Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

So, like all of you, I was glued to what turned out to be a nail biter of a caucus in Iowa last night. Mitt Romney barely defeated Rick Santorum to take the first victory in the actual contest to represent the Republican party in the 2012 election. Like, seriously, they were tied at ~24.5% with 99.5% of the polls reporting. I literally have never seen an election for anything as close as that was (I suppose the 2000 presidential election, but I was too young to follow that in an minute-by-minute way).

And ok, the obvious caveats before I get into this. Yes, winning Iowa isn't really that impressive, it doesn't mean someone will win the nomination, and often goes to very right of center (American center) politicians. Sure, only really Texas and California matter.

I'm going to throw this out there: Going by what they have said their policy will be, Rick Santorum is by far the most problematic candidate in the race. His stance on reproductive health is archaic to say the least, of all the candidates he seems the most eager to legislate his own views on religion and morality and the obvious homophobic stuff. Economically, sure, he might not be much worse or better than the other candidates who compete with each other to give the most lucrative taxation systems to the already rich, but in terms of moral conservatism, Santorum is from a bygone age. Further, his explicit stance on Iran is: lets bomb them, though to be fair, he isn't as insane as some other candidates, as he wants to work with the Pakistani government in order to continue killing Pakistanis, not explicitly start a war with Pakistan.

However, Santorum lost last night's election by the smallest of margins. Looking at population density maps of Iowa compared to the riding map, it becomes clear that Santorum's largest support base comes from rural areas with small pop. densities. The obvious assumption is that these are the rural Christian conservatives, which isn't too large a stretch, as that is the base Santorum is expected to do well with and that population is vehemently against Romney. Further, two such rural ridings went to Rick Perry, a fellow Christian conservative with disastrous views on moral and foreign policy. If you look even at the ridings Santorum won, often it is Perry who finished in second, with Romney often not even placing in the top 3.

So, Perry received only 10% of the vote overall, and wasn't expected to do well anyways. If we imagine a scenario where this 10% were to vote for any of the candidates except for Perry (ie: Perry drops out), the clear advantage in that case would be for Santorum, or Bachman though I don't think she would have been boosted by much. Santorum would have needed only the slightest boost, and if Perry's 2 ridings alone had gone to Santorum, he would be going to New Hampshire as the undisputed victor of the Iowa poll.

News today suggests that Bachman is out of the race, something that stands to improve Santorum's chances much more than Romney's, yet Perry is still in until South Carolina (according to his Twitter). Given Romney is the favorite for New Hampshire, this probably doesn't mean anything for the next caucus, as the greatest challenge there will be Paul and the potential libertarian vote. However, the following caucuses are South Carolina and Florida, states where Romney has always struggled and where the Christian conservatives vote in force.

Even with a resounding victory in New Hampshire, Romney is going to face a massive hurdle in these states, especially considering these are votes he is not expected to win. With Perry still in the race some votes may be siphoned to him from Santorum, which might assist Romney, but what if Perry drops? In that scenario, Santorum wins huge majorities in South Carolina and Florida, moving into a series of caucuses including Nevada, Colorado, Arizona and Georgia. The momentum his campaign could pick up from such a showing in Iowa and two quick wins in SC and Fla might be enough to rocket him through many of the early caucuses, potentially derailing Mitt in the process.

Ok, so ya, this has been the game this whole time, with one candidate or another rising to challenge Romney and then eventually imploding, however, its now at the point where other options are dwindling fast. If we assume there is a mass part of the Republican party base that just simply wont vote for Romney and isn't interested in Paul, and candidates like Perry and Bachman are dropping out, this constituency is left with essentially one option. So, if Perry sticks around until SC and Fla, that would be wonderful, as the mega-conservative evangelical vote will be split, and if nothing else, it will reduce the momentum the Santorum campaign would receive in those votes. However, if Perry drops, Santorum becomes the "not-Romney" candidate by default that appeals to the Christian voters, and Santorum looks poised to make huge wins that may elevate him to representing the Republicans in 2012.

So, while I obviously think all of this is disastrous because of how negatively a Santorum presidency would impact Americans and the world in general, if you disagree, think of it this way: Santorum wont beat Obama.

hmmm, I may have been too disparaging of Gingrich, I figured he was done, again, but it appears he will be the main competitor with Romeny in SC and Fla

http://nationalpostnews.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/iowa-update1.jpg

What I'm seeing: Bachman is out of the race (officially) and Huntsman has zero chance of winning so they can be ignored. Paul appears to have tailored his message to work in Iowa, given his low numbers everywhere else, so he isn't likely to be a major confound in the other races. Perry is too far behind to be anything but a confound for other people running.

