Iowa Caucuses

[Oliver]

I understand that. (That's exactly what I meant by Iowa's delegates to the convention taking the role of followers.) But Bachmann and Perry are out. That's a very real and very significant effect. Iowa delegates to the GOP convention will not, practically speaking, be free to vote for either of them.

Again, Iowa has opted to be an early leader in influencing the primary at the cost of being a later follower.

ETA: In sum, again, I think this has resulted in the relatively few participants in the Iowa GOP caucus having a disproportionately large effect on the primary.

Well, but only because they dropped out. And we will see how it evolves in the long run. Remember:

Mike Huckabee 34.36%
Mitt Romney 25.19%
Fred Thompson 13.39%
John McCain 13.03%

 

[Kestrel]

Actually, the caucuses are non-binding, so by that metric it's even less important than you indicate.

But in reality it is important because:

1. It results in free media exposure to the strong finishers. Media is very expensive these days and getting some for free can go a long way.

2. It starts to separate the candidates. As Scrut noted, Perry and Bachmann will likely drop out. Romney will probably experience a good surge going into New Hampshire, which was already friendly territory for him.

You are right, Iowa is about culling the losers instead of anointing the winners. Romney came in first, but he didn't exactly win. He was the first choice for less than 25% of caucus attendees.

The more interesting question is if Bachman and Perry drop out, who do their former supporters rally behind?

 

[Oliver]

The more interesting question is if Bachman and Perry drop out, who do their former supporters rally behind?

Did they have supporters?

 

[Oliver]

Also:

(CNN) – Texas Gov. Rick Perry suggested Wednesday that he plans to continue his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination despite his fifth-place finish in the Iowa caucuses - and despite saying earlier that he would reassess his candidacy.

source: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/04/211709/?hpt=hp_t2

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well, but only because they dropped out.

Why do you suppose they dropped out today?

ETA: And I realize the process isn't over. I never claimed these 100,000 Iowa GOP caucus participants were solely responsible for determining the GOP nominee. My claim is that their influence on the process is disproportionately great, despite the fact that the vote is not binding on their convention delegates. Again, that's the trade-off they make by being so early: they have enormous early influence on the primary while being merely an inconsequential follower at the convention itself.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Also:

(CNN) – Texas Gov. Rick Perry suggested Wednesday that he plans to continue his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination despite his fifth-place finish in the Iowa caucuses - and despite saying earlier that he would reassess his candidacy.

Most likely that means there are bills to be paid.

 

[Brown]

Dogberry, I mean, Rick Perry doesn't care much for the taste of fruit in Iowa. The grapes are sour and he don't like them apples. From CBS News:

"This [Iowa] is a quirky place, a quirky process to say the least and we're going to go into places where they have actual primaries and there are going to be real Republicans voting," he said. "Not that there aren't real Republicans here in Iowa but the fact it is was a pretty loosey-goosey process and you had a ton of people who were there that admitted they were [Democrats] voting in the caucuses last night."

Got that? Perry is bitching that his competitors actually got the votes of Democrats, because of the "quirky" process that Perry's own party uses for choosing its delegates. Now presumably, Perry wouldn't have said no to any Democrat who wanted to vote for Rick Perry, would he?? But never mind that! It was the Democrat Party, the party of dirty tricks and dishonesty and political sabotage, that unfairly thwarted Perry's chances!

Here is what I propose Iowans should say in rebuttal:

Well, Boo hoo hoo, Rick! Spoken like a true pussy. Come back here and we'll say it right to your face, you whining little pussy. You childish, petty LOSER, and a sore loser at that. Can't you take your defeat like a man, Mister Oops?

 

[Spindrift]

Dogberry, I mean, Rick Perry doesn't care much for the taste of fruit in Iowa. The grapes are sour and he don't like them apples. From CBS News:Got that? Perry is bitching that his competitors actually got the votes of Democrats, because of the "quirky" process that Perry's own party uses for choosing its delegates. Now presumably, Perry wouldn't have said no to any Democrat who wanted to vote for Rick Perry, would he?? But never mind that! It was the Democrat Party, the party of dirty tricks and dishonesty and political sabotage, that unfairly thwarted Perry's chances!

Here is what I propose Iowans should say in rebuttal:

Well, Boo hoo hoo, Rick! Spoken like a true pussy. Come back here and we'll say it right to your face, you whining little pussy. You childish, petty LOSER, and a sore loser at that. Can't you take your defeat like a man, Mister Oops?

Perry's new campaign slogan:
"Texas doesn't care that I'm stupid. Why should you?"

 

[Brown]

Perry's new campaign slogan:
"Texas doesn't care that I'm stupid. Why should you?"

Perry's not stupid. Or, I should say, he's not just stupid. Rather, he is qualified for all three "Carlin criteria": stupid, full of [fertilizer] and [incredibly] nuts. This business about blaming Iowa's caucus system for his bad showing is a demonstration of all three qualities.

Having these three qualities may be a boon for a governor of Texas (Perry's predecessor having all three as well), but they would be immense liabilites for a President of the United States (as Obama's predecessor demonstrated on many occasions).

 

[cwalner]

Dogberry, I mean, Rick Perry doesn't care much for the taste of fruit in Iowa. The grapes are sour and he don't like them apples. From CBS News:Got that? Perry is bitching that his competitors actually got the votes of Democrats, because of the "quirky" process that Perry's own party uses for choosing its delegates. Now presumably, Perry wouldn't have said no to any Democrat who wanted to vote for Rick Perry, would he?? But never mind that! It was the Democrat Party, the party of dirty tricks and dishonesty and political sabotage, that unfairly thwarted Perry's chances!

