Romney wins Iowa contest by eight votes
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
U.N. observers warn of Syria civil war after massacre
( 7 )
-
Obama on the defensive over spending, debt
( 18 )
-
Egypt's top candidates try to broaden support
( 1 )
-
Queen marks diamond jubilee riding wave of popularity
( 0 )
-
Thousands take part in 'Slut Walks' in Brazil
( 10 )
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
-
- National Relief/Substitute Teacher - summer start
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥275,000 ~ ¥300,000 / Month
-
- 営業パーソン
- 加治金属工業株式会社, Tochigi
- Salary: ¥240,000 ~ ¥350,000 / Month Negotiable
Order by Time Order by Popularity
57 Comments
Login to comment
2
Serrano
Gingrich: "Obama wil just tear him apart"
Heh, Obama will just tear the Republican candidate, whoever it is, apart.
-3
AiserX
Ron Paul would totally annihilate Obama on any given policy. It's just so easy to attack the man on his failures and incompetence.
4
sf2k
Ron Paul is very unsympathetic to anyone with health problems who cannot pay up. He's got a lot of baggage. He's a doctor and believes in creationism. How do you round that square?
0
Virtuoso
If Dubya Bush was the "compassionate conservative" then Ron Paul can be described as the "irrational reactionary." If he somehow manages to win the Republican nomination, he'll become the Barry Goldwater of 2012. The Republicans sorely need a reminder of the reasons why they lost so badly in 1964.
4
Laguna
The Republicans nominating Ron Paul would be like the Democrats nominating Bill Maher.
0
Laguna
Rachel Maddow hit it on the head when talking about policies such as cap-and-trade and the health insurance mandate:
This is, of course, because Obama is now for them; if he'd opposed these policies, such Republican opposition wouldn't exist. The GOP in practice stands for nothing anymore but knee-jerk reactionism, and whoever wins the nomination will win a poisoned chalice.
-1
Virtuoso
@Laguna that's not a good analogy, since there's no chance of Maher being nominated by the Dems.
0
Lieberman2012
rachel Maddow calling half the electorate and half of MSNBC viewers (afterall, the networks are not biased!)"blood-thirsty" is why I miss Keith Olbermann so much.
-2
AiserX
As a former physician, he would offer his services for free to those in most need of his own voluntary decisions. Of course only the individual can show sympathy, something that is impossible for govt. It's a bureaucrat sitting behind a desk whom the most needy will never see face to face, how is that sympathy? Of course the reason why people cannot afford H.C is because Govt is too heavily involved in the H.C industry. In a free market prices of goods and services fall and quality goes up such as plastic surgery, ipads, iphones ect. H.C cannot possibly fall in price so long as its subsidized by Govt via Medicaid, Medicare, SS, Pres drugs ect. As for his creationist leanings, so what? I don't care what my elective officials believe or don't believe in so long as they are not for big Govt and constant domestic and foreign intervention.
0
noriyosan73
Just in case there are some 100% Japanese asking the question, "What is the process for selecting a candidate for president?" it is important to remember one sentence: It is a matter of state's rights. All political questions as well as many other confusing situations about why one state does one process (Iowa) and another state does a different process (California), the answer is state's rights. The US Constitution leaves many decisions to the states' population. How to select its nominee for president is in the state's constitution. The population of Iowa is: 3,007,856 - Jul 2009. The population of California is: 36,961,664 - Jul 2009. Does the vote in Iowa matter? NO! Does it matter to contributions to a candidate in order to help buy a politician continue campaigning? YES.
0
globalwatcher
<<LagunaJan. 04, 2012 - 11:16AM JST
Laguna, this is a good one! I loved it.
Santorum with very limited campaigan money, Romney with LOTS of campaign money are currently tie, and Paul is slightly behind.
Santorum has been driving his pick up truck and campaignng in Iowa, and people of Iowa are now saying, "well looks like this guy is very serious and trying very hard, let's give him a try." That's how caucas should work. Americans love underdog. We are very fair minded people unlike Japanese, and I like that.
