Iowa
 

Grew up there, went to college there and started my career there.

Caucuses are tomorrow...

We were home over Christmas and the political circus was insane. I think my parents were getting about 40 calls a day from the candidates campaigns and their PACs.

This is a great response :hihi:

Warning - NSFW does contain some foul language, yes, even Iowans will swear when provoked.

Iowa Nice - YouTube

-spence

Is that your brother?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There is a slight resemblance.

-spence

He's slightly more caustic than you (sometimes) are :jester:. Pretty funny.

What would your Dad think, Spence?
Have you converted him yet. :huh:

He thought it was hilarious.

There's no conversion necessary. We talk politics all the time and usually agree on most things.

Aside from an evangelical contingent, most Iowan Republicans are pretty moderate.

-spence

Oh, my memory must be failing me as I thought you mentioned one time
your Dad was a Repub, and if so being most Iowans are Mod Repubs he
would be on a different page than you. :huh:

I said most Iowa Republicans were more moderate. Overall registration is about 50:50 and the state tends to vote Democratic.

My father is a pragmatist, I'd say more aligned with a later Goldwater brand of conservatism that's nearly absent in the modern GOP.

He completely agreed with this good piece from the Economist. I agree with it as well...

Is it possible to "combine a muscular foreign policy with sound economics, individualism and entrepenurial pragmatism," yet still have differing opionions on "God, gays, and guns"? Or different views on taxes, abortion, immigration, environment, health insurance, Israel, and regulatory agencies? Or must the "right Republican" have the "correct" views on all these issues (presumably the infallilble middle/moderate position). And if it is not possible to have different (extreme--that which differs from the middle) views, the middle will automatically "plump for Mr. Obama" who must then, presumably, have the correct middle views. But if he does, then wouldn't the middle vote for him regardless? This is presuming, of course, that he also has the correct "muscular foreign policy with sound economics, individualsim and entrepeneurial pragmatism," or that they either aren't paying attention, don't care, or don't have a clue about those things. Of course, If Obama does have those correct attributes as well as the correct middle views on the other stuff--he's in! Why bother about "the right Republican?"

But if the middle insists that it will only vote for a candidate with those correct middle views, then isn't it being as extreme as those even further to the right Republicans?

Isn't it more likely that different "Republican" candidates, as well as different Republican voters, have different views and are not all going to insist that candidates must "sign on the dotted line" for all the correct views? When it comes to the final vote, won't some more simple common threads that divide the parties make the difference, and won't the middle/independent voters have to decide on the difference in those common threads? And when we speak of that middle, aren't there, even in it, differing opinions in all those points ascribed to it?

But, I suppose, it's comforting to compartmentalized minds to have solid categories--right, left, middle--in order to percieve a well-ordered, predictable world.

I think this is the crux of the article.

Hell. Ron Paul and Rick Santorum are running for the same slot!

The identity of the "conservative" is a much bigger tent than the identity of the "liberal" in American politics. Usually less than 20 percent of Americans would even self describe themselves as "liberals".

Compare the USA to other successful nations like Australia and most of our Democrats are to the "right" of their Right Wing!

Icons like Reagan wouldn't even be on the GOP primary ballot given the politics of today, yet he led in many ways (not all certainly) as a pragmatist.

There's ideology and there's leadership. The joke that is the Republican primary is all the proof necessary that the party doesn't seem to understand what it really wants.

Ultimately they'll settle on what the enthusiastic crowd sees as the least worst. Fortunately for all of us he's not a terrible choice...

I have confidence in the end we'll have a good race for the next POTUS.

-spence

Sounds like you're confidently in the bag for status quo. But nobody seems to be satisfied with how it is. Down the same road regardless who, eh? If the election depends on the middle, the middle must be satisfied with the status quo (i guess that's sort of a definitionf of middle--status quo). Yet everybody bitches about the results--they keep on voting for the same middle and keep getting the same crappy results. Ain't that somebody's definition for insanity?

No, we certainly need to address our structural issues. Both parties are in denial here IMHO.

Some real time stats just for you guys...My father just returned (minutes ago) from the Republican Caucus at the elementary school I attended. I'd note it's a mixed but relatively professional community.

Undecided 1
Huntsman 2
Bachmann 7
Perry 12
Gingrich 25
Paul 29
Santorum 39
Romney 84

-spence

Seems like latest results have Romney and Santorum tied at 24% and Santorum is rising.

Structural issues . . . both parties in denial . . . duh, ain't that . . .like, the status quo?

i thought the video was great. I had no idea iowa was a state.

Thats funny.
when you put up pictures of you with long hair, I had no idea you were a man....


Interesting turn with Santorum climbing... I read one reuplican blog who (to paraphrase) said 'Oh great, Rickie Santorum, the only politician dumber than Obama'......
It will make NH, and more interestling, SC fun to watch....

He's just the flavor of the month for the whackos in the GOP base who won't vote for Romney because they believe that he's a devil worshipper. :rollem:

I Agree. Romney will be the Nominee, but if Perry, Bachman et al. bow out, then he will get a bump from the religious right.... Romney will sweat a bit more with that, and 'No More Mr. Nice Guy Newt....'

