E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSAll across Iowa next Tuesday, tens of thousands of Republican voters will travel through a chilly Midwestern night to the warmth of a local church or gymnasium for caucus meetings to select presidential candidates, the first voting in the 2012 election campaign.
These Midwestern, mostly white voters hardly resemble America as a whole, and their voting system puzzles most people. Yet Iowa holds substantial sway over how the nation chooses the president.
Recommended: First Thoughts: Why not Santorum?
"Iowa will choose the next president of the United States in their early caucuses," Republican hopeful Michele Bachmann said recently. "This is the cannon shot."
The caucuses — essentially community meetings — have served as a launching pad to the nomination, and often to the White House, for the past 40 years, though they've been around since the 1840s. Candidates tend to lavish attention on Iowa, hoping that a good showing will give them a burst of publicity to improve their chances in New Hampshire, which votes Jan. 10, and in other early voting states.
It's this contest that helped propel Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore to their parties' nominations in 2000. It also helped Democrat John Kerry become Bush's challenger in 2004. And the caucuses gave Democrat Barack Obama his first win in 2008, though Mike Huckabee won on the Republican side, not the eventual GOP nominee, John McCain.
The caucus process seems arcane and mysterious, even to people in Iowa. That is in part because most people don't even participate. About 359,000 people — 17 percent of registered voters in Iowa — showed up for Democratic and Republican caucuses in 2008. Turnout will certainly be lower this year, since Obama is unopposed. And the GOP turnout may not exceed the record-setting 120,000 attendees that the party's contest saw four years ago.
Caucuses are held in all of the state's 1,774 voting precincts, some in remote spots where only a handful of voters gather, others in big community centers or schools that host several precincts under one roof. In all, Republicans will gather in about 800 locations.
This relatively small number of voters, and their overwhelmingly white makeup, routinely bring Iowa's caucuses under attack by outsiders who want more clout for their own states. Only 5 percent of Iowa's electorate is Hispanic and only 3 percent is black, compared with a national electorate that is 16 percent Hispanic and 12 percent black.
For their part, Iowans jealously guard their first-in-the-nation nominating contests.
While both parties in Iowa use the caucus system to choose candidates, Republicans and Democrats go about things differently.
For the GOP, the caucuses are simply a straw poll, meaning the results are not binding. While Democrats use the caucuses to choose delegates who are expected to support their favored candidate, Republicans handle that later at county and district conventions.
After electing a temporary chair to run the meeting and a secretary to record the proceedings, any Republican who chooses can briefly speak in favor of a candidate. Ballots are then passed out and participants mark their choices in private. Those ballots are quickly counted and the results called into party headquarters, where they are posted online as they are received.
Any Republican voter can participate, including those who register when they arrive at the event. People too young to vote can also take part if they will be 18 by the general election.
Democrats, when there are multiple candidates, take a more convoluted approach.
Democrats break into preference groups at their caucuses, publicly declaring which candidate they favor. Candidates must get support from 15 percent of those attending the caucus in order to receive votes. Once they break into those groups, activists try to attract those whose candidates have fallen short of the 15 percent threshold.
After the results are reported to party headquarters, the numbers are run through a formula that changes the value of votes based on a county-by-county analysis of Democratic performance in the last gubernatorial and presidential elections.
"The Republican caucuses and Democratic caucuses are two different beasts," said Democratic strategist Phil Roeder. "In the big picture, it makes for a very different result."
Democratic strategist Jerry Crawford put it another way: "Democrats always like to make things more difficult."
Although the Republicans have a simpler system, caucuses by both parties require more time and greater participation than in a primary election.
Activists said that level of commitment means that for a candidate to be successful, he or she must make connections with voters, then build an organization that can get them to their precinct gatherings.
"People still expect to see the candidates in person," said Steve Scheffler, who heads the influential Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition. "The candidates who have spent the most time here will benefit."
Leave a Comment:
who cares.
anyone but the supreme socialist
You mean Bachmann? :-)
Obama is no socialist. That said, a lot of the Republican field are definitely fascists.
if he's not a Socialist he's a Communist
either way... he's done
Velocirap - I doubt you even know the definition of a Socialist or a Communist. Go do some research and come back with a better comment. Hopefully, the republicans will give the nomination to Gingrich as well. Then Obama will crush him in 2012 and it will be a landslide victory
<-- Let's elect this loser....