0
noriyosan73
Two more important points to try to understand the process. The Iowa American football stadium has 120,000 seats. The total number of people voting in the caucuses is 110,000 people. Some could even come in the door as registered Democrats, change to Republicans, then vote. The question of why doesn't the USA have one day for a primary election is also a concern. If the USA had one day for a primary election, the candidates would only visit 10 states, the ones with the biggest population. Iowa is a fly-over state. A candidate would only stop there just long enough to be able to say that he or she was in all 50 states, then move on to the the 10 states. Now wait for the electoral college process confusion after the election in November 2012. It is a very strange and different process. States' Rights Forever!
0
Laguna
No surprise so far. Bachmann is trailing badly, and she'll most likely exit the race after this. Perry and Gingrich will continue, the former because he has a chance in North Carolina and the latter because he views running for president as a money-making venture. So we'll end up with one down but one added going into New Hampshire - Huntsman - and from there to the South. It will be interesting to see whether Santorum is able to keep up his "Santorumentum" in the South; if so, we could see a brokered convention.
0
Badge213
5 out of the last 6 elections Iowa voted for a Democrat anyway.
1
MaboDofuIsSpicy
1 man, and 1 vote in my opinion. Dump the electoral college, and ban parties.
0
Riffraff
Where has the Heroes gone? Where are the leaders? The voters are left to choose the lesser of available evils.... The US sorely needs another viable political party to balance the Dems and Repbs. The Republican Party can’t field a strong presidential candidate and wallows in old party politics while Obama is dead set on making the US a broke welfare state, where taxes and entitlements rule the day.
0
noriyosan73
Political parties are important. The selection process of a presidential candidate sets the candidates apart. Iowa has one man/woman vote, it is just that nobody lives there. 3 million people in Iowa and 37 million in California. The most important part about the whole process is: IT STIMULATES THE ECONOMY. There are many people working in NY to produce ads, print paper, etc. In Iowa gas sales and restaurant attendance went up for people to get there. There are just so many benefits to this process. One person, one vote comes in the election. The next problem is that in California a person does not have to show photo ID to vote. It is possible for he or she to forge a registered voter;s signature. How is that done? Ask people to sign a petition for some insignificant law. The petition has the person's signature and address, i.e. voting precinct, then with adequate practice, just sign before the real voter gets to the poll. Chicago, Ill. has a easier way. Just vote. No questions asked. STATE"S RIGHTS!
1
globalwatcher
MaboDofu, I hope we are not going to one party system like communist countries like Russia and China.
-1
unreconstructed
Whatever. It's a nail biter for the One Percent Media, eager to proclaim the Republican race over and get on with savaging the winner, on behalf of the Democrat Party .
1
MaboDofuIsSpicy
1 party is a party. No party is zero. Ralph Nader should be in the running.
0
Laguna
Don't worry about the media, unre. The Republicans are doing just well savaging themselves, thank you. Here's a Huntsman attack on Paul parodying the Twilight Zone (it's quite funny): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGcy8MhJo9w
-1
Hategobo
The thought of months of newspaper and TV coverage of the US elections makes me want to eat my babies. Non stop Videos of AKB 48 would be preferable, they might be just as fake but at least they have better legs.
0
Weasel
The candidates can't be that awesome when you own party barely gave 25% of the vote to the winner.
0
Serrano
"5 out of the last 6 elections Iowa voted for a Democrat anyway"
Maybe it'll be 5 out of the last 7 elections after this one.
"Dump the electoral college, and ban parties"
Ban parties?
-1
zurcronium
Of all the losers and liars in the republican race the Iowa republicans pick Santorum? He has the brains of Perry and the religious nuttiness of Palin.
In the end it does not matter as the Iowa beauty test has no meaning at all. Huckleberry hound won last time in Iowa and dropped out not to much later. McCain came in fourth and eventually won the nomination.
1
paulinusa
Bring on Rick Santorum. He would probably lose almost all battlegound states.
0
Serrano
"the brains of Perry"
Hey, Perry received the Distinguished Eagle Scout Award! The Boy Scouts don't give them out to just anybody!
