The Hawkeyes Vote

Tuesday, February 2, AD 2016


At least those who bothered to show up at the byzantine Caucuses.  On the GOP side Cruz wins with 28%, with Trump at 24% and Rubio a surprisingly close third at 23%.  In fourth is Carson at 9%.  The also rans are Rand Paul at 5%, Jeb Bush at 3%, Fiorina at 2%, Kasich at 2%, Christie at 2% and Santorum at 1%.  For now the GOP race is a three man race and probably will remain so unless someone outside the triumvirate wins in New Hampshire.  Minor candidates will begin to drop out, and Huckabee has already announced the suspension of his campaign.

On the Democrat side Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are effectively tied.  Normally this would be terrible news for a front runner, but Clinton can console herself that a low budget insurgent candidate like Sanders needs an early win.  If Clinton can eke out a victory here and do so again in New Hampshire, expect Sanders to quickly become a footnote in the Democrat campaign, unless some bigger names drop in.  If Sanders beats Clinton in New Hampshire, she is wounded and will face a long, hard fight for the nomination, with the prospect of other candidates emerging down the road in the later primaries.

Continue reading...

17 Responses to The Hawkeyes Vote

  • One has to wonder about “middle America” when a socialist like Sanders can do so well there, not to mention the pre-indicted candidate.
    I wonder if Sarah Palin is having second thoughts yet? Claiming victory for “America,” when her guy lost, was “understandably bizarre” (Is that an oxymoron?)

    I suspect things won’t be very predictive for the frontrunners until we get down to that Santee Cooper region.

  • As much mockery Gilmore has come in for an his 12 votes or whatever it was he ended up with, he probably still spent far fewer dollars per vote than old Jeb.

  • The left is very left and the right is very right in Iowa and all around the country now. My own families in Iowa caucused enthusiastically for Marco Rubio and were very gratified with the way the tide finally started to ebb for Trump as the more substance oriented candidates moved up.

  • I heard the Cruz team of 5,000 were at the precincts telling people that Carson dropped out. If it is true, than Cruz and his team, can not be trusted.

  • heard the Cruz team of 5,000 were at the precincts telling people that Carson dropped out. If it is true, than Cruz and his team, can not be trusted.

    Suspicious that someone who has never commented before is now parroting the (unproven) talking point that is being repeated all over social media. Anyway, I somehow doubt that the confusion surrounding Carson’s status had any bearing on the end result, but keep hitting up as many blogs as you can repeating this line.

  • Paul, I am Catholic and it is my first time at this site. As I said I am wondering “if it is true”. As you know, many leaders come as the angel of light but when you actually start investigating them, their goodness is superficial. They can speak religion very well but do they really believe?

    Cruz voted for the TPP(transpacific partnership) which is another globalist trading scheme which redistributes America’s wealth. He also wrote the immigration policy for Bush and was down at the border with Beck last year.

    Illegal immigration is being pushed, along with refugee’s to erase borders. Cruz may sound good now, but is the only reason he does, because Trump changed the debate on immigration?

  • As I said I am wondering “if it is true”

    Ben Carson packed his things and went home, which led people to speculate that he was quitting the race. These rumors were not spread by team Cruz. The media quickly worked to retract the report, but it’s possible that inside some caucuses Cruz supporters may have caught wind of the rumor before it was refuted and thus urged Carson supporters to switch to Cruz. I don’t know what happened inside the individual caucus events, but Carson’s final numbers are right in line with where he was polling, so it’s unlikely that very many would-be Carson supporters switched their votes.

    Cruz voted for the TPP(transpacific partnership) which is another globalist trading scheme which redistributes America’s wealth.

    Cruz, like most conservatives and libertarians, believes in free trade, and so originally supported by TPP. When concerns about TPP began to emerge and the details of what was in the agreement became more clear, Cruz revoked his support and voted against it. Nothing dodgy there.

    Now if you want to talk about Cruz’s record on national sovereignty and his record when it comes to the Bush administration you might want to take a look at the Supreme Court case of Medillin vs. Texas, where Cruz successfully argued against the Bush administration and defended American sovereignty.

    He also wrote the immigration policy for Bush

    An impressive accomplishment considering that he wasn’t even working for the Bush administration during the immigration reform debate. Was he a ghost writer?

    and was down at the border with Beck last year.

    Speaking of talking points, you’re repeating an odd smear against Cruz and Beck. This had nothing to do with their personal feelings about illegal immigration, but was a humanitarian mission. Once can oppose amnesty without wishing to see people suffer and die.

