Iowa caucus

[White Shogun]

They're making a lot of noise on the MSM that Obama won the Democratic caucus in a predominately white state (95%). One pundit even said it was 'historic.'

On both Fox and MSNBC, the Democrats total percentage of votes casts equals 100%, but the top four Republican candidates total only 70-75%. They have only showed the so-called 'second tier' Republican candidate totals only once, and Ron Paul was at 11%. McCain is at 12%, and they are saying this is a strong showing for McCain, who should do well in NH. I don't think anybody except his supports expected Ron Paul to show double digits, and the MSM is not simply not interested in reporting this story.

Romney is in second, and they are announcing his entire campaign is now in jeopardy! LOL

Your thoughts?

 

[Liverlips]

I don't really care because no candidate in either party speaks for us. I'll most likely vote for Ron Paul because I am a libertarian on many issues.

Whether the GOP selects Huckleberry, Romney, McCain or Guiliani we'll get a pro-immigration (as long as they are non-white), pro-affirmative action, pro-multiculturalism, pro-hate crimes (unless whites are the victims), anti-Confederate flag, anti-white candidate.

I'll cast my usual vote for a third party in the general election. Conservatives and libertarians will go nowhere unless they start supporting (or take over) a third party. The GOP is worse than a dead end for whites.

 

[johnnyboy]

I don't really care because no candidate in either party speaks for us. I'll most likely vote for Ron Paul because I am a libertarian on many issues.

Whether the GOP selects Huckleberry, Romney, McCain or Guiliani we'll get a pro-immigration (as long as they are non-white), pro-affirmative action, pro-multiculturalism, pro-hate crimes (unless whites are the victims), anti-Confederate flag, anti-white candidate.

I'll cast my usual vote for a third party in the general election. Conservatives and libertarians will go nowhere unless they start supporting (or take over) a third party. The GOP is worse than a dead end for whites.

the GOP isnt perfect but its better than a black president....which is who you will really be supporting if you vote for a third party candidate this election.


make no mistake, Obama is the real deal. he can win and iowa proves that. im hoping he'll slip up some how in new hampshire and lose steam before the campaign heads south. but so far he's done an excellent job of getting the average vote to correlate "change" with, having a black president. i can only pray that edwards and hillary join forces and slow him down.



Edited by: johnnyboy

 

[white is right]

Iowa means nothing to the chances of any Democrat as the state is strongly GOP. It will be interesting to see what happens in New Hampshire as that's another conservative state.

 

[Lance Alworth]

This is disappointing as the two weakest, worst candidates from both parties won this. That whole little caucus on CSpan looked like an out of touch retirement community who should stick to deciding what pudding they are going to serve in the lunch line than who was going to be the President of the US.

And therein lies the problem. Most of these people are old geezer types who are stuck in a time warp. They are uninformed and get most of their info from the television and John Hagee-types rather than the internet. They still think its 1960.

Fortunately the New Hampshire caucus is next and that state tends to lean more towards libertarian candidates. Ron Paul should have a better showing, although the 10% showing he had in Iowa is nothing to sneeze at.

 

[bigunreal]

Either the votes were not counted (which is always a good possibility) or the voters in Iowa are just incredibly stupid. I don't want to believe that one of the whitest voting blocs in the country went for Barack Obama, while at the same time giving the only decent candidate in the race (Ron Paul) less support than John McCainiac. It would make me feel better to know that they didn't count the votes, because at least then there is some hope.

I really don't think Barack Obama would be any different from every other modern U.S. President. Could he possibly be more anti-white male than Clinton or Bush? Really, all his election would mean is that Affirmative Action had conquered the highest office in the land. I don't think he'd be able to make things worse, even if he wanted to.

New Hampshire will be a true test for Ron Paul, and for the viability of our electoral process. The state uses paper ballots, and thus is less prone to rigged results than the other early primary states. Pat Buchanan won there in 1996, so you know they were counting the votes then. Ron Paul has clear and obvious support there, and everywhere else in the country. If the voting is legitimate, he will win.

 

[white is right]

He could become a pawn for black activists. Rust belt states voted for Jackson in 88'. The same Jackson that hugged Yasser and hugged Fidel. Anything is possible....

Edited by: white is right

 

[Lance Alworth]

.

New Hampshire will be a true test for Ron Paul, and for the viability of our electoral process. The state uses paper ballots, and thus is less prone to rigged results than the other early primary states.

Yeah, Iowa didn't do that. In fact, I never seen such a disorganized and sloppy vote in my life! These people were voting not with a ballot, but with a piece of scratch paper! Then they collected the votes in envelopes they passed around, then they sorted them by precinct and then by candidate.

I don't know if this is representative of the entire states voting bloc but when I was watching the televised caucus vote, they were at one of the precincts and there didn't appear to be anyone there under the age of 30. Most of them looked to be senile 60-70 year olds. All I know is Iowa has a lot of dumbasses living there (no offense to any CFers from Iowa) and if its any representation of the nation as a whole, we are screwed!Edited by: Lance Alworth

 

[Bear-Arms]

The Democrats caucus by showing up and standing in a group for their candidate. They don't do a straight vote like the Republicans.