Plus he's the longest continuously serving current governor!
"he woud probably lose almost al battleground states"
There aren't going to be any battleground states this year, Obama can't possibly lose any state.
0
Jerome_from_Utah
One thing to remember is handicapping. Rick Santorum started this thing behind in all categories while Mitt Romney started his campaign in 2008, maybe even earlier, and also had a gob of money. Just beating Ron Paul's army would have been huge, but here he is in a virtual dead heat with Mitt Romney, tied for first. Now, the question is can he keep it going? One down, forty nine states to go...
0
lostrune2
With 99% of stations reporting:
Romney: 29,957 Santorum: 29,956
1
Laguna
Wow - looks like Perry IS out! With Bachmann most likely gone, too, Romney's path just got more difficult: those crazy enough to support Perry or Bachmann make up Santorum's base.
0
Serrano
That be close!
-5
Serrano
"those crazy enough to support Perry or Bachmann"
What about those crazy enough to support Obama?
0
lostrune2
Final numbers seem to be:
Romney: 30,015
Santorum: 30,007
-4
SushiSake3
Freaking hilarious – Romney with his massive war chest and nationwide profile very nearly gets clocked by Santorum, a weird guy who wants states to have the power to ban sodomy and birth control despite making it clear he would never vote to ban them himself.
Add to that, Michelle Bachmann only gets 5% IN HER OWN STATE. Why don’t they like her?
Then Perry goes back to Texas to ‘reassess’ his campaign (sounds just like one of the other total GOP failures Cain who ‘suspended’ his campaign..)
The GOP brings an entirely new meaning to the word ‘FAILURE.’ Hahahahaha. :-)
Romney's, yeah, he's your man if you supported any of the other even more ridiculous GOP/TP candidates.
Oh, and have conservatives worked out the difference between a book tour and a "presidential bid" yet? :-)
0
Laguna
There's a reason for that: if you "conclude" a campaign, you can no longer legally raise cash to pay off your campaign debts; if you "suspend" a campaign, you're no longer spending cash, but you can still collect it to pay off your debts.
3
Laguna
One other point: an unspoken rule in American politics is that the loser in a presidential race exiles himself (Gore et al), but the runner-up in the primary is next in line for the next cycle (Reagan et al). The only candidate in this race I see with any chance in the future is Huntsman (this is Romney's second try, Gingrich is old, and the rest of the field is crazy). So, with this field, the Republicans have not only ruined their chances in 2012, they've seriously compromised their chances in 2016.
0
unreconstructed
I always enjoy watching sushisake3 try to convince one and all that he actually understands US politics. It's as snicker-provoking as watching him try and assure readers here , probably for years now, that the Republican Party is doomed and the future can only be 'progressive' - which is why no doubt he carefully avoids any mention of Ron Paul's rather remarkable showing in iowa and his massive internet presence these last six years or so.
0
Mirai Hayashi
its more of statistical tie
0
smithinjapan
unreconstructed: "I always enjoy watching sushisake3 try to convince one and all that he actually understands US politics."
You've been saying this for how many years now? and yet the fact remains he DOES know and understand US politics -- a least in contrast to you and many other Americans. The fact is sometimes you need outside perspective to see things clearly, and clearly he's right that the GOP has redefined 'failure'.
Laguna says it better though: "So, with this field, the Republicans have not only ruined their chances in 2012, they've seriously compromised their chances in 2016."
Spot on. In 2016 we'll see some of the same faces, and likely some other TP nut-bags (if the party hasn't fractured by then... which would actually be a good idea!), fighting to win the nomination while the Dems sit back, again, and laugh and pat their guaranteed winner on the back.
-3
Herve Nmn L'Eisa
It's amusing to watch the statists squirm. There isn't a dime's worth of difference between BO and the Establishment Repugs. The big news in the Iowa results is that there is a movement towards a return to constitutional government and open discussion of true Republican positions rarely seen since Taft. There IS Hope for Change, and it isn't with Establishment candidates of either party. As for the Electoral College bashing, it's a key feature of the Constitutional Republic government system which provides a balance of States' power, ensuring the voice of smaller/less populated states is not trampled by the larger ones, preventing "mob rule" essentially. The Founders very wisely instituted this system as a check on democratic tyranny. It would be a travesty to alter or abandon it. If you vote, vote for individual liberty as envisioned and designed by the Founders.