He's not a communist either, but keeping listening to FOX news.
@Velocicrap we got rid of the supreme socialist - George Bush - he was a socialist who wanted to redistribute middle American's income to the rich.
Are they really arcane? Do they have alchemy booths? That would be interesting.
I love people like this. WWII was this country's greatest experiment in consentual socialism. Guess what? It vaulted us out of the great depression. Sure, we had to tax the bejeebers out of everyone, and call in every war marker we had to pay for it, but in the end, radical, but consentual, socialism gave us the middle class.
Ironic, isn't it? That virtual nationalization of all industry in the name of state security brought us our golden age?
When will people learn the definition of "socialist"?
*sigh*
I guess you don't need intelligence when you have Fox News telling you what to say.
You guys seriously think they'll be changes next election..Even if your dream did com true for either side nothing will change.
He is a Socialist because FOX told me so. FOX always tells me things that I already 'suspect' are true or will know that is true because FOX will tell me so. FOX will make it true! So there! Thank goodness someone finally stepped up to the plate and replaced Senator McCarthy - a whole network!
Isn't that Right?
Excuse me, I need to go wash my mouth out with soap.
socialism... taking money from those who earned it and giving it to those who didn't
simple really.
Not only do you not need intelligence for FOX News, its highly recommended that you don't have any. I think there is a maximum allowable IQ to partake in their forums.
so·cial·ism A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Not sure how that means taking money from people that earned it and giving it to those that didn't. In the Faux News alternate reality, it must be so along with No means Yes ;-)
Velocirap. The only thing simple, really, based on your posts, is your mind.
It's time to move them to 'the back of the bus'. Using Iowa as a first predictor was relevant in the 50's, not now. You might as well ask Charles Mason who should be president.
good god, would they please get rid of the electoral college , just do a majority vote, its what makes sense, the electoral college is outdated and interferes with true democratic process
Eric,
During a recent national interview, President Obama rated himself as the 4th best President ever. The arrogance of the man. This same fellow holds the record in his administration for:
The whole idea of a Republic must go. We elect about 600 people at the federal level and that is enough for industry and special interests to buy out. Cash talks and the rich have bought America by buying the politicians. Make it a Democracy. Popular vote for all of the laws. Keep it simple. Go to a parlimentary system and everyone gets represented. Let parliment pass the laws through two houses and then LET THE PEOPLE VOTE. No presidential veto. The prime minister implements a policy approved by the voters.
A meaningless exercise undertaken by a devoted minority of voters, who essentially take part in a straw poll. What idiot thought this was a representative method of expression of the will of the voters? Anyone got a clue how this is supposed to be worthy of any press coverage? At least New Hampshire's vote will be a bit more meaningful, not much more.
Winemaker,
Obama is not responsible for the "starving the beast" policies of the Republican party that got us into this mess. See Amazing story of the debt. http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
On jobs, your assertion is completely false. In fact, Obama beats Bush on job creation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms
On housing. The crisis happened before Obama was elected. "On December 30, 2008 the Case-Shiller home price index reported its largest price drop in its history." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_housing_bubble
In terms of the misery index, you've overstated the numbers by a long ways. In fact, its clear that cutting taxes and going to war twice has created the misery here today.
The poverty rate has swollen due to the policies of "starving the beast" and "trickle down" economics. The very policies that Republicans endorse.
Yes, of course, with the economy that Bush left there are more Americans on food stamps. Speaking of food stamps, the Republicans have tried several times to reduce food stamps during these hard times.
Economic growth is a plus for Obama. Look at the graph. The economy has grown each and every quarter under Obama, despite the giant hole left by Bush. http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdp_glance.htm
Consumer confidence crashed right before Obama was elected, the fact that it improved is a plus for Obama. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/consumer-confidence
America's credit downgrade was the result of the Tea Party and John Boehner walking away from Obama's 4 trillion dollar proposal.
