Carly Fiorina at the Iowa State Fair

Carly Fiorina spoke at the Iowa State Fair "soapbox" over the weekend, and just continued to prove that she gets what voters want from a candidate - which is not a stump speech.

She gave a quick intro speech and went right into taking questions. She let the public ask questions! And didn't just talk at them! THANK YOU CARLY FIORINA!!!

You can watch the 20 minutes clip above or read the highlights below-

1. Minimum Wage- should be a state decision, not a federal standard
2. Federal government is "crushing" small business, and keeping people from getting jobs
3. Stronger military, tough foreign policy, stand with Israel
4. Pro-life, defund Parent Parenthood
5. Fix the Veterans Administration, it's a stain on our country that this has not yet happened
6. Iran must open themselves to nuclear inspection. No deals with Iran.

Let's Connect! 

https://www.facebook.com/AuthorErinAnnMcBride 

http://twitter.com/erinannie 

https://instagram.com/erinannie17 

https://www.linkedin.com/in/erinmcbride 

https://www.goodreads.com/erinmcbride 

https://www.pinterest.com/erinannie/ 

http://www.amazon.com/Erin-Ann-McBride/e/B0094UQZSS/

Never ask if a Republican is enthusiastic. It doesn't work that way.

Six months from tomorrow we will finally be at election day!

Will it be Mitt Romney or Barack Obama wearing the champion belt that day?

If the elections were held today, the answer would be- either Romney or Obama.

Swing states are more important than ever before. A USA Today/Gallup poll of 12 currently proclaimed swing states—Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin, shows President Obama over Romney with 47 percent to 45 percent. 

A separate poll conducted by Politico and George Washington University found Romney and Obama statistically tied among likely voters nationwide, 48 percent to 47 percent—well within the poll's 3.1 percent margin of error.

Who do the swing state voters think would be better for the economy? (Gallup poll)

Romney 60%

Obama 52% 

(Yes, I know the numbers don't make sense written that way. Go look at the poll yourself.)

But who do people "like" more? And we don't mean like in the Facebook sense of the word. 

58% think Obama is more likable

31% think Romney is. 

Now here's a very interesting number, that all the talking heads will try to spin their own special way. And yes, I am about to spin it my own personal way too. 

Which fan base is more enthusiastic about the November election?

Obama supporters are "extremely" or "very enthusiastic" - 55%

Romney supporters are only 46% that excited. 

Now please pause while I explain why this is one of the stupidest poll questions and numbers ever. In fact, it is so stupid I can't believe Gallup put it out there. What were they thinking?

You can't ask Republicans if they are enthusiastic about an election. Republicans fear elections, because they all think the world is going to hell in a hand basket. If you ask them what they think about the upcoming elections, they groan and whine and talk about the evils penetrating the earth in the form of liberal Democrats taking over the planet. So no, they are not enthusiastic. They are terrified. Personally, I can't believe so many of them did say they are excited. It's just so un-Republican of them.

What's a Caucus Anyway?

2008 Iowa Caucus (linked to source: Iowa Caucus)

A primary election looks and feels a lot like a general election for the most part, except that in some states they only let you exclusively vote for a party you are already registered with. You show up, you cast your ballot in a private booth, you leave. Simple enough.
A caucus does not operate the same way. First of all, if you are in an Iowa caucus, there may be a lot of C-SPAN and national news cameras watching your every move. It isn't quite as private as voting booth. Second, a caucus is a big group meeting. The political party members come together (it is open only to registered voters who are registered to a specific party), and have a group meeting. They say the Pledge of Allegiance, sometimes even open with a prayer by a local evangelical, conduct a few minutes of business, the campaigns are given a few minutes to make their final pleas, and then they open things up to a vote. Everyone will write a name down on a piece of paper and pass it in. A caucus official will count the votes with a representative from each campaign intently watching over his or her shoulder. The votes are counted and recorded on an official form. The results are announced to the waiting group and media cameras. The official numbers are sent to the state party along with an officially designated human being for security purposes. The numbers are aggregated from around the state, and an official report is made to the media.

A few interesting facts about the Iowa Caucus-
Anyone who will be of legal voting age in November for the general elections, is allowed to vote in the caucus. So there will be 17 yr olds voting in the caucus on Tuesday. (High school juniors!)
There are 1,774 caucus locations across the state. There are 99 counties in the state.
Only candidate Rick Santorum has stumped in all 99 counties!
Voting will begin at 7 p.m. all across the state (Central time).
3,062,309 people in Iowa.
3,850,000 cows in Iowa
That's 1.26 cows per person, or .8 people per cow. Either way, a lot of hamburgers.
569,633 live in the greater Des Moines area (people, not cows, but then again, probably cows too)
613,521 "active" registered Republicans (6.3 cows)
A Iowan Angus cow costs $1000 (you think I'm making that up, don't you? I'm not. See?)

There are 6 Chik-Fil-A restaurants in Iowa.

Rick Santorum for Third Place??

