Iowa Caucus

cristoir

It's tomorrow. Who do you think will win?

Saganist

Ron Paul

20Cent

Romney but hope Ron Paul gets it. Time he was properly scrutinized by the media.

matthew8

20Cent wrote: »

Romney but hope Ron Paul gets it. Time he was properly scrutinized by the media.

Romney and Santorum also haven't been scrutinized enough by the media either. No coincidence that the 3 who got little scrutiny are leading. Media never actually talks about Romney himself, just the anti-Romneys and his electability.

Saganist

20Cent wrote: »

Romney but hope Ron Paul gets it. Time he was properly scrutinized by the media.

Do you not think that there is some serious bias towards Paul in the US MSM ?

Killer Pigeon

matthew8 wrote: »

Romney and Santorum also haven't been scrutinized enough by the media either. No coincidence that the 3 who got little scrutiny are leading. Media never actually talks about Romney himself, just the anti-Romneys and his electability.

Romney definitely hasn't been strutinised enough. He's probably one of the most inconsistent candidates:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHSfnqho2jw

Santorum, not only having a ridiculous name, is the biggest homophobe in the race.

The media seems to be scared of Paul.

Killer Pigeon

Saganist wrote: »

Do you not think that there is some serious bias towards Paul in the US MSM ?

Seems to be. I think many news agencies are being bribed by different candidates. Obviously no way to verify that but we still know who their pay-masters are.

amacachi

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Romney definitely hasn't been strutinised enough. He's probably one of the most inconsistent candidates:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHSfnqho2jw

Santorum, not only having a ridiculous name, is the biggest homophobe in the race.

The media seems to be scared of Paul.

His name only became ridiculous in the last year or so :pac:

20Cent

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

matthew8 wrote: »

Romney and Santorum also haven't been scrutinized enough by the media either. No coincidence that the 3 who got little scrutiny are leading. Media never actually talks about Romney himself, just the anti-Romneys and his electability.

Romney definitely hasn't been strutinised enough. He's probably one of the most inconsistent candidates:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHSfnqho2jw

Santorum, not only having a ridiculous name, is the biggest homophobe in the race.

The media seems to be scared of Paul.

the media don't seem to have bothered with Paul much because he was not taken seriously. would like to see more of a spotlight put on him a decent interviewer could take him apart easily. romney has flip flopped to whatever view he thinks will get him votes. very poor selection of candidates for the gop the stupid wing and the hypocrite wing. good for obama though.

Killer Pigeon

20Cent wrote: »

the media don't seem to have bothered with Paul much because he was not taken seriously. would like to see more of a spotlight put on him a decent interviewer could take him apart easily.

"Take him apart" with regards to what? The media seems to be scared of Paul as he'd probably target their vital interests, therefore they're giving him as little airtime as possible and any time he is given some airtime he gets the most incredible amount of mud slinging.

In this Pres. election campaign, I'm worried that (a) any of the other Republican Candidates get it (they're the most inconsistent, hypocritical load candidates I've ever seen) and (b) Obama will get it and continue his failed economic policies and unreasonable spending.

20Cent

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

20Cent wrote: »

the media don't seem to have bothered with Paul much because he was not taken seriously. would like to see more of a spotlight put on him a decent interviewer could take him apart easily.

"Take him apart" with regards to what? The media seems to be scared of Paul as he'd probably target their vital interests, therefore they're giving him as little airtime as possible and any time he is given some airtime he gets the most incredible amount of mud slinging.

In this Pres. election campaign, I'm worried that (a) any of the other Republican Candidates get it (they're the most inconsistent, hypocritical load candidates I've ever seen) and (b) Obama will get it and continue his failed economic policies and unreasonable spending.

take him apart as in expose the soundbites he expresses for the nonsense they are. he said sexual harassment in the workplace is ok, his dodgy views about race and the other ideas are abhorrent to most people. the only reason he's still in the "race" is because he's been the comedy candidate so far, and that's saying a lot looking at the rest of them.

RichieC

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

20Cent wrote: »

the media don't seem to have bothered with Paul much because he was not taken seriously. would like to see more of a spotlight put on him a decent interviewer could take him apart easily.

"Take him apart" with regards to what? The media seems to be scared of Paul as he'd probably target their vital interests, therefore they're giving him as little airtime as possible and any time he is given some airtime he gets the most incredible amount of mud slinging.

In this Pres. election campaign, I'm worried that (a) any of the other Republican Candidates get it (they're the most inconsistent, hypocritical load candidates I've ever seen) and (b) Obama will get it and continue his failed economic policies and unreasonable spending.