In terms of unemployment, its clearly trending down. Look at the chart, see how it skyrockets just before Obama is elected. That's all Bush my friend. http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/lns14000000
Unemployment now is nowhere near where it was in the depression. Check out the second graph in this link. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/unemployment-today-vs-the-great-depression/
Federal spending. Here it goes. Bush put certain things into place. The tax cuts and starting two wars. Obama couldn't raise those taxes with the economy nor could he stop the wars just like that. In short, the two biggest sources of spending are the wars and the Bush tax cuts. If you look at just Obama has added in spending he's only raised spending 7.2% to Bush's 88%. http://ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2011083428/three-charts-email-your-right-wing-brother-law
Living in poverty, again, thanks to those "starving the beast" policies of the Republican party.
Lisitania: Does the movement of capital from the middle class to the rich, which is actually what happened rather than the opposite, constitute socialism?
O must go
O must stay, as the Republican policies of "starving the beast" is what got us here.
Tax cuts, budget cuts, less spending is going to stall the economy like a cheap Ford Pinto.
Republicans have no new ideas on the economy or jobs.
They are good obstructionists, other than that, useless.
We would have a lot of problems without "O." For instance, the previous sentence would read: We wuld have a lt f prblems withut "."
Besides, the radical implosion of the other party doesn't really leave us with a viable solution to anything, does it? The real world left the conservatives behind in 1990. It's time to replace them with something a little more up to date.
I still have slide rules, but I use an electronic calculator.
The only thing Iowa's voters have proven this year, is that they are conflicted and confused. They have put almost every candidate at the top for at least a week. Their votes mean NOTHING, except to the Idiot's in the RNC machine and the main stream media. Both of which, the country would be better off, without.
I feel like we are ready for the groundhog to decide the GOP nominee........
Alan, don't you think that this reflects that attitude of the nation right now? Conflicted and Confused? If it doesn't, then perhaps you and I do not live in the same country. I also suggest you read up and perhaps study just a little bit about Iowa before you slam an entire state. Iowa leads this country in many areas, and has even come into the 21st century with EQUAL rights for everyone.
@ Eric - I sure hope that groundhog chooses Gingrich. Then Obama will crush him in the election
I agree completely. Vote for Rick Santorum and as with all politicians pray he is not as big a liar as obama was. Notice I said "as big" because I will always believe all politicians are liars to a extent.They will say whatever you want to hear to get elected. I was a democrat and now I am an independant and know that tf obama is re-elected America as you know it is doomed.
Iowa holds sway because the media shows up in droves for months ahead of time to try to project the results of town meetings. The only really relevant thing that happens is that the run up to caucuses injects a huge amount of money into the state's economy.
Really? It looks like former Obama employee Jon Huntsman was pressuring China to impose harsher economic sanctions on Iran while his family's company Huntsman Corp. was selling WEAPONS GRADE MISSILE MATERIAL to Iran! http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57259.html
STOP THE CRONY CAPITALISM! VOTE RON PAUL 2012
If Iowa republicans wanted to really give Obama a run for his money with moderates and independents they would have paid attention to John Huntsman. He appears to be the most consistently conservative, has both domestic and foreign relations experience and can tell where the line generally is between government and religion. He is the republican who can truly challenge Obama but clearly the purists are more concerned with making a statement than with actually winning.
like I said... any of them will beat the failure in the WH right now
Name one republican candidate that can beat Obama Velocirap?
@Velocicrap never one to let facts enter your small mind - I have bad news for you. In EVERY poll - EVERY SINGLE poll, President Obama is shown as defeating EVERY SINGLE GOP candidate meaning that you are as usual, just spewing lies - but you can't help it. You're a teabagger. It's in your DNA to lie.
You're right. None of them can. Even their first tier contenders that all declined to run (Christie, Barbor, Daniels, Ryan, Jeb etc.) to a man concluded this same obvious truth.
The Republicans helped to elect Obama thanks to the inept administration of George W. Bush, and now they are crying and fighting among themselves, trying to nominate another loser? Yea...
Go Ron Paul
Get back to the Constitution as it was written.
You want change, it would be the best thing to happen to the USA.
Not sure I like the idea of 359,000 mostly white right wing evangelical whack jobs having such a large impact on our politics.
Jim,
Are you writing off the entire electorate of Iowa as "whack jobs"??
Stereotype much??
Joe
Not necessarily whack jobs, but many a little extreme in perspectives. Certainly not a good cross section of American voters, to the extent anyone should pay serious attention to election results here. Press pumps this event way beyond it's significance.
