Jan 4th, 2012
Check out the video below. Can anyone tell me what the hell kind of device Wolf Blitzer is using to illustrate his point at the roughly the 12 second mark?
Showing posts with label iowa caucus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label iowa caucus. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
What The GOP Hopefuls Paid Per Vote
Jan 4th, 2012
Santorum almost won this thing 'for a song,' as they say.
Santorum almost won this thing 'for a song,' as they say.
 |
| Image via Political Scrapbook |
Iowa Caucus Dirty Tricks?
Jan 4th, 2012
Karoli explores the possibility:
"Ah, Republican love for democracy at work. And let's not minimize the fact that the one and only Karl Rove is the one to share the news with viewers.
After six hours of Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum exchanging leads by the barest of margins, suddenly the vote counts dropped for Santorum and rose for Romney, so that Santorum's 20+ vote lead dropped to 4 votes. Rove earnestly explains that there was a transposition on entry of final totals, and when it was adjusted, it went to Mitt Romney's favor.
That left only the votes in Keokuk outstanding. Karl Rove explains that both candidates have agreed to what the final tally was for that precinct, leaving Mitt with the win by 14 votes.
How convenient. We can't have the GOP Anointed One usurped by an interloper, even if it is another GOP party acolyte. Even more convenient that Rove is the guy who has the story first. Had it, or wrote it? Which?"
We can't embed the clip from her post HERE, but after watching it, Karoli's questions are more than reasonable.
Karoli explores the possibility:
"Ah, Republican love for democracy at work. And let's not minimize the fact that the one and only Karl Rove is the one to share the news with viewers.
After six hours of Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum exchanging leads by the barest of margins, suddenly the vote counts dropped for Santorum and rose for Romney, so that Santorum's 20+ vote lead dropped to 4 votes. Rove earnestly explains that there was a transposition on entry of final totals, and when it was adjusted, it went to Mitt Romney's favor.
That left only the votes in Keokuk outstanding. Karl Rove explains that both candidates have agreed to what the final tally was for that precinct, leaving Mitt with the win by 14 votes.
How convenient. We can't have the GOP Anointed One usurped by an interloper, even if it is another GOP party acolyte. Even more convenient that Rove is the guy who has the story first. Had it, or wrote it? Which?"
We can't embed the clip from her post HERE, but after watching it, Karoli's questions are more than reasonable.
Iowa Caucus Reaction Round Up
Jan 4th, 2012
It was an ugly last few days and a bruising battle.
Jeff Zeleny notes the generational gap that was evident in Ron Paul's very close, third place finish:
"The surveys found that Mr. Paul had far outpaced his rivals among caucus goers under 40. But he dropped behind Mr. Romney and Mr. Santorum among voters 40 and older. Even though older caucus goers made up a much larger portion of the electorate, Mr. Paul’s outsize lead among younger voters kept him competitive."
It was an ugly last few days and a bruising battle.
Jeff Zeleny notes the generational gap that was evident in Ron Paul's very close, third place finish:
"The surveys found that Mr. Paul had far outpaced his rivals among caucus goers under 40. But he dropped behind Mr. Romney and Mr. Santorum among voters 40 and older. Even though older caucus goers made up a much larger portion of the electorate, Mr. Paul’s outsize lead among younger voters kept him competitive."
After The Iowa Caucus - ANOTHER Lurch To The Right?
Jan 4th, 2012
It's official; Mitt Romney is in serious trouble. Sure, he "won" the Iowa Caucus by an entirety of eight votes. But, he is still in very serious trouble.
It's not merely the near-upset by Santorum that we predicted might happen yesterday which endangers him. Nor is it the strong likelihood that Romney will be unable to resist pandering to the Dominionist voters who nearly defeated him.
No. What Romney should be very afraid of is Newt Gingrich.
It's official; Mitt Romney is in serious trouble. Sure, he "won" the Iowa Caucus by an entirety of eight votes. But, he is still in very serious trouble.
 |
| Screengrab from the Des Moines Iowa Register |
It's not merely the near-upset by Santorum that we predicted might happen yesterday which endangers him. Nor is it the strong likelihood that Romney will be unable to resist pandering to the Dominionist voters who nearly defeated him.
No. What Romney should be very afraid of is Newt Gingrich.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Santorum Could Take Iowa
Jan 3rd, 2012
Bear with me.
Jake Horowitz wrote a week ago:
"Back in 1975, Georgia's Democratic governor Jimmy Carter pulled off an upset to become president, and his surprise victory in the 1976 Iowa caucuses played a signficant role in his success. Carter went door-to-door and shook people's hands in order to sway Iowans' votes.
Today, this kind of in-person, on-the-groud campaigning is no longer a focus of the campaign, as Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and televised presidential debates have taken precedence (debate viewership has been staggering this electoral cycle). Yet, with the race for this year's nomination still very much undecided, the momentum that a caucus victory provides remains important."
