I just got back from the Republican Caucus. Well, actually, I just got back from the Democratic Caucus as well. We got some bad information and showed up at Obama headquarters and spent a few embarrassing minutes figuring out we were at the wrong place. So, we ended up being a few minutes late when we finally got to the Republican Caucus.
The Democratic Caucus process is really complicated. They have “viable” candidates and “non-viable” candidates and revotes and groupings and all sorts of things. The Republican process is much simpler. Each candidate gets five minutes of promotional time. Speakers must be from the precincts which are caucusing. We live in Precinct 29 and caucused together with Precinct 34. The first speaker for each candidate gets three minutes then another may speak for two minutes.
As we got there (a few minutes late) while the speakers were just starting. I will give some of the highlights (and lowlights) of the speeches.
Michelle Bachmann – One young man spoke for Bachmann, emphasizing her faith in God and her commitment to undoing Obama’s policies. He was very soft-spoken and probably didn’t help the cause too much. Bachmann is projected to finish last in the race (except for Huntsman who didn’t even show up here) and will probably drop out of the race soon.
Newt Gingrich – Two speakers spoke on behalf of Newt’s candidacy. The first, a younger woman, emphasized his experience and tried to tie him to Reagan and his policies. The second speaker spent his time addressing Newt’s problems. I thought this was a mistake – to remind people of all the problems that have been raised. The divorces – he mentioned that Newt has now been married for 12 years and has repented of his previous sins. He cataloged some of Newt’s positions that are unpopular and even some of the ethical questions. Again, I think his speech was effective in reminding caucusers that Newt has a lot of baggage.
Ron Paul – One young man spoke for Ron Paul. It was clear he was reading from a written set of remarks. I wondered as I listened if campaigns perhaps give out “talking points” speeches for various caucuses. It was an informational, even inspirational speech read poorly. An appeal from the floor produced no one else that was interested in talking on Paul’s behalf.
John Huntsman – the precinct chair asked if anyone wanted to speak for John Huntsman. One guy raised his hand and shouted, “He has really nice hair.” That was the funniest moment of the caucus.
Rick Perry, Mitt Romney – No one spoke for either of these candidates. I thought that was strange. Romney is one of the leaders and Perry was once a powerful force in the Republican discussion. But no one wanted to speak for either candidate.
Rick Santorum – A chiropractor I know spoke first for Rick Santorum. He made a passionate appeal for Republicans to unite around whomever the candidate is and to defeat Obama. He was followed to the stage by a stunningly handsome Baptist pastor who edits a Southern Baptist blog which shall remain nameless.
I spoke about the struggle I had to select a candidate this time. I had liked Santorum all along but he had been so low in the polls that it seemed almost silly to vote for him. Once he started to surge, I became more enamored with him. I appreciate his character, his conservative stance on social issues, and his record of work in congress.
After that, we voted.
Here is how the vote broke down at our precinct: (300 total ballots cast)
Santorum – 142 votes.
Romney – 57 votes.
Paul – 44 votes
Newt – 40 votes
Perry – 14 votes
Bachmann – 3 votes
Huntsman – 0 Votes.
Of course, those results do not reflect the statewide race which last I checked was pretty much a 3-way tie between Santorum, Romney and Paul. Bachmann’s campaign is pretty much over. Perry is also circling the drain, and unless Newt makes a huge comeback in New Hampshire or South Carolina, he will be close behind.
Paul had a strong “ground-game” and put a lot into organization here in Iowa. His support is not surprising, though it is a little higher than I thought. Romney, right now, is right were he has been all along.
The Iowa caucuses are not about selecting a nominee. They are about thinning the herd. So, coming out of Iowa, here is where things seem to stand.
1) A big deal will be made about who wins. But if the candidates remain as they are now – the top three within a point of two of each other – winning is insignificant. All three of the top candidates get a bounce and a boost.
2) Romney has a huge problem. He is the leading candidate, but consistently, 70 percent of Republicans remain enthusiastic about him and his candidacy. “Anti-Romney” candidates come and go as people switch support from one to the other. But they are not going to Mitt.
3) I still don’t think Ron Paul is viable, but that may be wishful thinking. His supporters are passionate, almost messianic, about him, but I just don’t see the appeal. However, he has shown that at the very least, he cannot be marginalized or ignored.
4) Santorum is in the limelight now. The Santorum surge seems to have been real. He will likely be the big news. Two weeks ago he was polling around 6 percent and now, he may win or at least finish within shouting distance of the top. He’s in the limelight, but he is also now a target. Each time a candidate surged, the political hit-men went to work. In the last couple of days I got a bunch of prerecorded calls telling me how awful Rick Santorum is. Evidently, Rick was mentored by Stalin, probably venerates Hitler as a saint and tortures puppies for sport. I never stayed on long enough to hear who was paying for these calls, but they disgust me.