Emil
LOL not only is Michelle Bachmann a hypocrite for accepting federal money to fund her gay husband's anti-gay religious indoctrination center - she's a bald faced liar too. She's now claiming her campaign manager jumped ship for money but just like when she lied about the woman who allegedly told her that a daughter had become "mentally retarded" due to an anti-cancer shot, she offers no proof. None. You have to think her district in Minn is home to some real super crazy types to put up with this woman as their Representative. I guess they are crazy liars too?
Paul is too out there on too many policy matters, Gingrich doesn't have the dough, and the rest are just cluttering up the process for Republicans.
In the end it will be Romney - mo matter what Iowans do. They just aren't that relevant in view of the other delegate-rich states that come after them.
And make no mistake, Romney is the Dems worst nightmare because he'll pull most all of the Independent votes from Obama in the general election. Which is doom for Obama. It cannot be logically justified to the contrary when Romney won the governorship in a state (MA) that has 70% of its registered voters listed as Dems.
Dems will pound on Romney's health care initiative in MA as proof they are right about Obamacare - while completely ignoring the fact it cuts $500B in medicare funds for seniors - who really wants to push granny off the cliff? If anyone knows what NOT to do on the Federal level when it comes to health care reform it is Romney.
Morever, the cost structure of Obamacare is fatally flawed. Many doctors will not even accept new patients who want to use Obamacare or Medicare because they'll make very little dough. Some will just give up medicine entirely and go into research somewhere.
Eleven short months and the Obama experiment in total will be relegated to the ash heap - where it belongs.
rebelwcause, you are nuts if you think independants will vote for Romney. He has shown that he goes whichever way the wind blows.
If Romney gets inYou get the same thing as Obama, that is why the media is pushing Romney so hard.Remember Romney thinks that corporations are people to.He is bought and paid for by the corporations.Another corporate puppet.
I would just like to take this opportunity to thank the Republican party for putting on this marvelous show, not only once but many times, of your candidates, where every one of them has proven by their comments about each other, that none of them are qualified or deserve to be elected.
You handled this as well as your decision to invade Iraq and to deregulate the financial industry.
You guys are good. For Nothing.
Hey Gem - why don't you ask Barney Frank or Chris Dodd of CT about why they continued to push for subprime loans from 2000-2008. They took over their respective Banking Committees in the House and Senate in 2006.
Frank said two weeks before Fannie and Frediie crashed and burned they were on solid financial ground. They crashed on the Dems watch.
You are hugely misinformed. Don't believe the soundbites you see on MSLSD TV and read more.
Hey Rebel, when we read an article about Frank and Dodd, we'll comment on it. In the meantime, try as hard as you can to focus on this topic. An attempt at misdirection shows that you just don't want to face the facts of these losers known as Republican candidates. And I don't need to rely on the MSLSD TV, since I've seen them speak on C-Span at town hall meetings. What I've seen is absolutely astounding. All nutjobs, with an exception of Huntsman.
Hey Howard - you should be directing your liberal drivel to Gem - she brought it up not me.
No. Gem didn't mention either Frank or Dodd, so I will keep my liberal dribbel directed at the party of religious dribbel. Amen.
The vast majority of the subprime loans where not in the fannie and freddy system. Bush and the Republican majority pulled off all the checks and balances and told the American people that pure capitalism would cure all of thier woes. Once again the American public paid for the GOP's party. Perhaps you don't remember that we did the same thing for Daddy Bush. Perhaps you don't remember Baby Bush cutting checks and throwing a giant party for america with the budget surplus. Clintons economy was a real economy based on factories and goods and services. Bush's economy was a giant game of cash footballs for contrators and 3 card monte for wall street.
Howard, you dolt. Gem mentioned the financial crisis - which started because of what? I think you know the answer - the mortgage collapse.
Sam - Fannie and Freddie underwrote many, many sub prime loans which is why they collapsed. And the Dems in Congress blew off Bush's #2 in Treasury on several occasions 2001-2008 re: tighter loan requirements for mortages. Clinton was the beneficiary of an unprecedented tech boom - the booming 90s happened in the free capitalist market and not because of anything Clinton did or did not do. Mfr. declined in Clinton's economy re: America's insistance on having the 2nd highest corp tax rates in the industrialized world.
Neither of you are bright and certainly not well read.
New poll figures show Romney in a comfortable lead against Obama.