"The results will help to winnow down the field to the only legitimate contenders (bye bye Bachmann, Santorum, and Perry)."
With all due respect, his assumption that Santorum has no chance may be dead wrong. This is why actual campaigning still matters. Like Ron Paul, Santorum has a better ground game than most of his competition. Santorum is polling very strong right now and there is also something else at play;
Amanda Marcotte wrote yesterday that what truly defines the Iowa caucus this year is a single issue:
"To really understand Iowa, you need to understand the primacy of abortion as an issue to the Christian right. It’s baffling how little attention this gets, considering the tendency of all the candidates---and especially those whose numbers in Iowa, like Rick Santorum and Ron Paul, eclipse what they can get in most other states---to make frequent statements about how they consider banning abortion to be a number one priority and the big issue of our time. Economic issues are confusing and the difference between candidates is too hazy to matter to the Republican base. Foreign policy doesn’t seem to matter that much at all to voters this year. But abortion is a nice, simple issue, and the candidates by and large seem to get what the media doesn’t: The more you pound the table and stereotype women who get abortions as heartless slatterns, the better you do in the polls."
If she is correct, and I believe that she is to a degree, Santorum just might win this thing. Bachmann's campaign is not only hopeless, but her paranoid accusations against former staffer Kent Sorenson might have handed her followers to the only other rabidly pro-choice candidate.
It could be the perfect storm.
As for the broader implications, anything that gets another few hundred thousand would-be voters to Google the word "Santorum" is fine with me.
Bear with me.
Jake Horowitz wrote a week ago:
"Back in 1975, Georgia's Democratic governor Jimmy Carter pulled off an upset to become president, and his surprise victory in the 1976 Iowa caucuses played a signficant role in his success. Carter went door-to-door and shook people's hands in order to sway Iowans' votes.
Today, this kind of in-person, on-the-groud campaigning is no longer a focus of the campaign, as Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and televised presidential debates have taken precedence (debate viewership has been staggering this electoral cycle). Yet, with the race for this year's nomination still very much undecided, the momentum that a caucus victory provides remains important."
"The results will help to winnow down the field to the only legitimate contenders (bye bye Bachmann, Santorum, and Perry)."
With all due respect, his assumption that Santorum has no chance may be dead wrong. This is why actual campaigning still matters. Like Ron Paul, Santorum has a better ground game than most of his competition. Santorum is polling very strong right now and there is also something else at play;
Amanda Marcotte wrote yesterday that what truly defines the Iowa caucus this year is a single issue:
"To really understand Iowa, you need to understand the primacy of abortion as an issue to the Christian right. It’s baffling how little attention this gets, considering the tendency of all the candidates---and especially those whose numbers in Iowa, like Rick Santorum and Ron Paul, eclipse what they can get in most other states---to make frequent statements about how they consider banning abortion to be a number one priority and the big issue of our time. Economic issues are confusing and the difference between candidates is too hazy to matter to the Republican base. Foreign policy doesn’t seem to matter that much at all to voters this year. But abortion is a nice, simple issue, and the candidates by and large seem to get what the media doesn’t: The more you pound the table and stereotype women who get abortions as heartless slatterns, the better you do in the polls."
If she is correct, and I believe that she is to a degree, Santorum just might win this thing. Bachmann's campaign is not only hopeless, but her paranoid accusations against former staffer Kent Sorenson might have handed her followers to the only other rabidly pro-choice candidate.
It could be the perfect storm.
As for the broader implications, anything that gets another few hundred thousand would-be voters to Google the word "Santorum" is fine with me.
The Iowa Circus, cont...
Jan 3rd, 2011
Jonah Goldberg actually makes some sense in an otherwise (surprise) very smarmy piece:
"The real problem with the Iowa caucuses is simply that they confer too much entrenched arbitrary power on one state in perpetuity. For instance, without the Iowa caucuses we would never have wasted billions of dollars on environmentally damaging and economically wasteful ethanol subsidies."
Although Goldberg lamenting the sad state of the environment should raise eyebrows, he's correct. These ridiculous subsidies, arguably the last several decades most bi-partisan domestic boondoggle, would never have been so popular had they not been tied to the nation's highest volume corn producer and its place at the front of the race.
Although the subsidies have finally been allowed to lapse this year, the ill effect they had on both energy and agriculture will ripple for years.
Jonah Goldberg actually makes some sense in an otherwise (surprise) very smarmy piece:
"The real problem with the Iowa caucuses is simply that they confer too much entrenched arbitrary power on one state in perpetuity. For instance, without the Iowa caucuses we would never have wasted billions of dollars on environmentally damaging and economically wasteful ethanol subsidies."
Although Goldberg lamenting the sad state of the environment should raise eyebrows, he's correct. These ridiculous subsidies, arguably the last several decades most bi-partisan domestic boondoggle, would never have been so popular had they not been tied to the nation's highest volume corn producer and its place at the front of the race.