Gimme Obamas failed economic policies over any of them nut jobs having access to nukes any day.

Or Ron. Heck I find his libertarianism a tad nutty but I'd trust him with the football any day.

Killer Pigeon

20Cent wrote: »

take him apart as in expose the soundbites he expresses for the nonsense they are. he said sexual harassment in the workplace is ok, his dodgy views about race and the other ideas are abhorrent to most people. the only reason he's still in the "race" is because he's been the comedy candidate so far, and that's saying a lot looking at the rest of them.

I wouldn't regard what he says as merely soundbites, I find that a lot of his libertarian views to be quite consistent and actually make some sense, compared to the usual Keynesian riff raff. I also find that his foreign policy makes a huge amount of sense and he isn't afraid to say that the US' neo-con foreign policy was the root cause of 9/11.

I find a lot of the mud slinging against Paul to be highly disingenuous and just bordering on character defamation. He never said sexual harassment was okay, that's just conjured up nonsense. His views on race have been debunked and he has tackled the issue surrounding that newsletter in interviews so many time over the past 20 years. Why would a libertarian (of all people) want to impose racist views? FreudianSlippers provided these links below in another thread concerning Ron Paul;

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

22 Facts that don't jibe with Ron Paul being a racist.

I see that the newsletter mentioned is from 1996 or so, they have also been debunked in multiple places including the Snopes forum. One of their contributors posted an FAQ: Ron Paul "racist" newsletters FAQ

And what would a so-called "racist" like Ron Paul think about some of his followers in this video below?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej5_rZof7MA

Also 20Cent, what other views of his are "abhorrent to most people", or is that in itself just a load of soundbites?

RichieC wrote: »

Or Ron. Heck I find his libertarianism a tad nutty but I'd trust him with the football any day.

Well I'd expect lefties like you to say that. I'd find some of Obama's policies a tad nutty and suicidal to be quite frank. I'd love to hear some rational argument from you against Ron Paul rather than some of the usual anti-libertarian trolling.

kmart6

Well fcuk me!! Bad enough have to listen to sh1t about this all day over here but didn't think it would manage to infiltrate Boards!!

Killer Pigeon

kmart6 wrote: »

Well fcuk me!! Bad enough have to listen to sh1t about this all day over here but didn't think it would manage to infiltrate Boards!!

Ron Paul has taken over the internet!! YAR!!

I'm not from the US but I've gotten interested in libertarianism over the past couple of months and Ron Paul definitely caught my eye.

kmart6

If you were here you'd be sick of it! Every station all day...head wrecking!

amacachi

I fear Ron Paul is going to have his place in the history books as the ultimate conscientious objector to whatever the next war is.

RichieC

Killerp: Ive made my arguments against libertarianism many times already round here. I see no need to rehash them fpr the squilliant time

Mr.Micro

They are really scraping the barrel to come up with these crusty old fa*ts as prospective Republican candidates. Is that the best they can get, all they exude is corruption and opulence with little else, so stale.

spagboll

1. Paul
2. Santorum
3. Romney
4. Gingrich

Logic
According to the poll of polls Romney is in the clear, however this doesn't take into account the absolute bomb that has just hit his campaign, his top 5 donors are all wall street banks, this was widely known but is now being desperately flung at him
Santorum's evangelical vote is being underestimated FACT and the polls suggest he is on a surge
Paul is going to pick up a large amount of independent and young democratic votes, also paul will pick up college kids who are home for chrimbo who haven't been sampled

ironing my anorak for a long night

Suryavarman

spagboll wrote: »

1. Paul
2. Santorum
3. Romney
4. Gingrich

That order does look pretty likely. Although with the ferocious pace that Santorum has been surging I wouldn't be surprised if he came out on top. I read somewhere earlier that around 30% of Iowans are still undecided so that could play a huge factor and put a lot of pressure on the people giving speeches at the caucus. I also wouldn't be surprised to see Bachmann pipping Gingrich to fourth seen as she has put so much into Iowa.

Logic
According to the poll of polls Romney is in the clear, however this doesn't take into account the absolute bomb that has just hit his campaign, his top 5 donors are all wall street banks, this was widely known but is now being desperately flung at him

Although I would like to see Romney crash, I just don't think it's going to happen. The man has survived his flip flopping, his Obama like policies and the $10,000 bet in the last debate. He's still leading and I honestly can't see him beating himself outside of something major happens.

Santorum's evangelical vote is being underestimated FACT and the polls suggest he is on a surge

He isn't the only person going for the evangelical vote though. Perry and Bachmann will as well and one poll has Paul coming in second with evangelicals.