-1
yabits
Iowa: The Tea Party's slow, steady destruction of the Republican Party continues apace.
0
DentShop
I think that following the State of the Union, Ron Paul is going to win Florida. Romney sure as heck wont.
-1
Jannetto
I hope all the people who've never heard of Santorum will google him. ;)
-1
Serrano
Santorum should demand an Al Gore-style recount!
1
Vernie Jefferies
One good thing about being in Japan, I don't have to deal with those awful negative campaign commercials every 15 minutes when the races gets heated up. I will never miss those at all....and I approve this message.
0
BurakuminDes
Is the world ready for a mormon to be the presidential candidate? (Not that there's anything wrong with that) I don't know how strict this Romney cat is - but being mormon he is no doubt strictly pacifist, and would withdraw a lot of US military from overseas if elected, no? They don't believe in fighting that mob. Unlike Obama who seems quite hawkish. Interesting anyway for an outsider.
0
The Truth Matters
That was a pretty expensive win, for such a short margin of victory for Romney. If anything, if I were him, I'd look at it as a moral loss. You tied with a guy whose name means a frothy discharge, often the by product of anal sex and spent a lot of money to do so.
0
Badge213
Or maybe it'll be 6 out of 7 after this one too.
0
lostrune2
Romney actually received 6 less votes than he did when he lost the Iowa caucus in 2008. How's that for consistency? But this time, he won it, even with 6 less people voting for him.
0
hworta269
Yeah Romney won after to counties votes got lost and were found, I smell an Acorn style election result here. Most the registered republicans voted for Santorum. Romneys status was not cemented in any way shape or form. A lor of Romney and Raun Paul primary votes were registered democtrats, Iowa and NH allows anyone to vote in the primaries.
-2
unreconstructed
Yeah. Keep telling yourself that the record turnout in Iowa has no meaning, no meaning whatsoever.
0
unreconstructed
smithinjapan
And four years ago on this day when Obama won iowa smith and Ssake3 were probably saying it was a grand victory but America , unlike Canada and New Zealand, is, you know, too racist to ever elect a black man president. Eight years ago they were probably saying Kerry had it in the bag...
-2
The Truth Matters
It has no meaning. No meaning whatsoever. There was a record turnout in the 2008 Iowa Caucus too. Guess who took Iowa in 2008? Uh....that would be the current President.
But don't let that stop you from waving your little fists in the air. It's cute.
-2
unreconstructed
If you say so, slugger.
You of all people know the drill: Read, weep, wave hands in Other Guy's face, change subject - -
"The Republican Party of Iowa has logged 33 consecutive months of registration gains. Since Obama's election, one in every ten registered Democrats in the state left his party.
Obama wins Iowa in 08 and the 1 Percent Media is delirious. When it's the R primary 2012 tho you get flaks and oikophobes like Andrea Mitchell saying Iowa doesn't matter, it's too white , it's too rural blah blah blah
http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/04/the-lessons-from-iowa/#ixzz1ibBtSd7w
Unreconstructed
-1
unreconstructed
SCOAMF couldn't bear the OnePercentMedia paying any American more attention than they do him so he had to insert himself in the Iowa primary to try and run interference. Talk about desperate...
"Uh, The problems that we've been dealing with, uh, over the last three years didn't happen overnight, and, and we're not going to fix them overnight," Obama said, speaking from a hotel in downtown Washington to 250 Democratic caucus sites around Iowa."
Pathetic
-2
Lieberman2012
Why is that? Because you like your political commentary as scatological as possible?
0
The Truth Matters
I say so slugger.
Obama is beating every republican in the polls and his approval rating is improving and he's not even in campaign mode yet.
I cannot wait for his reelection. That it will bother you will be my greatest joy.
Back to top