    Illegal immigration is being pushed, along with refugee’s to erase borders. Cruz may sound good now, but is the only reason he does, because Trump changed the debate on immigration?

    Utter and complete hogwash. Cruz has held a firm line on illegal immigration, long before Mr. Touchback Amnesty (another topic you might want to Google) got into the race. In fact it was Trump who in 2012 argued that Mitt Romney’s position on illegal immigration was too hard. Meanwhile Cruz worked with Jeff Sessions and others to beat back Marco Rubio to defeat the Gang of 8 bill. So while Trump was going on tv to argue for amnesty Cruz was actually doing something to defeat it.

  • Tony Katz was there in person, and talked to people in the Carson campaign, and he saw some of the tweets that people got, and they WERE from team Cruz. Carson left for a day or so– I forget for what, but it wasn’t to stop his campaign. His voters got tweets that he had dropped out and were asking who they should vote for. That is not just a misunderstanding. They were fed lies. He said to check it out on, which I haven’t done yet.

    Second, to casually say that Cruz had backpeddled on things like TPP and that it’s not a big deal, well duh! That is the very definition of voting with your finger in the air! He supported it and then it would pass without his vote.

  • Here is Cruz on education from a prominent researcher…

  • That is the very definition of voting with your finger in the air!

    Or you know, it’s a sign that he changed his mind because the facts on the ground changed. It’s not like he quietly backpedaled – he’s been openly campaigning against TPP since. Add seriously, if we’re going to talk about individuals who have flip flopped on major issues, let’s talk about Donald Trump and his change of heart on just about every issue known to man. Well he hasn’t flip-flopped on ethanol subsidies and Kelo, so at least he’s consistent in his support for crony capitalist positions, so I will give him that.

  • Sorry, but you are all missing the real story. That is, that the Mike Huckster has dropped out of the race. Hopefully MSNBC will pick him up any day now with a fat contract.

  • As a senior citizen who has been voting before most of you were born I have to say we haven’t had a good president since Truman. They all lie and will give you a lot of lip service and say that their going to make America better but trust me they won’t and they will sell their soul to the Devil to get elected and the worse one of all is Hillary I can’t believe that people can’t see through this women.

    We need a good honest God loving man too run this great country of ours but I don’t see it coming in this election.

    God help us all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Wow, Doris, so even Ike didn’t make the grade in your book, let alone Reagan.
    So I guess you will be another morally-superior voter that will non-vote again this fall. Now, do you not take responsibility for the person we have had win in the last 2 elections.
    Or how does that work?

  • Nightmare: imagine Al Gore as POTUS. Couldn’t be worse than Obama, though

    I, too, am a seasoned citizen. Doris Butler mostly has it correct, especially regarding that incompetent, sociopathic liar: Hillary.
    Reagan was the best of the fallen lot. I had to hold my nose to vote for the others.
    I first voted in 1972 (had to be 21 y.o.) . So, Ms. Butler seems more seasoned if she voted for Ike. I have to confess that I’d vote for any prior President (not Carter) as opposed to a Clinton or Bush dynast’s coronation or another McGovern/Sanders.

  • Ike and Reagan were good presidents but not like Truman and I still do vote young man in every election that I can. The point I’m trying to get over is these people running against one another spend more time tearing each other apart and bad mouthing one another and they lie, cheat and steal from our country. I guest you would have had to live back in my day to understand my point. I watched the debates on t.v. and I’m sorry but to me they wasted a lot of time trashing each other then getting to the problems our nations is facing. I’m sure there are others who think the same and I will vote in this election as well but I won’t be voting for Hillary that a sure bet.

  • have recently heard so many comments to the effect- “why bother, they are all liars” and it strikes me that if that attitude is pervasive among our citizens our cause is in even worse jeopardy.
    The guy who famously wandered carrying a lantern, claiming to look everywhere for an honest man, may not have been not all that honest himself- and more about shaming than anything else. On another note, Diogenes also reminds me also that making a virtue of a show of poverty is not a new idea.

  • Well, Doris, you are right on target about how the candidates are not taking the “high road” and the country to a vision of superior moral purpose, and “trashing each other.”
    Not possible to maintain a rational argument against that. Rather like the White Russians cutting each other apart in 1919 and giving Russia to Lenin.

