR photo ID, that makes you against voter fraud!
YES!
@chickelit
Republicans are *for* voter fraud then!
Hey, Stodder is back!
very cool!
@garage: But as you point out, it only helps the wrong candidates--just like when you guys have to cheat in general elections.
That knee-slapper never gets old chickelit, thanks for the laugh. I bet your fake moon landing stuff is a hit a parties as well.
I fear Iowa voters. I want Romney to win, but I fear that Paul will skate through with support from democrats and independents. Perhaps, Santorum will be closeby.
What is most funny today is Newt Gringrich. He said on CBS Early Show: Mitt is a liar. Obama can destroy Mitt.
Wait, wait, why will Obama not destroy you, Newt cry baby? If you cannot handle ads about your records from Mitt and Paul, what makes you ready for Obama machine.
Newt baby: You are THE CRY BABY. I weep for GOP voters who actually support you. YOU ARE A CRY BABY!
Hello Chickenlittle, thanks for the greeting.
Do opponents of voters having to show photo ID have any other argument besides claiming that voter fraud is "extremely rare?" Because, by that logic, if a city achieves a low murder rate, laws against murder ought to be repealed.
Shoe really belongs on the other foot. Without requiring photo ID, how can we assure voters that we're protecting the system? It's such a minimal intrusion. I'm in a halfway house, and they don't let people go anywhere without them securing a photo ID. It's not considered too onerous for people wrapping up long prison sentences. Voters can handle it.
My results and comments are in the other thread--no repeating here to reduce redundancy and also because I have to shower and get ready to caucus.
Garage et al: On principal, and without fail, I always always always go to polling places and such events as this with ID literally (and I DO mean literally, in this case, as in I'm being literal) in my hand which I instant on offering to the workers. I do this every single time, always and without exception.
So there.
Huntsman, then Romney.
Huntsman's the actual conservative, fiscally responsible governor in this pool, but he screwed up by positioning himself as the media-friendly Republican scold. Still, the best candidate on policy, and it would be nice just once to have a Republican nominee that didn't waffle on evolution?
I wanted to vote for Gingrich, but the fact that he didn't bother to buy the newtgingrich.com URL tells me he's not well enough organized and internet-savvy to win a modern presidential campaign.
And the other candidates are all some form of batsh*t crazy. So Romney it is, I guess. Maybe he'll make Christie his running mate so we have something to get excited about.
A lot of faint hearts and Reverse Chaos votes for Milton, although I note Perry is second at this point.
Andy R. said...
I know I keep referring to Santorum as a protest vote, but I think that involves presupposing a level of sanity for the Iowa folks that may have involved a serious miscalculation on my part.
This, of course, from the star of Occupy Atlanta.
A Rick Perry surge in the Althouse Caucuses!
Welcome back, Stodder. We've missed your comments here for the last year or so.
Thanks for paying your debt to society. Whatever the crime was. Couldn't have been murder, thank heavens.
You haven't been gone THAT long.
And your good behavior couldn't possibly have been THAT good!
So two of our resident liberals talk up Santorum.
Insincerity much?
In the past when I've taken that Candidate matching test -- or one similar -- I come up all Gingrich.
After I eat a sleeve of fig newtons and read the classic Seussian Christmas tale I feel better.
Wow fourth place for Ron on an Althouse poll! Great! Super fine!
The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin!
On the subject of Iowa, Dad tells me that when he grew up, there were within a block of his house, two National Academy members and a future Nobel Laureate. The Nobel Laureate, alas, came out in favor of oleomargarine, so the President of ISC fired him so he went to Chicago.
Dad used to play basketball with Henry Wallace's son.
When I think of Iowa, I think of a state that embraced Henry Wallace. Anything is possible.
Phil
I wasn't talking up Santorum at all. I just think he's going to win.
Phil 3:14 said...
So two of our resident liberals talk up Santorum.
They are just paying homage to their nemesis, Rush Limbaugh--trying to foist their own Special Ops Chaos.
Jeff said...
Anyone who is voting for Gingrich, Romney, or any of the "establishment" candidate are voting for the destruction of the US Constitution and our freedoms as individuals
MORE!!
Anyone voting for all but the most rabid frothing at the mouth right-winger likes to kill little baby puppies!