Do you think Gingrinch is competing more with Romney voters or Santorum voters?

The historical bit is interesting. Romney already took Iowa and currently looks like a shoe in for the New Hampshire win.

Not sure how accurate those polls show. I'm showing Paul is it second in NH. with 18% and not Santorum who should be where Paul is.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_presidential_primary-1581.html

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Not sure how accurate those polls show. I'm showing Paul is it second in NH. with 18% and not Santorum who should be where Paul is.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_presidential_primary-1581.html

That poll agrees with the ones they're sampling from so it looks like the person who made that chart for RCP got Paul and Santorum backward.

The information RCP has nationally over the course of the race is interesting.

Romney started around 20 and has stayed consistent in popularity.
Gingrich started about the same then dipped for a while before rapidly rising back up.
Paul stared around 10 and has stayed consistent in popularity.
Perry did the opposite of Gingrich, started low, surged up quite a lot, then collapsed.

According to these they also state he is second in NH

http://www.infowars.com/new-poll-ron-paul-retains-strong-second-place-in-new-hampshire/

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/202355-poll-paul-huntsman-losing-ground-in-new-hampshire-

To be fair, in, this is the race to the extreme to get the nomination before the race back to the middle in the general election. The crazy gets dulled for everyone.

I still see your point though. I'm usually not terribly interested in primaries, so I'm kinda apathetic right now. Legislating morals, though, is something that I think you incorrectly label as a bygone era. It seems to be the route we're headed, not the last vestiges of such an approach.

I do not want to see Santorum win the nomination..mostly because he comes off as a douchebag. The whole "beer" thing...

He also has disturbing policies/ideas. Some of his ideas are awesome, however...can't be an uptight jerk about Santorum about all of his ideas even though I want to. It would be nice if we could narrow it down to Romney and Paul. I feel Paul would be the best person to debate Obama. Romney would do decently. I think Romney would have been a better match-up for Obama in '08.

A Paul nomination would be so fascinating to watch because he's to the left of Obama on many issues, particularly ones having to do with war and foreign policy.

Paul is the only republican candidate who I could actually vote for against Obama. All the rest are war hungry barkers and have idiotic ideas when it comes to social issues.

It'll probably be Romney who wins, though. Santorum has no shot.

America will once again vote for someone to rape their country to death.

What's interesting is that a century ago, Paul would have been considered far right, not far left. Less government, fiscal responsibility, self-determination. But when both parties in America are basically neo-Soviets pledged to Israel, I suppose the discourse naturally skews.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
What's interesting is that a century ago, Paul would have been considered far right, not far left.

It's interesting that vague, barely defined terms have a history of meaning completely different things?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Do you think Gingrinch is competing more with Romney voters or Santorum voters?

I might not have understood it well, but I never thought Gingrich was really vying for the evangelical christian vote. I actually thought Gingrich was doing more to siphon from Romney than Santorum/Perry.

His popularity in SC and Fla sort of argue against that, so I might have the wrong idea. If it is really 3 major candidates trying to be the Christian "non-Romney", things couldn't look better for Mitt honestly, that is until 2 of them drop out. The problem is, they might divide some votes and caucuses between them, which makes Mitt even more likely.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
According to these they also state he is second in NH

This isn't really surprising, as NH has a much more "secular" populace, at least non-evangelical. Romney has it almost guaranteed, but Paul should do better than Santorum there.

Again, I'm not sure about Gingrich... he is a slippery bastard

Originally posted by Digi
To be fair, in, this is the race to the extreme to get the nomination before the race back to the middle in the general election. The crazy gets dulled for everyone.

oh, for sure, thats what my last line was about. Even if this isn't something you are worried about, Santorum wont beat Obama in a general election where this crazy doesn't fly.

Originally posted by Digi
I still see your point though. I'm usually not terribly interested in primaries, so I'm kinda apathetic right now. Legislating morals, though, is something that I think you incorrectly label as a bygone era. It seems to be the route we're headed, not the last vestiges of such an approach.

I didn't label legislating morals as a bygone era, I labeled Santorum's stance on such things from a bygone era. For instance, he would be in favor of states legislating against birth control and his stances on families. Sure, there might be a surge of these feelings in some political spheres, but it does allude back to a much earlier age in American politics.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I feel Paul would be the best person to debate Obama. Romney would do decently. I think Romney would have been a better match-up for Obama in '08.

I agree, I think watching Paul talk and debate is amazing, and that would be an interesting election, but Romney would almost certainly do better in terms of being able to beat Obama.