Rick Santorum Won Iowa

Thursday, January 19, AD 2012

After a recount, the vote tally from the Iowa Caucuses show that Rick Santorum defeated Mitt Romney by a whopping 34 votes.  Previously Romney had been declared the winner by eight votes.

In the grand scheme of thing, this means little.  It doesn’t change the delegate vote one iota.  It does mean that the talking point that Romney won both Iowa and New Hampshire needs to come to a halt.  It is funny to read stories about this development suggesting that the Iowa caucuses were a split a decision, yet when Romney was considered to have won there was no such talk.  He might as well have won by 8,000 votes judging by some of what was said in the aftermath.

I do note that there seems to be a lot of confusion about the vote tally.

The deadline for final certification of the results was Wednesday. Party officials said eight precincts failed to follow the rules and fill out the official forms on caucus night, meaning those results can never be certified, while other precincts turned in forms that didn’t meet the legal requirements.

And yet we continue to allow this state to have over-sized influence on the nomination process.  Are we prepared to just ignore Iowa yet?

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Rick Santorum Won Iowa

  • I think that increasingly South Carolina is being perceived as the must-win state for primary candidates. Iowa and New Hampshire can be, and have been, won by a full-bore campaign that expends all its resources. By the time SC rolls around, though, only people with money are still in the race.

    Then again, as the years go by, people might try to focus on SC the way they currently do on Iowa and NH. But for the time being, it’s perceived as too big to win without an extensive advertising budget.

  • Sadly, Iowa has a significant liberal element even in the Republican party. Need I say more?

Rick Perry Should Not Drop Out (Updated)

Wednesday, January 4, AD 2012

After finishing in fifth place in the Iowa caucus, Rick Perry delivered perhaps the finest speech of the night.  At the end, he said that he was going home to Texas to “reassess” his campaign and try to find a way forward.  That is not quite as dire as “suspending” one’s campaign, but that is not a good sign for those of us who support his candidacy.

I hope that Perry decides to continue, and not just because he’s my favorite candidate.  I also don’t think that Michelle Bachmann should drop out.  No candidate should drop out after last night, and for one simple reason: it is simply time to stop making one small caucus and one small state so important in the grand scheme of a campaign.

Tim Pawlenty dropped out after merely losing a non-binding straw poll in Ames.  Pawlenty’s premature exit from the campaign is a decision that he must be ruing considering all that has transpired over the past five months.  Perhaps Pawlenty would have dropped back into Jon Hunstman territory, or perhaps Pawlenty would have become the candidate that conservatives rallied around in order to defeat Mitt Romney.  We simply don’t know because Pawlenty let the decision of a handful of voters in what is basically a glorified clambake take him out of the race.

You know how many delegates Santorum and Romney, the winners of the Iowa caucus, each won?  Six.  Six delegates out of 1,144 needed to win the nomination.  Iowa’s population is roughly one percent of the total US population.  It is a state that is over 90% white, and has an unemployment rate that is 5.7 percent, almost three full points below the national average.  In other words, it is not a state that is exactly representative of the nation as a whole.

The first four state in the presidential primary season represent a decent cross-section of the population, or at least of the Republican electorate.  Iowa is a populist, midwest, rural white state.  New Hampshire is a small New England state that is typically more libertarian.  South Carolina is a growing, southern state that has typically been more predictive of the eventual nominee than the first two states.  Finally there is the populous swing state of Florida.  We will have a much better idea of the state of the race after the Florida primary has been completed, and all the candidates owe it to the electorate to at least tough it out until that point or else we will continue to allow Iowa to have a ridiculously over-sized influence on the nomination process.

Now there are legitimate reasons for Perry (and for Bachmann) to see the writing on the wall and drop out.  Perry concentrated his efforts on Iowa and spent north of $5 million there.  After all that he only received 11 percent of the vote.  Perry had already written off New Hampshire, and he is struggling to get even in the top three in South Carolina.  He may see the rise of another respectable conservative in Santorum as a sign that he has no path to victory, and his continued presence in the race is only muddying the field.  That’s an understandable strategic decision, and I respect that.  But I hate to see Iowa continuing to play a more glorified role in the selection process than is merited.

Update:  Evidently Rick Perry has listened to me.  Who says I don’t have influence?

Continue reading...

14 Responses to Rick Perry Should Not Drop Out (Updated)

  • May we see a fresh, citizen-demanded move to reform the financing of campaigns and the selection of delegates. The exaggeration of Iowa’s importance – and one candidate spending $5+ million there to gain so little makes it more questionable. Not to mention the 50 states and the one billion expected for 44’s bid that is un-challenged inside his own party.

  • I didn’t know you wanted to divide the not-Romney vote to help Romney.

    Every eventual nominee has finished within the top 4 in Iowa and the top 2 in New Hampshire. Sure, Iowa shouldn’t be this important but Perry and Bachmann aren’t doing well in any state or nationally. Iowa is merely reflecting the fact that they aren’t popular anywhere. Staying in isn’t going to diminish Iowa’s role.

    I’m glad to see Perry go. Bachmann is expected to drop out later today. It’ll dramatically improve the quality of the debates. I expect Huntsman to drop out after NH and Newt after South Carolina which will improve the debates even more.

    I’ve heard that Pawlenty was glad to drop out. He didn’t enjoy campaigning.

  • I didn’t know you wanted to divide the not-Romney vote to help Romney

    Admittedly I wouldn’t mind seeing the field winnowed, but I still think candidates should let a wider range of voters make the call.

  • You know what would be a good first in the nation primary? North Carolina. A good-sized population, southern but with an influx of out-of-staters, relatively diverse, and Republican-leaning but not decidedly so. I think that would be a much better test for the candidates than Iowa. I’d also suggest Virginia but they’d only let a couple of guys on the ballot, so they don’t get it.

  • The Economist lose the primary system. They argue that the early states should be small. It allows people like Santorum with few resources to compete with people like Romney. It also allows voters to personally get to know the candidates.

  • I meant The Economist loves the primary.

    It’s Christmas all over again, Paul. Perry just said he’s back in!

  • A little off topic here, but there’s a natural process that the more you win, the more you look like a winner. Over the next few weeks you’re going to see a change in the political reporting. The whole “weak field” story line is going to disappear, and it’ll be replaced by a “Thrilla in Manila” battle of the giants. Is X undefeatable? Y has emerged as a leader. Z is drawing record crowds. Then there’ll be a “fight to the finish” story line, and “will there be a brokered convention?”, which there won’t be, because there never is. By the end of it all, after week after week of one candidate and the word “WINS” appearing in the headlines, even the most ideological member of the press will get caught up in the excitement of a potential horse race in the general election.

  • As an early supporter of Gov. Perry, and as someone who is decidedly NOT Santorum’s biggest fan, it pains me to say that Perry needs to read the writing on the wall and understand that he has been tried and found wanting. He blew his chance, and I truly believe there is no recapturing the momentum. I mean, he ought to be cleaning up in a state like South Carolina, but instead he’s pulling 6-7 % of the vote. What a joke. He’s done for, and needs to get out so that the conservative vote can coalesce around someone who still has a chance to stop Romney.

  • Perry is obviously a skilled politician as his record in Texas indicates. The fact that he was unable to perform adequately in the debates flabbergasted me and his ground game in Iowa was very weak for all the money he spent. Throughout this I have had the feeling that his heart simply wasn’t in making this run.

  • I always had my eye on Santorum for the primary (I’m in SC), but I figured I’d be one of the 4% vying for him. I didn’t think Perry was going to last as long as he has, given how terrible he is at debating. Perry has little chance of getting Top 4 in NH, even less chance in SC where he should be doing well. He should absolutely follow Bachmann’s lead and drop out so that someone (Romney) doesn’t get nominated.

  • I know that the 2012 schedule is different than that of 2008, but Giuliani tried to wait until Florida until he made his move. It looks good on paper, but I think again that the drumbeat of victories and defeats makes a late surge very difficult. And I know, Florida isn’t late, but it’s late-R, and everyone wants to whittle it down to a two-or-three-man race right away.

  • You know what would be a good first in the nation primary?

    None of them. Have the bloody primaries and the 1st round of caucuses the 2d week of June and the 2d round of caucuses the 3d week of June and the conventions in August. If we are fortunate, our politicians can slice five months off the budget of time spent in madcap electioneering.

  • I wonder what the good to bad debate ratio is before opinions level out. Perry’s last few debates were pretty good. Does he need 1.5 good debates to makeup for every bad? 2:1?

    I know it’s not a gaffe, but I found Santorum’s whining and petulance in the early debates equally annoying. He’s better now because he’s more comfortable. He’s more comfortable now because he’s not a single digit guy.

    The upcoming debates should be interesting.

  • I know you’re kind of kidding, but there’s actually something to that, Kyle. Perry’s poor debate performances came early on in the process when he was making a first impression. Once opinions are formed about someone, they are difficult to change.