A few days before the caucus candidates were complaining that Obama and others were busing in students from Illinois and other states to caucus.

 

[Menelik]

I thought that Ron Paul would do much better. I thought that his campaign was attracting a lot of people. I think that the hype he is receiving on the internet isn't translating to real world gains.

 

[White Shogun]

All I know is Iowa has a lot of dumbasses living there (no offense to any CFers from Iowa) and if its any representation of the nation as a whole, we are screwed!

As opposed to where, Albania?

I'll take Iowa's choice over California's or New York's, that's for damn sure.

 

[C Darwin]

I'll take Iowa's choice over California's or New York's, that's for damn sure.

Dr. Ron won the NY republican straw poll.

. Not all of us reside in Douchebaggastan.

 

[fjsdlra]

Do any of you think that it will EVER be an issue about Obama being the son of a muslim?Didn't he also attend an islamic school at one time as a child?Whatever he claims to be he doesn't seem like someone who would be tough on terrorism.......

Also it's a little annoying that it doesn't seem as if he is criticized anywhere near as much as the other candidates.It's like people fear of being labeled "racist" if they do.But Iam sure if he doesn't get elected there will be those who whine racism.

 

[Menelik]

I'll take Iowa's choice over California's or New York's, that's for damn sure.

Dr. Ron won the NY republican straw poll.

. Not all of us reside in Douchebaggastan.

A grand total of 26 votes!

NY Straw Poll

 

[Guest]

I agree that Ron Paul is the only real candidate here.

 

[sport historian]

At Vdare.com, Peter Brimelow wrote a blog entry explaining why Ron Paul didn't do any better in the Iowa caucus. Namely, Paul did not make immigration one of his major issues. Paul's voting record is very good, but especially lately he has said almost nothing on immigration and border control, and has been "asleep" in Peter Brimelow's words.

By contrast, Huckabee(!) got 36% of the votes of people who said immigartion was their top issue. And it was the top issue: named by a third of the caucus-goers, vs. only 17% for the war in Iraq.

Huckabee did it by outpromising his rivals. Huckabee has been very bad for years. But now he has one of the strongest patriotic immigration reform platforms according to NumbersUSA. Of course Huckabee's sincerity is doubtful, but it worked.

In contrast, Paul started out with a strong platform, but let the issue be taken away from him. He got only 9% of Iowa immigartion reformers. Paul will probably soon be out of the race and this will be a major reason. Below is the thread from Vdare.

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2008/01/04/huckabee-carries-I owas-patriotic-immigration-reform-vote/

 

[PitBull]

Everyone's assuming that the vote tallies were on the up-and-up to explain
the results. But the caucus system is ridiculous and easily tampered with.
Do a little research on the caucus system.

New Hampshire will tell a lot more acurately what Dr. Paul's real support is.
They have one of the least-corruptible voting systems out there.

 

[Lance Alworth]

All I know is Iowa has a lot of dumbasses living there (no offense to any CFers from Iowa) and if its any representation of the nation as a whole, we are screwed!

As opposed to where, Albania?

I'll take Iowa's choice over California's or New York's, that's for damn sure.

LOL

Fair enough. But that doesn't mean much being that Iowa's two picks in this caucus were a turn-the-other-cheek, bleeding heart liberal pastor and a racist black muslim. Huckabee and Obama are by far the two worst candidates running. Even worse than Hillary and Guiliani.

 

[Don Wassall]

Everyone's assuming that the vote tallies were on the up-and-up to explain
the results. But the caucus system is ridiculous and easily tampered with.
Do a little research on the caucus system.

Interesting link: http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=116052
<BIG><BIG>ELRON - VOXEO: The Israeli Defense Firm That Tallies the Iowa Caucus</BIG></BIG>

 

[Bart]

Interesting link: http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=116052

Oh my gosh! Unbelievable! Comrade Stalin had it right when he said:"Those who cast the vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything."

 

[Deus Vult]

Louisiana has a caucus on Jan. 22nd. If any fellow castefootballers are registered as Republicans in Louisiana did not know about the caucus, or have not been included in the organizational process, please e-mail me at grm99@bellsouth.net

We plan to kick ass at the Louisiana caucus. Don't be surprised if Ron Paul SWEEPS and gets all the elected delegates.

 

[Bronk]

The day before the Iowa Caucas some guy speculated that Billary may come in third. Juan Williams said, "yeah, well that's not going to happen."

 

[Guest]

Edwards and Obama are representing the gentile's revolt against the Democratic machine's heavy tilt towards Zionism (most of the money comes from Jews and it tilts towards Israel's war policy). Same thing as happened in CT with Lamont over Holy Joe Lieberman in the primary, but of course all the troops rallied for Holy Joe even Knee Pads Hannity. If you go to the main liberal chat sites they nearly all warn against anything "anti-semetic" which of course means bow your head your not worthy, and you must substitute "anti-war" for jew in your posts.