Is a friend of Al-Qaeda!
Is worse than Hitler!!
Hey, chick, glad you're back!!
They are just paying homage to their nemesis, Rush Limbaugh--trying to foist their own Special Ops Chaos.
And when Santorum wins, you'll be saying garage mahal told you so?
I still think Ron Paul voters fall into two camps.
1. Edging on the insane
2. naive
3. Sick to death of the same old shit that got us in this mess
A president who speaks Mandarin. Now that is a guy for the big stage and the big picture. Plus he wants to take on Wall Street. Not sure he's a great campaigner but if the GOP wants to see BO tested by a nominee with real broad achievements, Huntsman is your guy. Independents and some Dems would take note. Obama is not that inspiring to Dems.
Playing the USA "Match Game", I got:
1. Romney, by far.
2. Perry
3. Huntsman
Newt and Bachmann tied as Lowest. And Obama was lower than any of them.
And when Santorum wins, you'll be saying garage mahal told you so?
If you pull off that as a confirmed prediction, I shall henceforth refer to you as Garage Maholy
I hope Ron Paul wins, but I expect Romney to.
FWIW, I'm Huntsman. Experience, Afghanistan and Defense Spending determined it. Second place is Perry, then Gingrich, although Gingrich, Romney and Obama are all close. Perry and I agree on Medicare. The only thing I agree with Obama on is Energy.
Interesting quiz.
I'll repeat what I said elsewhere -- I think that Paul's supporters have been undercounted by the pollsters. However, I don't think Paul will do well in the second-round voting.
ARe there any colored peeps in Iowa other than Soledad O'Brien?
1. Edging on the insane
2. naive
An apocryphal quote from Einstein defines insanity as "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results".
The poll is flawed. It wants questions like these:
11) Here are your picks, according to us. Do they seem like credible POTI?
12) How does the potential FLOTUS look in a blue dress walking across a green meadow with her family?
13) What will your liberal friends think of your recommended choices, and how much do you care? (Use the two sliders to your left.)
1) Mitt Romney 3/11
2) Newt Gingrich 3/11
3) Ron Paul 3/11
I don't know how Dr. Paul got in there, but the other two reflect my actual feelings on the subject.
ARe there any colored peeps in Iowa other than Soledad O'Brien?
Trenchant analysis, Titus. But not very original as it's a meme and strangely lacking in 2008. Why is that, do you suppose?
What garage refuses to address is the truism that, without voter ID, any fraud is virtually impossible to prove. Basically what he's saying is this-- in spite of a great deal of anecdotal evidence of voter fraud on the part of Democrats, there is not much documentary evidence, therefore voter fraud on the part of Democrats does not exist. What he and the rest of the Holder mafia are deathly afraid of is the prospect of voter fraud on the part of Democrats being impossible to hide any longer once voter ID statutes become the norm.
I went to a gay bar in Des Moines when I was 18.
It was awful.
No hot hog.
I lived in Dubuque two summers teaching a Drum Corps.
I went three entire months without any hog.
It was so depressing.
tits.
Well, this is the year I get my first prostate exam, so I guess a Romney nomination is kind of appropriate.
I still think Ron Paul voters fall into two camps.
1. Edging on the insane
2. naive
Worked for Obama...
When I voted in the Althouse poll, it was Romney (by far) and Perry, with Gingrich following closely.
I received some insight into this when I went to my local Tea Party gathering and got a whiff of the flawed reasoning at work:
Those people were full of fear.
Nobody likes Romney - and agreed Gingrich would deliver - but they all see Obama as this formidable figure needing a "safe" candidate to challenge him for the win.
It's stupid - and is the perfect recipe for screwing the pooch politically.
Conservatives now have the generational opportunity of a lifetime - to change this country for the better - and, instead, they're imagining someone wants four more Jimmy Carter-like years.
So what's the point? Switching the chairs on the Titanic, with Romney, won't change anything.
We have absolutely nothing to be scared of by going with Gingrich but, because they insist on boxing with shadows, the Right will squander the moment.
It would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragically, pathetically, NewAge in execution:
Courage, People,...
Another question that poll needs:
14) If in, say, September 2012, the nominated GOP candidate suspends his/her campaign and proposes nationalizing, say, the entire electrical power industry in order to, let's say, increase something vague and stupid like "energy independence", how likely will you be to conclude that the guy is an idiot unfit to serve, kinda like McCain in 2008?