Here is what I propose Iowans should say in rebuttal:

Well, Boo hoo hoo, Rick! Spoken like a true pussy. Come back here and we'll say it right to your face, you whining little pussy. You childish, petty LOSER, and a sore loser at that. Can't you take your defeat like a man, Mister Oops?

Good FSM, what a pile of Horse droppings!.

From Fair Vote.org

Iowa |Voters may change party on the day of the primary election.|Closed
Texas|No registration by party; voters are not held to affilation of past election. Each year, voters have a clean slate and must choose on primary day whether to vote by a party affilation or as unaffiliated; voters are held to that affiliation in the runoff. For the presidential primary, it is the same system as of December 19, 2011.|Open

Yup, Texas has open primaries that actually allow what Perry is blaming Iowa of doing that caused him to show so poorly there.

 

[TheSapient]

Perry only got around 13,000 of about 130,000 votes cast. I don't see how he could claim his loss was due to Democrats inflating the vote totals of other candidates.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Also:

(CNN) – Texas Gov. Rick Perry suggested Wednesday that he plans to continue his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination despite his fifth-place finish in the Iowa caucuses - and despite saying earlier that he would reassess his candidacy.

source: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/04/211709/?hpt=hp_t2

Most likely that means there are bills to be paid.

It also means he has nothing else to do. He can't stand for governor so the only thing he can do to keep his mug in the news is to continue running,.. for Vice President. Mitt's going to have to sell out to the fundies at some point and Rick's got to show he can deliver the Palinistas.

I think officially, as of January 4, 2012, Rick Perry is running for V-P. He can only do that if he can show that he can bring some of the pro-life PTL crowd. With Bachmann out, that means he has to only concern himself with Li'l Ricky's votes. (If Romney was as savvy as a Dick Nixon, I'd say the deal's already been made. Mitt needs to face a few from the nutbar right so that he keeps their votes splitting.)

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It also means he has nothing else to do. He can't stand for governor so the only thing he can do to keep his mug in the news is to continue running,.. for Vice President. Mitt's going to have to sell out to the fundies at some point and Rick's got to show he can deliver the Palinistas.

I think officially, as of January 4, 2012, Rick Perry is running for V-P. He can only do that if he can show that he can bring some of the pro-life PTL crowd. With Bachmann out, that means he has to only concern himself with Li'l Ricky's votes. (If Romney was as savvy as a Dick Nixon, I'd say the deal's already been made. Mitt needs to face a few from the nutbar right so that he keeps their votes splitting.)

I have a feeling Romney's VP pick will be someone not in this field. I don't know who. I'm certain it won't be Palin.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I have a feeling Romney's VP pick will be someone not in this field. I don't know who. I'm certain it won't be Palin.

And for much the same reason, won't be Bachmann. I reckon the Mitt team probably hate the idea of Newt - "the veep candidate guaranteed to implode", not a real appealing selection. Santorum? No way. The few liberals who might vote for Mitt would run for the caves. Cain? No way. So that doesn't leave them with any other choices in the current mix. And Perry could probably deliver Texas and help lockdown the red states in the west.

I'm not sure it'll be Perry, but it'd be the strategic choice I'd go for.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It also means he has nothing else to do. He can't stand for governor so the only thing he can do to keep his mug in the news is to continue running,.. for Vice President. Mitt's going to have to sell out to the fundies at some point and Rick's got to show he can deliver the Palinistas.

I think officially, as of January 4, 2012, Rick Perry is running for V-P. He can only do that if he can show that he can bring some of the pro-life PTL crowd. With Bachmann out, that means he has to only concern himself with Li'l Ricky's votes. (If Romney was as savvy as a Dick Nixon, I'd say the deal's already been made. Mitt needs to face a few from the nutbar right so that he keeps their votes splitting.)

Maybe so. Still I suspect his "campaigning" from now on will involve making public appearances, speeches and such, and fundraisers but little if any new campaign spending.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

And for much the same reason, won't be Bachmann. I reckon the Mitt team probably hate the idea of Newt - "the veep candidate guaranteed to implode", not a real appealing selection. Santorum? No way. The few liberals who might vote for Mitt would run for the caves. Cain? No way. So that doesn't leave them with any other choices in the current mix. And Perry could probably deliver Texas and help lockdown the red states in the west.

I'm not sure it'll be Perry, but it'd be the strategic choice I'd go for.

I'm thinking someone less well known. Not sure who, but just a gut feeling.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I have a feeling Romney's VP pick will be someone not in this field. I don't know who. I'm certain it won't be Palin.

You don't think he'd consider Bachmann at all? (I suppose as of today she's no longer "in this field"!)

Actually, I think you're right. AFter the primary, they'll all be damaged goods (including Romney), and he'll look for someone who answers whatever main criticism the Obama campaign is likely to use.

 

[cambion]

My guess is that Romney goes quite a bit farther right than himself for a running mate, ala McCain's strategy, but not someone who's as clueless as Palin. Paul Ryan or someone like that seems likely.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

My guess is that Romney goes quite a bit farther right than himself for a running mate, ala McCain's strategy, but not someone who's as clueless as Palin. Paul Ryan or someone like that seems likely.

I'm thinking more along those lines.

I don't know a whole lot about him or his "roadmap", but he at least seems like not a nut, which for the GOP these days is saying something.

 

[Denver]

He will choose a Caucasian male. The GOP has gone through its phase of thinking it can become more appealing by putting token women and minorities in its front lines, and is going to stick with the tried and true this time.