Thoughts on the Iowa Caucuses

Wow!  I was surprised at how well Rick Santorum did in Iowa. 

I had predicted that the results would have Romney, Paul, and Gingrich in that order.  Somehow Santorum was not even on my radar screen for the top three spots. 

I find it interesting that Santorum spent very little money but spent a lot of time touring the state and talking to people live.  It goes against conventional wisdom that one must buy slick advertisements, as did Rick Perry.  He reportedly spent $4 million in Iowa.

I also find it interesting that a Mormon and a Roman Catholic tied for first.  It doesn’t matter to me, but it is interesting that it doesn’t matter to people in Iowa either. 

I am glad that I was right about Paul’s placement above Gingrich.  I knew that he would do well in Iowa based on polling data and on the “word on the street” that I had access to.  He is only a bit behind the top two, and I believe that he will gain more support now, especially if and when others drop out.  I was amused that the CNN report that I read this morning did not even mention him.

It’s a funny thing about Ron Paul.  The people who are against him make two opposing claims–that he is unelectable because he does not rally appeal to people and that he has rabid support from people that give him high polling numbers.  I have even heard staunch conservatives, especially evangelical conservatives, claim that he is now the favorite of the left–because he wants to avoid war and legalize drugs. 

In fact, I would think that Paul would make the perfect third-party choice.  As a libertarian, he does endorse many favorite views of the left as well as many favorite views of the right.

Oh, and the stuff about his being a racist and a homophobe is nonsense.  It is typical political smearing.  It is no different from saying that Obama is a secret Muslim.

I am guessing that at least some of Bachman’s, Huntsman’s, and Perry’s supporters will switch to Ron Paul.  I particularly think that support in Texas will shift from Perry to Paul. 

Of course, I’m still pretty sure that Romney will get the nomination but not defeat Obama.

About these ads

4 responses to “Thoughts on the Iowa Caucuses

  1. Hey, been really busy in lots of things and have neglected my blog friends during the past couple of years. Trying to reform. :) Trust you are well.

    My husband and I have talked at length about this unique primary Republican nomination process, especially as concerns the frequent surges and plunges of the candidates. The extremely close Iowa caucus with Santorum finishing in a veritable tie with Romney, when just days ago he was in single digits, perfectly illustrates this phenomenon. I’m thinking this may be because we conservatives are just not seeing the person in whom we can fully place our confidence.

    All sincere conservatives must agree that these are dangerous times for our country. This next election is critical, and will be so telling of our future.

    Blessings, always.


  2. Paul would in fact fare better as a third party candidate than a Republican because so many Republicans detest his stances on military issues and the like. Paul running as a third party candidate would give voice to a perspective that gets drowned out by the major parties.

  3. Paul has in the past run as the 3rd party candidate, the question is, if he would, would he be given more debate time, like Perot received in 92? And would party loyalists be enough to keep his 3rd party from overtaking the two majors in a general election?

  4. It would be nice for Paul to be nominated, as he has no chance of winning. It would be nice for almost any of the current Republican candidates to be nominated for the same reason.

    A perfectly sensible Republican ticket would consist of Romney plus Huntsman. Romney has some domestic chops and some brights; Huntsman is sensible, able to work across party lines, is fluent in Chinese and has some international and foreign policy chops. Just to make it perfect, they both come from the same state and from the same /c/u/l/t /p/r/e/t/e/n/d/s /t/o /b/e /C/h/r/i/s/t/i/a/n /c/u/l/t, thus making them totally impractical. All the better. Sure is hard to type with all those slashes. Otherwise I would have to explain that C**********y is not a c***t because it is so old, as opposed to Mormonism, which is young enough that we can document hos l****y and disreputable its foundation was.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s