5) I am SO glad that the caucus is over and all the calls will stop. It has been increasingly annoying even as I grew increasingly interested.
So, this is probably my last political post for a while.
Here is a link to the results, for you political animals.
Latest results – Santorum with 25%, Romney at 24% and Paul at 22%.
I make a solemn PROMISE that I am through with political commentating for several months (unless I change my mind).
And boy, when I said loudly at the Democratic Caucus, “We’re Republicans” – we got some VERY dirty looks.
I bet…lol.
**snortchucklegaffaw**
That hurts. That really hurts.
Let’s see…lives up north, roots for Yankees, attends Democratic Party Caucus.
Yep. Pretty sure Dave Miller is Catholic.
For clarity, I stumbled into the Democratic Caucus – which is where ours was last time. My wife and daughter say I made a scene, but that can’t be true.
ROFL 🙂
Here’s something to celebrate ALL the good people who had enough hope in the American dream to turn out to caucus
in Iowa tonight . . .
even if a few a them got a little bit lost along the way 🙂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oaaa_Ll20co&feature=related
Stumbled into the Democratic Caucus??? been drinking ALCOHOL! hummm, Dave?
David 🙂
I keep hearing stories of craziness. My district was dull.
The only exciting part at mine was the last speaker of the night – second Santorum speaker.
Who won yours, Dan?
Did you go to Bob’s inauguration today?
With just over 107,000 votes counted, Santorum leads Romney by 45 votes. Its a good thing this is a caucus, not an election, or there would be recounts until June.
Make that 13 votes out of 110,000 or so.
Still 13 votes out of 112,350, but now Romney leads. This is the closest race I’ve ever seen.
Now, with 96% counted, it remains at 13 vote difference – with Santorum back in the lead. Never saw anything like this.
I’m still a Romney guy, but this will prompt me to give Santorum a closer look. Up till now I haven’t really paid any attention to him.
Dave,
“Messianic?” Really? I think you and others that use that term are being a bit dramatic and over the top.
Yes, they are very passionate- it is because they know he is the only guy running that will actually make big needed changes and deal with the debt. Any vote that isn’t for Paul IS a vote for more of the same.
Do I think he will win the nomination? No. Do I think any significant change will happen? No.
Sanatorum is the only other guy with integrity and brains running though so I’m glad he did well.
“it is because they know he is the only guy running that will actually make big needed changes and deal with the debt. Any vote that isn’t for Paul IS a vote for more of the same.”
Comments like that kinda make my point, Matt. Ron Paul is the only one who can change things in America. It’s a little like the hype that surrounded Barack Obama – and I suspect just about as true.
Actually, the reason for saying that Ron Paul is the only one that isn’t like the others is because he isn’t. Have you heard anyone else promise to cut $1 trillion dollars? And furthermore, would you actually believe that any of the others would do it even if they did say they would? The financial state of our country is what will sink us long before any of the other problems get a chance. Most of the modern Republican party has been just as happy to spend money as the Democrats who are in office. They just want to spend… Read more »
Here is the problem that you, other Paulbots, and Ron Paul himself is forgetting (though I question whether Ron Paul actually forgot this or if he is playing everyone as fools like a typical politician). You say Ron Paul is going to do all of this (kill the FED, cut spending, ect). You also say he is a strict constitutionalists. So how do you reconcile those two when Paul will NOT be supported by Congress in may of these areas? The Constitution does NOT give the President the power to do these actions unilaterally (or any action unilaterally for that… Read more »
The Constitution does NOT give the President the power to do these actions unilaterally (or any action unilaterally for that matter), without the support and consent of Congress. Quite true. In case you haven’t noticed, most of Washington isn’t playing by the rules anymore, particularly those in the White House. Executive Orders, which are not constitutional in the first place, can be overturned by the same office that issued them (in theory) if the holder of that office has the temerity to do so. And you read far to much into my comment above. I am not sure that he… Read more »
I use “paulbot” because you Paul supporters are getting dangerously close to sounding identical to the supporters of another crazy man. Todd Bentley. Never heard of him? He had a “revival” in Lakeland florida a few years back. Look up some videos on him on Youtube, particularly “Exploding Tumor!!!!” and “Worst Assault at Todd Bentley Raging Revival”. I had the “wonderful” opportunity to debate some of his supporters (and other WoF folk to who I will lump in this group for this example). And the sheer blind fanaticism of his (and the WOF movement as a whole) supporters was very… Read more »
Smuschany, If the comments I have made here sound like “blind fanaticism” to you, then you have misread them badly. I just threw my opinion into the ring. I have nothing invested in Paul, but he does have more credibility with me because of his track record compared with any of the other candidates at this point. It is as simple as that. I am really amused at your comparison to Todd Bentley fanatics. I am fully aware of who he is and the issues. I think I even blogged about him at the time. I think your comparison of… Read more »
And the idea that a vote for the other candidates is the “more of the same” is simply not dealing in reality.