Paul is going to pick up a large amount of independent and young democratic votes, also paul will pick up college kids who are home for chrimbo who haven't been sampled

It will be interesting to see if the democrats and independents turn out. As for the college kids there will also be a lot gone home for the winter.

ironing my anorak for a long night

What sort of time would we expect to see the results?

spagboll

It all kicks off in just over an hour, representives and community leaders give their speel then voting commences at different times, should start getting a feel at about 2am Irish time

Gingrich has had to much dirt and sex scandals for the evangelicals and Paul is too liberal on gay marriage

politico.com seems to be saying Romney all the way, also check out the huffingtonpost. Just remembered I dont have CNN or fox in my college house, hopefully sky news switches to CBS early

Regarding the college kids, IM PRESUMING that because Iowa is a "fly over state" that there is a net increase in college students over the Christmas period, ie more Iowans study outside Iowa than out of staters study in iowa, let's not get bogged down on this tho, I do know that arnes county has Iowa state university which is though to go strongly for Paul

Suryavarman

spagboll wrote: »

It all kicks off in just over an hour, representives and community leaders give their speel then voting commences at different times, should start getting a feel at about 2am Irish time

Gingrich has had to much dirt and sex scandals for the evangelicals and Paul is too liberal on gay marriage

politico.com seems to be saying Romney all the way, also check out the huffingtonpost. Just remembered I dont have CNN or fox in my college house, hopefully sky news switches to CBS early

Regarding the college kids, IM PRESUMING that because Iowa is a "fly over state" that there is a net increase in college students over the Christmas period, ie more Iowans study outside Iowa than out of staters study in iowa, let's not get bogged down on this tho, I do know that arnes county has Iowa state university which is though to go strongly for Paul

Paul does say that he is personally against gay marriage and that the Government should stay out of marriage altogether. As an atheist I can't say if this make a difference

Politico are probably saying Romney as they really dislike Paul as far as I can see. I'm sure but you might be able to watch CNN and Fox on their websites, I watched a couple of debates on them despite living in Ireland.

mcmoustache

Suryavarman wrote: »

Paul does say that he is personally against gay marriage and that the Government should stay out of marriage altogether. As an atheist I can't say if this make a difference

I may be missing some sarcasm here so i apologise in advance if i'm taking you up wrong.

It's possible to be against something while also being against the government prohibiting said something. For example, I'm against people farting in pubs but I don't think that a government should legislate for it. It's really something that people should figure out for themselves.

I guess that in Ron's case, while he doesn't like the idea of gay people getting married, he doesn't think that the federal government should be banning it (or endorsing it, for that matter). Essentially, even if there was an epidemic of gays and straights getting married to people of the same sex, he would do nothing about it as US president.

In effect, he supports it even if he's personally against it.

spagboll

Romney is looking shook

Great stats on CBS there, 45% of all attack adds have been aimed at Gingrich lol

Suryavarman

mcmoustache wrote: »

I may be missing some sarcasm here so i apologise in advance if i'm taking you up wrong.

It's possible to be against something while also being against the government prohibiting said something. For example, I'm against people farting in pubs but I don't think that a government should legislate for it. It's really something that people should figure out for themselves.

I guess that in Ron's case, while he doesn't like the idea of gay people getting married, he doesn't think that the federal government should be banning it (or endorsing it, for that matter). Essentially, even if there was an epidemic of gays and straights getting married to people of the same sex, he would do nothing about it as US president.

In effect, he supports it even if he's personally against it.

You have it bang on the mark. I often argue on here for racists to be allowed to say racist things even though I find the practice vulgar. When people want the government to outlaw things that they find immoral eventually the government will outlaw something you find perfectly reasonable.

spagboll

http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/

Live results

Where's a good place to watch this online? Do the any American channels do a live broadcast a la Sky? Watching the fox.com live broadcast at the moment...!

Time to brew a coffee, let the season begin

Jimmy Iovine

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Where's a good place to watch this online? Do the any American channels do a live broadcast a la Sky? Watching the fox.com live broadcast at the moment...!

Time to brew a coffee, let the season begin

I'm watching it on CNN at the moment. Pretty good coverage. Not sure if they have it online though.

Suryavarman

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Where's a good place to watch this online? Do the any American channels do a live broadcast a la Sky? Watching the fox.com live broadcast at the moment...!

Time to brew a coffee, let the season begin

I'm watching the fox one at the moment and I'm surprised about the positive way they are talking about Ron Paul.