You look away for just one minute, thinking Iowa is going to go to either Mitt Romney or Ron Paul, and suddenly, out of nowhere, Mr. Next-to-Last-Place Rick Santorum surges ahead in the pack!
It has been confirmed by more than one credible national poll that Santorum is a strong contender for third place in Iowa. A CNN/Time poll taken just last week (you know, during the days that the wheels began to fall off the Gingrich bandwagon) shows the former Senator from Pennsylvania jumping NINE POINTS UP in Iowa. And that craziness is confirmed in an NBC/Marist poll (info down around p7).
I have spent little to no time talking about Sen. Santorum. I've actually met him and have been following his career since he was a freshman Congressman. He was riends with the Congressman I interned for many moons ago. I was just a young intern in someone else's office, and yet, he took the time to be genuine and kind to me. Trust me, that was a rarity on the Hill. I think he is a very good man, with very good morals and ethics. He's a good leader and someone who will rise to the top with time. But is he Presidential Material? I'll stop several feet short of saying yes, but whole heartily and adamantly say he would be great VP material!

I'll let his campaign do the rest of the "talking."

Polls for the week ending December 27, 2011

2008 Iowa Caucus Results by County

We're a little delayed thanks to the holiday but here's our weekly look at the national polls.
Last week's GOP nomination polls ended on December 17, and we have new data for this week's polls!
Last week we saw Newt Gingrich drop 4%, Mitt Romney holding on with his usual 20ish percent, and it was Michele Bachmann with the surprising gain of 3.2% overtaking Rick Perry. 

This week Gingrich is still in the lead, but that little green line of his is still going down, while the Romney purple line inched up. Ron Paul takes a completely unimpressive third place, a good 10-14 points behind the leaders.
The data for PPP is so far off from the other polls that I looked back at their last set of numbers. The last data from them was in early November, and even then their numbers were completely different (in Gingrich's favor) from the other polls conducted that week. It makes me want to toss their numbers out personally. If we pull out the PPP numbers, Gingrich's national average is 25.75, and Romney at 25.5. And we've got ourselves a horse race!

On to "First in the Nation" Iowa Caucuses-
For the last two weeks we have seen a drastic change in numbers coming out of Iowa. Prior to the Fox News televised debates we had Gingrich 30%, Romney 20%, Paul 11%, Perry 8%, Bachmann 9%, Santorum 5%, Huntsman 2%, and Cain still in the race with 5%.
But then two days later there was news that a new Rasmussen polls had Romney in the lead at 23%.
But then Cain dropped out of the race, and the polls all changed. Gingrich dropped by 13%, Ron Paul jumped ahead 8%, and everyone saw movement all over the place.
But it is Ron Paul that needs to be looked at carefully. Last week he had only 11%, and now he's up to 19.3%.
And then after Cain dropped out, and we had the Iowa debates, we found Gingrich, Paul, and Romney are all within 2 points of each other, and Michele Bachmann started sending out emails saying she was winning Iowa! 

So here we are exactly one week away from the Iowa caucus, and things have changed again!
Ron Paul is in the lead! It isn't a strong lead, but he is definitely in the lead. Romney is hot on his heels, and Gingrich has dropped into no man's land. And Michele Bachmann? 5th place.
Because I'm starting to feel incredibly skeptical about any and all data out of PPP, I'm redoing the numbers, dropping their data. It moves Ron Paul to 22, and Mitt Romney to 21.5. Considering the margin of error on these polls, I'd say we don't really know who is going to win in Iowa! It will be either Ron Paul or Mitt Romney, but I think the numbers have been too volatile to really say that with any confidence.

Now for the Live Free state of New Hampshire-
Last week Romney was in the lead, but he had dropped just a skosh.
Now looking at this week's numbers-

How about we just call it for Romney now?

Latest Letter from Bachmann

Latest letter from the Bachmann campaign-

Dear Fellow Conservative,

As one of my most loyal supporters I wanted you to be the first to know this exciting news. In a We Ask America poll just released today, our campaign is only four points behind Ron Paul for first place in Iowa!

We are in a statistical dead heat for the Iowa caucuses and I need your immediate support to push my campaign over the top!

I know with your support and prayers our campaign can prove victorious in January. Iowa is where Barack Obama’s campaign began and it is where it will end- when our campaign wins the first-in-the-nation caucuses! Your donation today will ensure our campaign has the resources it needs to win next month. Please give as generously as possible up to the legal limit.

Having never heard of We Ask America, I went to their website. They are a for-hire polling company. It doesn't say who commissioned this particular poll. The results and information are a bit confusing though. It doesn't sound like the right audience was polled. "The results for Ron Paul in last night’s poll may actually be a couple of points better than it shows here among the general electorate due to his strength in the 35-44 & 45-54 age brackets, but the Iowa caucuses skew older..."

It does require mentioning that while We Ask America ha fairly consistent results with their winners and losers, their numbers in no way line up with the numbers of the larger polling companies. Most other companies had Bachmann at about 7% (give or take a few) on Dec 5.
Just food for thought!