Bachmann Bowed Out.....

they wont back romney becuause he is to the left of obama on key issues. romney was responsible for the blueprint of obamacare, the repubs biggest issue, he's squishy on immigration. He campaigned for the last 4 years and finished in Iowa EXACTLY where he was 4 years ago, he hasnt made any headway. He is getting votes because he is viewed as the most electable and the rest of the candidates are a joke. Unless the independants get behind romney, its 4 more years of O guaranteed. Im pretty sure I stay home on election day

Exit polling showed something like 60% of voters were Evangelical or Born-again Christians. Is it really that surprising that a social conservative "came out of nowhere"?

Now that he's the flavor of the week, it'll be interesting how he deals with questions like being named the "Most Corrupt Congressman" in 2006. Newt had to answer to his infidelities while at the top, Santorum will not have to answer to this.

Another interesting part of the exit polling was who did and didn't vote for Paul: he got 48% of Independents, over half of the 17-29y/o crowd and (if I remember correctly) only 18% of baby boomers. If the numbers are similar going forward, it demonstrates that "business in Washington as usual" candidates aren't going to fly with the younger crowd. Also, as the baby boomers start dying off, there is a potential for a political evolution moving forward. Obviously, that's a far too deep look into what's merely a sliver of the nation but, I'm actually pretty curious to see how the next few polls work out in terms of the details of demographics each candidate is attracting.

Huh?

Actually the individual mandate, which Romney has never advocated at the federal level, was the brainchild of the Heritage Foundation.


His position has moved to the right a bit erratically, but the furthest left it's ever been is still similar to President Bush.

No, 4 years ago he finished a distant second 10 points behind Huck. This time he finished in first, over 4 points ahead of Paul who was expected to win.

Isn't that the point, to get elected?

Agree the field is weak overall but the lackluster support for Romney seems to be more about his moderate stances on some domestic issues more than his ability to be a strong executive. He may not rally the religious right, but unless you're really anti-Mormon Republicans and a lot of Independents will vote for Romney over Obama.

Romney will likely shift back to the middle and pick a moderate VP like Condi. If so he has a very good chance of beating Obama.

That's the entire point of the article I posted.

-spence

taken from another article which sums up my view-
After 39 months of consistent public hostility to bailout economics, after the rise of the tea party movement, after town-hall opposition to "Obama care," after the long-shot Scott Brown win in Massachusetts, after the 2010 limited-government resurgence in the House of Representatives ... after all of these unmistakable signs of public -- let alone Republican -- sentiment, the alleged party of limited government may be on the verge of nominating someone who is running to President Barack Obama's left on Medicare, who helped pave the way for the Obama policy Republicans hate most and who has no real plan for cutting the biggest growth items in the federal budget.

Very similar to what was proposed by a leading conservative think tank and subsequently applauded by the self described "most principled conservative" in the race.

What Romney enacted in Massachusetts certainly isn't Obama care.

Jimmy jimmy jimmy...

Ron Paul and Rick Santorum made serious investments to mobilize support across the entire state while Romney largely ignored Iowa until just before the caucus. Santorum made a late run because of some effective campaigning as well as being the only player left to pick up the evangelical support left by Bachmann and Perry.

So in context of 2012, Romney did pretty well. I don't think anyone expects Paul, Santorum or Gingrich to do well in New Hampshire. In fact, I think Gingrich will get knocked out or nearly out before he has a chance to gain some momentum with a success down south.

Huntsman could benefit from all of this coming out of New Hampshire, but Romney is clearly in the lead.

This doesn't make a lot of sense. Who ever wrote it clearly knows nothing about Romney care or his quite detailed economics plan.

-spence

fact remains Romney did not gain any more that he had in 2008. Same exact %. Thats important.
You can argue all you want but as the last few months have proven, repubs are going for anyone but Romney. iChrist - wasnt it time or newsweek that had a headline " why dont they like me" with Romneys mug on it? He has few passionate supporters. It aint his religion, its his lack of credibility and changing of his story to fit the current need. He is an oportunist and is viewed as such.

You're giving them way too much credit. Santorum ran strong in Iowa because 60% of the voters who turned out believe that LDS is a false religion that was formed by a false prophet, and a significant percentage of those believe that they are idol worshippers.

NH's Republicans are just as fiscally conservative, just as anti-immigrant, as any state's, and Romney currently leads there by double digits. And BTW---they, among all voters, should know Romney's record as governor.

I fully expect to see another round of attacks targeting Newt Gingrich from the WSJ, National Review, Weekly Standard etc...

-spence

and Mitt, Mr Pinocchio

I'd like to know how we didn't end up with an Amway on every corner?

You're referring to less than a hundred thousand people vs. millions in the repub party. I'm not out on a limb here, every single pundit shares the same view. In a period of increased focus on conservatism among voters, Romney is a weak candidate. He will get the nomination but reluctantly.

Copy slower, I can't read that fast. :D