Romney....45%
Obama.....39%
Obama can't run on his dismal record, so his campaign has to be all negative attack ads. Ads that blame anybody, and everybody, but himself. Obama's bumper-sticker slogans are comical these days filled with hidden cynicism, Double meanings, etc.
The icing on this cake is the fact that Obama will drag down many Democrats who are guilty by association. Simply by being a Democrat, they have sealed their fate.
Republican tsunami brewing. As it becomes more and more obvious, watch the comedy, as the lower level Democrats, try in vain to disaccociate themselves from Obama, and his failed policies.
ABO 2012
"Dismal" must mean something different to the ultra right wing religious, anti woman and anti gay, anti middle class crowd known as Republicans. You may be right about the poll, and you may be wrong. At any rate, what might you consider to be dismal? President Obama has done quite a bit for the country, despite being handed the troubles that Dubbya, the worst president ever, gave him. Many of what he hasn't done is due to the constant blocking by the same group mentioned above.
You, Joseph, are either an arrogant wealthy Republican, or a clueless middle class moron.
You're not telling the whole truth, are you, Parent? Sure, Rasmussen might have Romney +6, but let's take all major polls and see what the fact of the matter is, hmm?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
Oops! Looks like Obama is still up on Romney by a point and a half. I guess people are noticing that Romney's tendency to weeble-wobble.
You say tsumani. I say sh*tstorm. People are fed up with the Liptonites and their hate-mongering, as well as the do-nothing Democrats. Change will be affected, but not along party lines like you so desperately want.
A point and a half, as you must know is statistically a dead heat. Tied across all the polls.
Now you must also realize that, as people vote their frustration, their disgust, they tend to vote against all those associated with the incumbant. (i.e., a straight ticket)
Republicans running for the Senate, only need a net win of three seats to revert that chamber to blessed Republican control.. The cheif obstructionist of congress, Harry Whorehouse Reid can then go sit in the back of the chamber, and just mumble to himself. Good riddance to very bad rubbish.
Republican control brought us the market crash, massive unemployment, the banking collapse, the housing bubble burst (and with it a codependent global contagion), the errant war in Iraq and it's billion dollar a week pricetag, the unpaid for medicare drug plan entitlement and as of today, still NO PLAN that deviates from those same policies. I'll pass on that offer to let them "lead" again and I believe the informed, burdened and beleagured electorate that rates the congress (particularly the GOP "led" house) the worst in history will too.
Oh, so Romney ISN'T winning by 6% like you claimed ... yet the 1.6% Obama has on him (once we gather ALL the information) is inconsequential.
Here's some statics for the Republicans: they own 56% of the House and 47% of the Senate. Current polls (from the same site I linked) has Congressional approval rating at a dismal 13%. Obama's is around 45%. Hmm ...
Regardless, faced with the facts, you changed your tune. I think this means I win. It's a hollow victory, considering we're still mired in the bullsh*t deadlock on capital hill.
Term limits for Congress.
Elimination of financial influence on legislation.
Sensible budgets.
Let's discuss those points instead of bicking about c*cksuckers who inherently have no interest in your well being or mine, hm?
I just love making these predictions and then watching them happen just as I predicted.
Ah, but you just changed the parameters.
I was quoting one poll. You suggest we average all the polls....fine. But that doesn't mean I changed any tunes. just picked up another instrument is all. LOL
I think people will vote their pocketbook. Rhetoric, and pretty speeches don't pay the bills. Three years, and trillions spent, and Joe Sixpack is still losing his house, his marriage, his dreams, his self esteem. This is one pissed off voter, and I expect him to lash out at the polls. Wait and see.
You say I changed the parameters; I'll contend just didn't cherry pick the poll that best suited my position ;)
Iowa is a case study in atavism. These people are so deeply entrenched in the past that any of these idiots that are running would seem "normal" and their ideas of what America is all about.
You've never visited my state, have you?
Swing by sometime, I'll share a beer with you and politely inform you as to how you could not be any more f*cking wrong.
You Just What - 1% African American - 3% Other than White - did you follow Cain's suggestion and put a moat around your state? Or do people other than you are not welcome -
I thought the United States was a melting pot of diversity - seems you managed to keep the rest of the US out
Who wants to be President of Iowa? Much to do about nothing!
Where are you hailing from, honey?