I think denying that is simply not dealing with reality.
When you look at everyone proposals only Pauls are truly different.
I’m just wondering, Matt, why you think Paul would be effective as President? Yea, I agree with you that his ideas as radically different from those of the other candidates. But that’s exactly the point, right? How is a guy who shares little in common with his own Party supposed to be able to get something done? It takes two to tango. Paul can’t pass legislation. He needs Congress and most in Congress don’t agree with Paul and, to his credit, Paul doesn’t seem to bend on anything. He’s the purist not the compromising consensus-builder (the latter is a good… Read more »
BDW,
You and I disagree a lot but here you and I are in full agreement. You express yourself very well.
Matt,
All this Ron Paul and no one else attitude is going to accomplish is the very more of the same that you fear because it will ensure a victory for President Obama. There are very real differences in governance between Republicans and Democrats and we need to make sure that President Obama is a one termer. I’m willing to compromise a little to accomplish that.
Ron Paul is like Glenn Beck. A little brilliance surrounded by a whole lotta crazy. People are finally waking up to the fact that Newt Gingrich is an intelligent dirtbag politician.
That’s funny.
It appears that there is a scandal brewing in Iowa. Due to our liberal gay marriage laws, many folks changed their registration and voted Republican, thinking they were voting for RuPaul, not Ron Paul.
We do a primary rather than a caucus in Oklahoma. I like the way Iowa does it because it accomodates greater political involvement. Having said that I couldn’t vote for Ron Paul because of his foreign policy position especially concerning Israel. (I don’t expect ammils to agree with me) I like his small government stances though.
The caucuses are nice because everyone gets together and talks things over. It’s interesting.
Sounds like after everything has been counted, Mitt Romney gets a 14 vote victory. Incredible. 125,000 votes and a 4 vote separation. Hanging chads, anyone?
One thing is that the popular vote in Iowa doesn’t really matter. The Caucuses actually elect delegates to the state convention at which delegates to the national nominating conventions. So, basically, in what matters (delegates) Romney and Santorum tie. Gingrich, Perry and Bachmann lose.
Actually, it was 8 votes. 122,000 votes cast and 8 votes separate them.
Well, 8 votes in the final count is, in a way, 4 votes—had 4 of those 8 voted for Santorum instead of Romney, it would have been a tie.
So it was 4. And it was 8.
And I just got done with business meeting, so I’m out of brain.
I was a PoliSci major for a while in college and learned more there about massaging numbers to fit presentation than I’ve learned as a Baptist pastor.
I like Santorum but I really think that Romney is our best bet against President Obama.
Thanks for this report and your participation in the caucus. The test for the major parties every 4 years is once a candidate is selected will the supporters of the other candidates get behind that candidate, or will they “take their toys and go home.” Usually, everyone rallies around the standard bearer. But that’s for later, not now. The primary process is important and all Republicans and Democrats should make the selection they feel is best. I believe that for Romney to win Iowa is a huge thing, even if he only won by 8 votes. He will win New… Read more »
“But I hope that none who would have otherwise voted for Romney decide not to do so because he is a Mormon.”
A-Men Louis, I will ride the river with you on that. I would just about vote for an Amazon River Cannibal over the incumbent.
CB:
Let’s hope that it’s not just because of the incumbent’s performance or perception of his performance, but also because we are wise and charitable people.
Louis, Last election the so called “evangelical vote” did not rally around John McCain. Today John McCain announced his support for Mitt Rommney. What Biblical principle or command would you use as the guiding text for your call to political pragmatism. I see none. What you do with the Biblical admonish-on to choose leaders who fear the Lord. In fact does not the Lord promise His Wrath on those follow after idols. I am assuming you agree that the god of Mormonism is an idol. I for one, will Never vote for Mitt Rommney. Even the loss of this nation… Read more »
Looks like you carried the night for Santorum, Dave. Ask for the Ambassadorship to the Vatican as a reward.
It seems Pat Robertson already has the inside scoop but he isn’t talking. Probably quietly placing bets with Las Vegas casinos. I asked God about the majority thing that Pat alluded to and I reminded him, gently of course, of statements like having a remnant, and such did not seem to support majorities being necessary for him as a matter of principle to give his blessing. Then I went silent and listened. All this time, we have been getting it wrong on this account. As it turns out, someone wasn’t paying attention, I learned. It is not that God has… Read more »
Dave,
Thanks for the personal peek into the Iowa caucus. A strange mix so far as I am concerned. I presently wander in the dessert wilderness with no political manna in sight. Indeed I have no clear choice now that Gingrich looks like he may go the way of Cain (albeit not for the same reason). Of course, it could be argued that the potato state is much too small to get excited about any loss or any victory (no, wait! that’s Idaho!:)
With that, I am…
Peter
Actually, here in Iowa, at least, the cases are not that much different. Cain’s candidacy, which I found intriguing, was shipwrecked by accusations of moral indiscretions – real or not. Many people I talked to here really liked Gingrich, but his candidacy was derailed largely because of the marital issues of long ago.