Santorum is off to a good start although Ron Paul is leading narrowly in Polk County where Des Moines is located.

I think that if Santorum wins tonight, Romney will have it in the bag by the end of the month.

spagboll

So far there is nothing between the 3 lads

Suryavarman

spagboll wrote: »

So far there is nothing between the 3 lads

I've had a quick look at the counties with the most populated cities and Ron Paul is leading in most. It is very close and volatile at the top though. This will mean very little difference in the number of delegates they get but it is the momentum of finishing first that could pick up a lot of delegates in the rest of the primaries.

spagboll

Perry is doing respectable

jank

Sanatorum will be a big surprise in this race. Watch out for him in South Carolina.

Suryavarman

spagboll wrote: »

Perry is doing respectable

Although he has the money to keep going he doesn't have the poll numbers in any of the next four states. I'd imagine if he stays in single digits tonight he'll drop out.

jank wrote: »

Sanatorum will be a big surprise in this race. Watch out for him in South Carolina.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_Republican_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2012#South_Carolina_.2825_Delegates.29

He is a non entity in South Carolina though. If he appears to be making a move there, the hit ads will come out. As the two Pauls have been highlighting, he voted for a lot of spending increases so there is a lot of material. As the Fox pundits pointed out earlier, he's only a social conservative in a race were social issues don't matter.

Jimmy Iovine

Tight race at the bottom between Herman Cain and that Roemer chap. It's 7 versus 6 votes at the moment. I reckon I could do better than that tbh.

Suryavarman

Jimmy Iovine wrote: »

Tight race at the bottom between Herman Cain and that Roemer chap. It's 7 versus 6 votes at the moment. I reckon I could do better than that tbh.

Even no preference and other are beating them

Jimmy Iovine

"Family values are important to me because I have a family" - cutting edge reasoning right there from some woman interviewed on CNN.

Agent Smith

@ 21% of votes cast

Ron Paul - 23%
Rick Santorum - 23%
Mitt Romney - 23%
Newt Gingrich 13%
Rick Perry- 11%
Michelle Bachman- 6%
Jon Huntsman - 1%

30.9% reporting:
Romney 23.4
Santorum 23
Paul 22.8
Gingrich 13.2
Perry 10.2
Bachmann 5.8

The rest > 0.7

Suryavarman

Just checking on Twitter. Tags to do with the Caucus are trending in Ireland but not in the US. Pretty odd I must say.

Agent Smith

"Rick" Santorum 24%
"Mitt" Romney 24%
Ron Paul 22%
@ 46%



Iowa Caucus is a worldwide news event when it's the equivalent of the Fine Gael Laois Offaly selection convention

Killer Pigeon

Looks like Santorum is surging from behind (no pun intended)...

How the hell is he getting so much support?

Is this a good indicator for the rest of the campaign? Does Paul have a chance at all in other states?

Pride Fighter

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Looks like Santorum is surging from behind (no pun intended)...

How the hell is he getting so much support?

Is this a good indicator for the rest of the campaign? Does Paul have a chance at all in other states?

Apparently he visited every county in the state and talked to a lot of people on the ground. It's always the best way to campaign. Romney mainly focused on negative ads and Paul using the internet.

spagboll

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Looks like Santorum is surging from behind (no pun intended)...

How the hell is he getting so much support?

Is this a good indicator for the rest of the campaign? Does Paul have a chance at all in other states?

Santorum is the evangelical vote, Huckabee won last time on the same ticket

Iowa isn't too much of a big deal

Ron Paul has a chance in other states

Santorum hasn't felt the heat yet, he won't replicate this again in the early primaries

spagboll

Calling it now

1 sant
2 rom
3 Paul

That should work out a delegate each which is an amazing result for Paul

There's a debate on Saturday

Goodnight all

spagboll

No wait after looking at the larger counties which haven't fully come in its looking like romneys night

nfs

still alot of university towns to come in, Paul can do it!

Jimmy Iovine

Ron Paul put up a pretty scathing tweet on Twitter there earlier. Kinda funny at the same time I have to admit.



Here are the results at the moment.

cristoir

With 88% reporting:

Rick Santorum 26,443 24.6%
Mitt Romney 26,398 24.5%
Ron Paul 22,728 21.1%
Newt Gingrich 14,244 13.2%
Rick Perry 11,099 10.3%
Michele Bachmann 5,496 5.1%
Jon Huntsman 628 0.6%
Herman Cain 53 0.0%
Buddy Roemer 44

nfs

at least indenpendants can vote in new hampshire, that's got to help Paul