Originally posted by inimalist
I didn't label legislating morals as a bygone era, I labeled Santorum's stance on such things from a bygone era. For instance, he would be in favor of states legislating against birth control and his stances on families. Sure, there might be a surge of these feelings in some political spheres, but it does allude back to a much earlier age in American politics.

Ah.

-T9YAJ7j5ug

that was good

That is a problem that has been on the horizon for the Republicans since 2000, at least. When you "rally the base" you have to push your whole platform to get their support and end up with candidates they like but come election time the base isn't large enough to let you win. If you've been going more and more extreme to sustain the excitement in the base eventually things will drop out from under you when the candidates you chose don't appeal to anyone else.

If they lose this election it might force party leaders to reevaluate their tactics. Moving further away from identification with the evangelicals while still upholding their issues seems like a good move, they're certainly not a group that will look kindly on democrats while being seen with them puts a lot of people on edge.

Oh and according to this it doesnt even look like ron paul is in NH

http://i43.tinypic.com/ankegz.jpg

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Oh and according to this it doesnt even look like ron paul is in NH

http://i43.tinypic.com/ankegz.jpg



It's pretty hilarious that Huntsman is still up there, he's doing the worst in every individual contest and on the national stage.

You can tell this was written by a woman. Also, I love it when foreigners think they have the right to comment on American politics. WELL YOU SEE I AM NOT PART OF YOUR COUNTRY BUT HERE'S MY OPINION ANYWAY

You're telling me that a feminist c*nt doesn't understand the Constitution? I'm shocked! Naturally, as progressives want to control the population, they're going to push for measures that increase the size and scope of the government.

Canada has hate speech laws. The thoughts of Canadians on the nature of freedom are like the thoughts of Richard Dawkins on religion: shallow, superficial, incurious, and almost always wrong.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
You can tell this was written by a woman. Also, I love it when foreigners think they have the right to comment on American politics. WELL YOU SEE I AM NOT PART OF YOUR COUNTRY BUT HERE'S MY OPINION ANYWAY

You're telling me that a feminist c*nt doesn't understand the Constitution? I'm shocked! Naturally, as progressives want to control the population, they're going to push for measures that increase the size and scope of the government.

Canada has hate speech laws. The thoughts of Canadians on the nature of freedom are like the thoughts of Richard Dawkins on religion: shallow, superficial, incurious, and almost always wrong.

Exhibit A: why American conservatives are idiots

EDIT: btw, not written by a woman, but its cool how smart you are all the time

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That is a problem that has been on the horizon for the Republicans since 2000, at least. When you "rally the base" you have to push your whole platform to get their support and end up with candidates they like but come election time the base isn't large enough to let you win. If you've been going more and more extreme to sustain the excitement in the base eventually things will drop out from under you when the candidates you chose don't appeal to anyone else.

If they lose this election it might force party leaders to reevaluate their tactics. Moving further away from identification with the evangelicals while still upholding their issues seems like a good move, they're certainly not a group that will look kindly on democrats while being seen with them puts a lot of people on edge.

interesting point...

but if the base wants these extreme politicians, how will they ever move back. I almost see the GOP fragmenting before they unite under some moderate so long as that means non-evangelical corporatist, which it almost has to be to be "mainstream"

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Oh and according to this it doesnt even look like ron paul is in NH

http://i43.tinypic.com/ankegz.jpg



come on, Paul finished a whole 3% behind the two who essentially tied for first, his candidacy is over

Over?

The man never had a candidacy. lol. Ron Paul will never be president, and will never even get close.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Over?

The man never had a candidacy. lol. Ron Paul will never be president, and will never even get close.

He made an extremely impressive showing in Iowa and he's set to be third is all the other major states. So his candidacy is fairly strong. I do wonder what would happen if he won the primaries, would the GOP run with it?

Making an impressive showing in Iowa isn't a strong candidacy. Call me when he wins the primary, lol.

As for your question, that's a good point. Talk about choosing from two evils, by the GoP's viewpoint anyway.

Ron Paul won't be president and it wouldn't much matter if he made it because both Republicans and Democrats love their government handouts.

And this is the kind of thinking that maintains the status quo. stoned


Tied in delegates in Iowa. Despite all the media bias and bullshit thrown at ron paul he did surprisingly well in Iowa. State full of morons it seems.

I just heard its come out that Santorum actually won in Iowa by a slim did but ballots were miscounted to due error/fraud.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I just heard its come out that Santorum actually won in Iowa by a slim did but ballots were miscounted to due error/fraud.

I heard that as well. Though I don't see the fascination with "winning" when it's about delegates and you get the exact same number.