Honey - I hail from the good U.S.of A. - Where all people have a vote - and diversity is treasured not excluded
I guess you hail from the great state of Iowa - next to Kansas - where you wear your religion on your sleeves and think that Angel Food Cake is a treat!
Just read an interesting quote - only 30% of Americans have a passport - tried to find out about Iowa - no info - bet it's less then 10% or more
I remember sitting in a restaurant in a hotel in Italy - man from Georgia with his two children - ages 10 and 12 - children had impeccable manners - could order a meal - and when I asked him if he came there often he said no - but traveled to show his children - different cultures and societies
You Just Said What - that's where I am from - rented homes in France and Italy - brought my children and grandchildren there to experience different lives and cultures - I could go on but you get my drift
I also traveled for business and if I recall Iowa is flat as a pancake!
You - Baby doll, sweetie cums, big man, and first dude - I love it when you try and diminish women on these posts by calling them names like "Sweetie" - most of the reads I see here are women - who research - spend the time to see who these charlatans are
You notice I use my real name and don't hide behind some stupid label - if you are a man "come out come out whoever you are" What a joke you are - like hiding behind your momma's skirts
So, you're not going to share with the class what state you're from and continue with ad hominem attacks ... both on me and the state of Iowa?
You continue to exhibit your complete ignorance of the state. It's entertaining.
Babe.
Iowa, read my lips: here is how I cast a vote to the right candidate --
[regardless of the party]: here is my criteria
(1) One with a clean background [not Romney who erase his trace; not Paul who's a racist and isolationist; and not Ginghrich the baggage person and dishonest]
(2) One who has a solid agenda that is right for America -- with a vision
(3) One who is capable of handling everything while in the highest office
I haven't heard anything that is not clean about Michele B., Santorum or Perry. You have to pick the agenda from these three candidates and you have to determine whether they are capable to do the job, a better job actually.
Good luck Iowa voters, good luck candidates [Michele B., Santorum and Perry], and God bless America )
So Tiny Guy, which one of those candidates will you vote for??
Hi Jo, I am undecided. My home state is Massachusetts. Wii wait and hear more. Have a great day )
Paul is not a racist and he is not an isolationist.That pure main strream media propaganda crap.
ted - sorry to disilusion you but your hero is a rascist and an isolationist - he also made in 1993 on a periodical he published under the name of Ron Paul & Associates $940.000 - his wife is listed on the board and two other associates are really bad -
Plus he named his kookie son Rand Paul after Ayn Rand - nobody more off target than she
I could go on but if you are truly interested look up The Birch Society and Ayn Rand - two of Ron Paul's dictates
You know, the best thing Republicans who are not voting because they are unhappy with the candidates, would be to vote anyway and write in "None of the Above"
lived in Iowa for a while -- cannot fathom why this one state is deemed so bloody important compared to other states....
the electoral system has become a flipping disaster....
Velocirap, I really think you should go to FOX news where you won't be the only person who doesn't know what he's talking about.
All
A
As often as not, Iowa doesn't choose the winner. Iowa does usually eliminate the weakest 2 or 3 wannabes. Media is relatively cheap in Iowa so someone like Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama with little national following can gain exposure at low cost.
What's so hard about the Democratic Party vote in the Iowa Caucus, you have to get 15% of the vote at a caucus site to be a viable candidate. You don't get the vote you are not viable-the votes were cast and you lost, but all is not lost, it was only at one voting site.
I can hardly wait for Gingrich to fold up his campaign, his marital indiscretions will only save the country from an other Presidential impeachment, (heaven forbid he gets elected) Oh No wait he has a chance he will be held to a much lesser standard after all he is a Republican!!! Two divorces and who knows what else, hang on to your skirt M. Bachmann wink wink
Who anointed Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina? All corn cobs & crackers. The fix is still in ... and it's getting old.
They weed out the moderates and leave the rest of us with the nuttiest of nutty to choose from..
Iowa election results are over rated. The state has only 1 % of the US population.
I'm an independent, but I've got to say this really has to be the worst field I've ever seen come from the republicans: Bachmann and Paul are nutjobs, Gingrich has massive ethical problems and couldn't even get on the ticket in Virginia, Perry is just dumb, Huntsman I think I like but he is not even in the running and hasn't had a lot to say from what I can tell. Romney just plain doesn't know who he is.