What's wrong with our politics and our government is really what's wrong with us as Americans.
We want the easy answers, but there aren't any (there ARE simple answers, though, that will take courage to implement).
Reagan was very controversial back in the late '70s. But he was obviously a person with a plan and with principles behind that plan (whether you agreed with him or not). I don't see that in Romney. I see many of the others with principles, but the only candidates who have both principles and plans based upon them are Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich. Paul's plans are not workable. Ergo, Gingrich is the only remaining choice.
Any GOP candidate is electable (maybe except Ron Paul). But most won't excite the GOP electorate. If Romney gets the nomination this campaign will be very close and Obama might well win if he can excite his base. Gingrich will be more polarizing, but he will get out the GOP faithful, and most of the 'independents' who are looking for someone who they think can lead effectively.
Make mine Gingrich. I don't want perfect. I just want someone who has a clue and who won't be timid.
wv: inglyc... US national language (soft 'c' at the end)
Santorum surging hard from behind, proving he has the stamina... can he end up on top in this three way?
Paul 24%, Santorum 23.2%, Romney 22.6%. 18% reporting
Frothy!
@MadisonMan: Looks like the Nobelist your father was talking about was economist T.W. Schultz, whose short bio at the Nobel site sketches a humble and humane scholar. I particularly liked this passage:
In general, I avoided giving lectures or attaching myself while abroad to a university. To learn what I wanted to know, I went instead to rural communities and onto actual farms. Talk with university people, government officials and U.S. personnel stationed in the country was much less rewarding for me.
In addition, and beyond this, there is the standard puffing vita.
Impossible to imagine Paul Krugman writing that.
Garage said "Santorum surging hard from behind".
wv: dittack (really)
Expecting deletion and possible banishment. To paraphrase Harry Potter, Expecto nocommentum!
Crack, good points. And to expand on that....say Republicans nominate a weak, center-left candidate. If he wins, that would hurt true conservatives (see Bush 43.....and I say this as an admirer of the man).
But if they elect an visionist conservative, even if beating Obama is a long shot, that helps the country overall. See Ronald Reagan.
"I went to a gay bar in Des Moines when I was 18.
It was awful."
to be fair, things have changed a whole lot since 1954 ...
Daubiere, it was 20 years ago.
Although, does Des Moines have a neighborhood called "the village"? How quaint.
Dubuque didn't have a gay bar when I spent the summers there.
Although that college on the hill was pretty.
No color though.
I want colored international hogs.
I don't care for white hog. It's too vanilla and boring.
Titus:
As a whole, as you note, Iowa has a low percentage of blacks/African Americans.
However, there are places and neighborhoods where the mix is quite different. We live in one, for example.
You left off none of the above.
John Clifford -- What are Newt Gingrich's principles?
Seven Machos,
What are Newt Gingrich's principles?
I understand why you'd ask the question, but it's still the wrong one, and asking it is just a snarky, unhelpful distraction:
We don't have the time, or candidates, for that now.
The right question - since anyone can beat Obama - is what do we want, and who can and will get it for us?
That's all that matters now,...
Well, no Crack, it's a valid question and you're ducking it like liberals duck legitimate questions - you ask the question you want to answer. If that's your idea of interaction, just go talk to yourself.
Personally, I'd like to see you take a shot at the question.
Seven Machos asked: What are Newt Gingrich's principles?
Subject to change, just like Romney's.
Romney seems a bit more disciplined than Gingrich. Gingrich will give one opinion, and when that proves unpopular, like his denouncement of Ryan's Medicare plan, he's ready with a new position in a heartbeat.
Romney has pointedly tried to avoid taking clear policy positions, even when it would seem rather easy, as with the Ohio union issue. If I recall correctly, no one was able to get a clear answer from him about Libya for several weeks.
And the winner is......Romney, by 8 votes
Surprised to see so may Romney votes. He has been underwhelming. This early in the primary season, I am encouraged to see Santorum fare so well. I expect the frontrunner position to change a few more times before it is settled.
Beware leftists giving advice; or others asking rhetorical questions that they themselves are not willing to answer.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा