maple_leafs182 Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 Since the Iowa Caucus is tomorrow I figured I will throw in my prediction for what percentage of the votes each candidate will receive. Michele Bachmann - 6% Newt Gingrich - 13% Jon Huntsman - 2% Ron Paul - 26% Rick Perry - 12% Mitt Romney - 24% Rick Santorum - 17% What percentage of the vote do you think each candidate will receive? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) Sorry, but I can't participate in Canadian polls about American elections! Edited January 3, 2012 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maple_leafs182 Posted January 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 Sorry, but I can't participate in Canadian polls about American elections! Ahh, your government must of taken away more of your freedoms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 Ahh, your government must of taken away more of your freedoms. Nope...I ain't even a resident of Iowa. We have college football bowl games, NFL playoffs, and state primaries/caucuses. Canada has a Harper majority for several more years! Enjoy the vote! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maple_leafs182 Posted January 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 Nope...I ain't even a resident of Iowa. We have college football bowl games, NFL playoffs, and state primaries/caucuses. Canada has a Harper majority for several more years! Enjoy the vote! Good thing you don't have to be a resident of Iowa to take part in this poll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 Good thing you don't have to be a resident of Iowa to take part in this poll. No, it just wouldn't be right, as I can really vote in US elections and you can't. So this make believe vote prediction needs to be respected for what it is, a truly noble experience in American politics....from Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakeyhands Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 No, it just wouldn't be right, as I can really vote in US elections and you can't. So this make believe vote prediction needs to be respected for what it is, a truly noble experience in American politics....from Canada. One. Trick. Pony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 So this make believe vote prediction needs to be respected for what it is, a truly noble experience in American politics....from Canada. aye, aye Captain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 I've heard that typically the Iowa test, far from being a king maker, is more of an elimination round. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 One. Trick. Pony. No. Trick. Pony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 I've heard that typically the Iowa test, far from being a king maker, is more of an elimination round. That's exactly what it is, and the weak monied hands will fold if not successful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maple_leafs182 Posted January 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 Main stream media on the 2008 caucus and the 2012 caucus http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elx_XDIk1FE Ron Paul is doing well so it is now an irrelevant caucus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 Main stream media on the 2008 caucus and the 2012 caucus http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elx_XDIk1FE Ron Paul is doing well so it is now an irrelevant caucus. It is kind of irrelevant. After all, Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan also won Iowa in the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 South Carolina are where things are won and lost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maple_leafs182 Posted January 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 Threats to disrupt the Iowa Republican caucuses next week have prompted state GOP officials to move the vote tabulation to an "undisclosed location," POLITICO has learned. Source Going to count the votes in a secret location, that doesn't sound that smart to me, got to hope there is no cheating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) Ron Paul is doing well so it is now an irrelevant caucus. I was just watching a news clip on a major US news site, "Iowa full of wasteoids and meth addicts". I thought it a timely article intended to discredit the importance of the Iowa causcus, for some unknown reason... possibly because of the strength Ron Paul is now showing? Naaa, couldn't be... . Edited January 3, 2012 by Manny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 Main stream media on the 2008 caucus and the 2012 caucus http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elx_XDIk1FE Ron Paul is doing well so it is now an irrelevant caucus. This should raise some serious red flags about.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 Ron Paul is doing well so it is now an irrelevant caucus. You know what'll prove Iowa is irrelevant? If Rick Santorum wins or comes close. How important is the Iowa caucus really? Important enough that Huntsman skipped campaigning there altogether to concentrate on New Hampshire. They only have a small number of delegates, and it's of symbolic importance, not numeric. For Romney, Iowa doesn't matter that much because he's pretty strong everywhere, "red state" or "blue state". For somebody like Huntsman, Iowa doesn't matter at all because he will only show well in "blue states". For somebody like Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, and Michelle Bachmann, Iowa means everything, because it's going to signal to religious nut-case voters in upcoming caucuses which religious nut-case candidate is the one to get behind. Looks like Rick Santorum. Oh well. See ya, Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 It looks like this could go to a photo finish... Rick Santorum 23% 6,067 0 Mitt Romney 23% 6,060 0 Ron Paul 23% 6,018 0 Newt Gingrich 13% 3,502 0 Rick Perry 11% 2,733 0 Michele Bachmann 6% 1,553 0 Jon Huntsman 1% 165 0 -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 You know what'll prove Iowa is irrelevant? If Rick Santorum wins or comes close. Iowa's already been proven irrelevant in the past. It's not going to take Rick Santorum. As I've already stated, Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan both won Iowa in the past. Ronald Reagan lost Iowa in 1980 before going on to win the nomination and destroy Jimmy Carter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maple_leafs182 Posted January 4, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 Looks like a virtual tie between Santorum and Romney, Paul a close third. I wouldn't be surprised if Bachmann and Huntsman dropped out tomorrow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 Iowa's already been proven irrelevant in the past. It's not going to take Rick Santorum. As I've already stated, Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan both won Iowa in the past. Ronald Reagan lost Iowa in 1980 before going on to win the nomination and destroy Jimmy Carter. And Mike Huckabee won it in 2008. John McCain finished 4th, behind Huckabee, Romney, and Fred Thompson, the actor from Law and Order. So, plenty of reason to doubt how much Iowa matters, despite the video what's his name posted earlier. (The best part of the video, of course, is Alex Jones bellowing "Seventeeeeen Seventy Six!!!!" like the fat, dumb, mentally impaired idiot he is. Reminded me of for some reason.)Looks like a virtual tie between Santorum and Romney, Paul a close third. I wouldn't be surprised if Bachmann and Huntsman dropped out tomorrow. Huntsman won't. He's been busy campaigning in New Hampshire and is polling pretty strong there. He thinks that a strong showing in NH can put him on the map in this race, the same way Santorum's strong showing tonight did. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maple_leafs182 Posted January 4, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 Huntsman won't. He's been busy campaigning in New Hampshire and is polling pretty strong there. He thinks that a strong showing in NH can put him on the map in this race, the same way Santorum's strong showing tonight did. Ya, you are right. I don't think he will last past NH though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 And Mike Huckabee won it in 2008. John McCain finished 4th, behind Huckabee, Romney, and Fred Thompson, the actor from Law and Order. So, plenty of reason to doubt how much Iowa matters, despite the video what's his name posted earlier. (The best part of the video, of course, is Alex Jones bellowing "Seventeeeeen Seventy Six!!!!" like the fat, dumb, mentally impaired idiot he is. Reminded me of for some reason.)Huntsman won't. He's been busy campaigning in New Hampshire and is polling pretty strong there. He thinks that a strong showing in NH can put him on the map in this race, the same way Santorum's strong showing tonight did. -k Huntsman's not polling that strong there. Only around 10%. Romney's polling at 40%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 You know what'll prove Iowa is irrelevant? If Rick Santorum wins or comes close. How important is the Iowa caucus really? Important enough that Huntsman skipped campaigning there altogether to concentrate on New Hampshire. They only have a small number of delegates, and it's of symbolic importance, not numeric. For Romney, Iowa doesn't matter that much because he's pretty strong everywhere, "red state" or "blue state". For somebody like Huntsman, Iowa doesn't matter at all because he will only show well in "blue states". For somebody like Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, and Michelle Bachmann, Iowa means everything, because it's going to signal to religious nut-case voters in upcoming caucuses which religious nut-case candidate is the one to get behind. Looks like Rick Santorum. Oh well. See ya, Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry. -k that was an awesome post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.