Actually, if Newt didn’t have all that baggage, he would have been a fascinating candidate. I guarantee you that Obama would not have wanted to debate him. Smart and well-spoken.
He’s not completely through, but if he’s going to make a charge, it better start soon.
The idea that republicans and democrats are basically the same is a real head scratcher for me. The two have totally different philosophies. For instance I pay about $1000 less per year in taxes thanks to Pres. Bush’s tax cuts. Did Bush spend a lot of money? Yes, way more than I prefer, but Pres. Obama has spent way more in 3 years than Pres. Bush did in 8. I feel that my votes for Bush were justified in just two decisions namely Roberts and Alito. The partial birth abortion ban is another. The current administration is on the wrong… Read more »
What do you guys think of the suggestion I have heard that Romney has been proping Santorium up and/or surreptitiously supporting him against Gingrich, Paul, and the others because he figures that if it come down to a two-man race for the nomination, he will be considered more “electable”? FYI: I would consider voting for either Romney or Santorium, though I want to see whether they move more to the fringes or more to the center. If they move toward the fringes to get the Tea Party & conservative evangelical votes, it virtually guarantees an Obama victory. Why? Because just… Read more »
Honestly, I don’t think any of these campaigns could plan far enough ahead. No, the Santorum surge was almost exclusively a Christian conservative movement – very strong in Iowa.
I’m leaning strongly towards Santorum now.
David
“It takes two to tango. Paul can’t pass legislation. He needs Congress and most in Congress don’t agree with Paul and, to his credit, Paul doesn’t seem to bend on anything. ” I think the support of Paul from many quarters is the frustration over things. And I totally understand it. We do need radical change as we are hurdling down the road to full socialism at breakneck speed. It is just that the strategist that lives in me knows it won’t work. Unless Paul could make such a case on several issues to the voters and he has a… Read more »
John: Your theory about Romney helping Santorum in is interesting. There are always all types of psy-ops going on in politics. It is really interesting. I have always believed that Perot was a loose cannon who was goaded or egged on into running by Larry King and Mario Cuomo. Most of you will not remember this, but before Perot actually threw his hat in the ring in 1992 Cuomo was talking him up on King’s show. King had him on and gave him encouragement to run based on his $5 haircut and direct manner. And the rest is history. It… Read more »
One thing: the hands-off-Santorium is not my idea. I heard it somewhere, I think on one of the news shows, but I do not remember which. I watch a wide variety, from Fox to CNN to MSNCB to the broadcast channels. And yes, I know enough about politics to know that Machevelli today would be considered a rank amature, but I do not have the gift–or curse, whatever–of unraveling it all. My father was a small town police chief for 10+ years, and it beats me how he survived that long; he got the job on merit after a succession… Read more »
Another place you see this is in the media obsession with the possibility of a “Third Party” candidacies and movements. I firmly believe that Pat Buchanan’s becoming involved in the Reformed Party to kill it and stop the blood letting in the Republican circles. I also believe that Ralph Nader’s candidacy was assisted in some quarters by closeted Republicans. Some thought McCain would run as an independent in 2000 when he lost to Bush – and that Perot would help fund him. Some tried to goad Jesse Ventura into getting in the race in 2000, which would have hurt Bush… Read more »
Louis the bottom line is that these guys who are on the Ron Paul only bandwagon are only ensuring we get more of the status quo under President Obama. Ron Paul cannot win. And even if he ran as a third party candidate he would not win he would just reelect the President.
Louis, I think you are right there are psy-ops. But I would also mention that I saw the DNC talking points from BEFORE Perry entered the race. They were very afraid of Perry early on. They need not to have worried. As to Perot, there was long time personal animosity for Bush going on there, too. He did not have to be goaded too far. Does anyone remember that SNL skit they did on Perot and Stockdale? (His first running mate) It was hilarious! Obama was Jesse Jackson running without the personal baggage. Their politics are the same. Why do… Read more »
Lydia:
It is interesting to look at people’s perceptions of leadership.
And you are right about Perry. I have heard that he has done some (not all) good things in Texas and that he was re-elected by a wide margin.
But I don’t think I have ever seen a candidate come off as badly as he has.
I do remember the SNL skit – “Why am I here?”
To My American friends who support Mitt Romney.
Beware of the Judgement of God
http://tinyurl.com/88tajb3
Is it too late to get CB Scott and Dave Miller on the ballot?