I think Ron Paul has done amazingly considering the media silence on him. Whenever he has to be mentioned he is dismissed as a cook and unable to win the presidency, as if that was a fact, rather than a self-fulfilling prophecy as all the established media refuses to inform their viewers and readers on one of the top three candidates.

I also agree that Paul would be the best to debate Obama, he can be very aggressive in debates, and has no qualms about pointing out bad things about his opponents, and to most people who know of him, he does have the high ground of being different. Honestly all the other candidates could say (besides lying, which they probably will do) is "Haha, you agreed with all our proposals, and now the country is in the shit!", not a very good advertisement for their own policies.

Regardless, I am pretty sure Obama will win against any of them. He's a great campaigner, and he already started to pretend to be a tough Democrat, rather than the push-over Republican he played during his presidency.

But but but Ron Paul is a racist anti-Semite!

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
But but but Ron Paul is a racist anti-Semite!

He might be a racist. Don't think he's an anti-semite. I tend to believe him that he failed to oversee his newsletter, but, admittedly, that may be worse if you are running for supreme-overseer.


And don't get me wrong, I have huge issues with many of his points, but he is definitely the least corporate bought and most honest of the whole field (including Obama)

Doubt he's a racist.

Who cares if he's a racist? That bit about how the riots won't stop until the blacks get their welfare checks is completely true. Also, even if he didn't like blacks, that has nothing to do with his ideas on government, so it's completely irrelevant.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Who cares if he's a racist? That bit about how the riots won't stop until the blacks get their welfare checks is completely true. Also, even if he didn't like blacks, that has nothing to do with his ideas on government, so it's completely irrelevant.
Whether someone hates 10-15% of the population they intend to govern doesn't matter?

I don't think Ron Paul is racist either (no more than the minor racism that many people his age have as a result of the times they grew up in) but what you just said is ridiculous.

No, it doesn't, because that's not what racism means. (The term is so overused as to mean "someone said something that I disagree with that may or may not pertain to minorities." Furthermore, if we're going by that standard, I think that would disqualify any progressive from office, seeing as how they hate white Christians, especially those that they deem as fundamentalists or rednecks.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
No, it doesn't, because that's not what racism means. (The term is so overused as to mean "someone said something that I disagree with that may or may not pertain to minorities." Furthermore, if we're going by that standard, I think that would disqualify any progressive from office, seeing as how they hate white Christians, especially those that they deem as fundamentalists or rednecks.
Most of the people you'd consider "progressives" are white and christian.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
No, it doesn't, because that's not what racism means.

Yes it does, because that's exactly what racism means. I love this kind of argument.



Besides Ron Paul almost certainly hates more than 15% of the population for reasons entirely divorced from race. Also he's complete cook.

Suck my cock.

oh well. there goes the greatest mind of the GDF. at least we still have dadudemon.

He's got a friend in me

YtV7vKDbU3A

Huntsman is out and supporting Romney.

Its that Mormon love.


So romney gained what? 9 supporters? 131

rovdh_zcU9c

I've heard some people say Romney has a chance in South Carolina. Not that I think there is a huge chance of him losing at this point anyways, but a win there would be essentially the clinch, imho

Well yeah, hes currently ahead. We just saw an 11% surge for Ron Paul in 1 weeks time though.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Well yeah, hes currently ahead. We just saw an 11% surge for Ron Paul in 1 weeks time though.

According to who? If you look at the averages of the polls he's gone up about 10% in NC over the past month, at the same time that Santorum did the same thing.

Aren't we talking about SC?

dmI7RO10LEk


Edit:

http://tinyurl.com/7cq83ft

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Aren't we talking about SC?


Yes, sorry, SC. Going by the RCP numbers he certainly hasn't surged by 11% in the last week. Since the beginning of January he's been polling close to 10%.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/sc/south_carolina_republican_presidential_primary-1590.html

According to the picture in my edit he was around 9-10% in Jan 4th-5th.

Jan 11th-12th the polls now show that he is at 21% 3

(Although I guess it depends on which poll you want to select from)

I'm surprised Newt is hanging in there though. Every but Ron and Mitt should drop out already.

Very few polls show him at 21% (though actual turnout for Paul seems to be higher than poll show)

We'll see next week once niners beat the giants

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Very few polls show him at 21% (though actual turnout for Paul seems to be higher than poll show)
His supporters are too busy putting up signs to answer polls.

I think it would be interesting to see Ron Paul become the "Not-Romney" candidate. Though I think given the choice between Paul and Romney there would likely be a good number of Republicans (10-15% maybe) that would just not vote.

So Gingrich just won in SC by a fair margin. Next up is Florida where Romney is polling ridiculously beyond everyone else.