Although the subsidies have finally been allowed to lapse this year, the ill effect they had on both energy and agriculture will ripple for years.
Friday, December 30, 2011
The Iowa Circus, cont...
Dec 30th, 2011
Yesterday, I wrote that I thought Rep. Bachmann's handling of the news that her Iowa campaign Chairman, Kent Soreson, had defected to the Ron Paul camp was "crazy and conspiratorial." I resisted the urge to declare that I believed it to be an outright lie. However, Mike Enos, Bachmann's political director in Iowa, issued a denial that nearly seemed to do just that:
"I can say unequivocally that Kent Sorenson’s decision was, in no way financially motivated," Enos said in his statement. "While I personally disagree with Kent’s decision, and plan to stay with Michele Bachmann because I truly believe in her, I cannot, in good conscious watch a good man like Kent Sorenson be attacked as a 'sell-out.'"
Despite his stated intention of remaining with her campaign team, he later resigned. This seems to indicate that he was purged from the campaign for insisting on rational truth.
Rep. Bachmann is, unsurprisingly, doubling down:
"No one else knows about that conversation other than Kent Sorenson and myself."
It's extremely implausible that Bachmann would not have revealed this conversation to her team immediately to begin planning damage control. The reaction of Enos and his subsequent break from her team expose not only Bachmann's executive inability but, also her apparent mental instability.
The Ron Paul camp insists her claim is fiction. Paul himself is quoted by KCAU:
"He called up and asked if he could join us and I said 'That's a great idea!' He's somebody I've known for a long time and we've helped him in the past."
Sorenson appeared on CNN to declare that the alleged conversation "never happened."
I am no fan of Ron Paul. I find him absurd. But, Bachmann is coming out of this looking both desperate and delusional.
With four days to go before the Iowa Circus, I expect this all to get even more entertaining.
Yesterday, I wrote that I thought Rep. Bachmann's handling of the news that her Iowa campaign Chairman, Kent Soreson, had defected to the Ron Paul camp was "crazy and conspiratorial." I resisted the urge to declare that I believed it to be an outright lie. However, Mike Enos, Bachmann's political director in Iowa, issued a denial that nearly seemed to do just that:
"I can say unequivocally that Kent Sorenson’s decision was, in no way financially motivated," Enos said in his statement. "While I personally disagree with Kent’s decision, and plan to stay with Michele Bachmann because I truly believe in her, I cannot, in good conscious watch a good man like Kent Sorenson be attacked as a 'sell-out.'"
Despite his stated intention of remaining with her campaign team, he later resigned. This seems to indicate that he was purged from the campaign for insisting on rational truth.
Rep. Bachmann is, unsurprisingly, doubling down:
"No one else knows about that conversation other than Kent Sorenson and myself."
It's extremely implausible that Bachmann would not have revealed this conversation to her team immediately to begin planning damage control. The reaction of Enos and his subsequent break from her team expose not only Bachmann's executive inability but, also her apparent mental instability.
The Ron Paul camp insists her claim is fiction. Paul himself is quoted by KCAU:
"He called up and asked if he could join us and I said 'That's a great idea!' He's somebody I've known for a long time and we've helped him in the past."
Sorenson appeared on CNN to declare that the alleged conversation "never happened."
I am no fan of Ron Paul. I find him absurd. But, Bachmann is coming out of this looking both desperate and delusional.
With four days to go before the Iowa Circus, I expect this all to get even more entertaining.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
The Iowa Circus
Dec 29th, 2011
The latest round of crazy involves a bit player making a big splash just ahead of the Iowa GOP caucus. The Des Moines Register reports:
"In a stunning, late-breaking Iowa caucus turnabout, the state chairman for presidential candidate Michele Bachmann ditched her campaign Wednesday night to endorse Ron Paul, a rival in the race for the GOP nomination.
The defection of Kent Sorenson, an Iowa state senator, came just six days before Iowa’s first-in-the-nation caucuses, and caught the Bachmann campaign by surprise. Sorenson had chaired Bachmann’s caucus efforts here for months, and even attended a Bachmann event in Indianola on Wednesday afternoon just hours before appearing at a Paul rally in Des Moines to announce his endorsement."
The latest round of crazy involves a bit player making a big splash just ahead of the Iowa GOP caucus. The Des Moines Register reports:
"In a stunning, late-breaking Iowa caucus turnabout, the state chairman for presidential candidate Michele Bachmann ditched her campaign Wednesday night to endorse Ron Paul, a rival in the race for the GOP nomination.
The defection of Kent Sorenson, an Iowa state senator, came just six days before Iowa’s first-in-the-nation caucuses, and caught the Bachmann campaign by surprise. Sorenson had chaired Bachmann’s caucus efforts here for months, and even attended a Bachmann event in Indianola on Wednesday afternoon just hours before appearing at a Paul rally in Des Moines to announce his endorsement."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