GOP Polls for week ending Dec 17, 2011

Wow, what a difference one week makes! The polls are still leaning in Gingrich's favor nationally, but his lead is definitely not a sure thing.
Quick wrap up on the polls for last week (GOP polls for week ending Dec 12). Gingrich was still on the rise, with his average lead nationally about 12 points ahead of Romney. Romney was continuing to hold on to his consistent 20%. Cain was still showing up in the numbers, and Ron Paul had moved up to about 9%. The rest of the pack showed little to no change (as always).
This week is our first official non-Cain polling week. And what a difference a week makes!

Gingrich is down 4%
Romney is ever faithful with his 22.5% (up 1.7%)
Ron Paul moved up .3%
Michele Bachmann is the surprise dark horse this week and moves up 3.2% to 4th place, putting her a full point of Rick Perry (who saw no change).
Rick Santorum stays steady at 3.5%.
And Jon Huntsman moves up from 2.5 to to 3.0, which if you think about it, is a 25% increase in supporters for him. So bravo Jon Huntsman!

Des Moines Register Endorsement Track Record - good thing? or kiss of death?

The Des Moines Register has endorsed Mitt Romney in the GOP 2012 Presidential Nomination Race. As was done when the New Hampshire Union Leader endorsed Newt Gingrich last month, I decided to do some research on the sway and power of such an endorsement.
The Des Moines Register prides itself on being a "voice of pragmatic conservatism." How conservative are they? Well, the paper has been owned by the Cowles family since 1903. One family member served as a Republican in the Iowa General Assembly (in the early 1900s), and another in the Herbert Hoover administration. With those kinds of GOP roots, and their conservative claims, they are surprisingly not that conservative.

GOP Nominee Endorsements-
2011/12- Mitt Romney (2 weeks till we find out!)
2008- John McCain (who lost to Mike Huckabee, eventual nomination went to McCain)
2004- George W. Bush (incumbent year)
2000- John McCain (lost by 36% to GW Bush, who also took the nomination)*
1996- Bob Dole (won Iowa, and the national nomination)
1992- George H.W. Bush (incumbent year)
1988- Bob Dole (won Iowa with 37%, but the nomination, and eventual presidency, went to George H.W. Bush who took third in Iowa)

So as for how often the Des Moines Register's endorsee win in Iowa? Two times for Bob Dole. But it is noteworthy that they did endorse McCain in 2008 who went on to get the nomination, but lost Iowa.
The paper has never endorsed the man who would be the next GOP President (unless they backed Reagan in the 80s. I am still working very hard to find hard core data on 76, 80, and 84).
In other words, Romney Fans, I wouldn't get too excited about this endorsement. It doesn't seem to bring good luck!
*Disclaimer- 2 sources said they endorsed McCain, a third said they backed Bush. Still trying to find a more credible source than Wikipedia.

The Register also endorses a Democrat each year, so let's look at those-
2008 - Hillary Clinton (Obama won) (however, for the nationwide Presidential election they endorsed Obama over McCain)
2004- John Edwards (lost to John Kerry by 6%)
2000- Bill Bradley (Al Gore won)
1996- Bill Clinton (incumbent year)
1992- Tom Harkin (Iowa state senator. Most Democrats avoided Iowa that year. Harkin won the state with 77% of the vote. Bill Clinton won the nomination, but lost in Iowa with 2%.)
1988- Paul Simon (lost to Dick Gephardt. Michael Dukakis took third in Iowa, won the nomination.)
1984- unknown
1980- unknown
1976- Jimmy Carter (Jimmy Carter "won" Iowa with 28%, meanwhile 37% chose "uncommitted" over Jimmy Carter.)

As for picking the Democratic Iowa Caucus winner they got Tom Harkin right in 1992, and Jimmy Carter in 1976.
Jimmy Carter in 1976 is also the only time, regardless of political party, that the Des Moines Register picked the future President, during the caucus phase. But we can't really blame the paper for that. Iowa rarely chooses the person who goes on to win the nomination, let alone the national election.

How often does the Iowa Caucus produce the national nominee?
The Iowa Caucus has only managed to pick the national nominees eight times out of the last fifteen elections, but only managed to be indicative of the next president twice. (I am not counting 1976 when more people chose to not commit rather than vote for Jimmy Carter.) In fact, it is interesting to note that they managed to repeatedly pick candidates (in both parties) that didn't just lose, but lost by significant numbers. Cases in point, Harkin, Mondale, Carter, Huckabee, Dole, Dole again, and anyone who ran against Ronald Reagan (1976 and 1980). 


Sources: 
Wikipedia: Newspaper endorsements in presidential elections

Let's Talk Debates!

Fox News 2012 GOP Debate, Linked to Source: ABC News

I watch the debates so you don't have to!
Here's what you missed by watching "Bones" last night (Was it good? I haven't seen it yet! No spoilers!)
I could really tell this was hosted by Fox News. The candidates were hit from the right about their conservative positions. For instance, abortion and right to life were made an issue, as was gun control. These haven't been issues in this campaign at all, so it was surprising to hear how much time was spent on those subjects.

"MOM! He keeps interrupting me!" "Am not! "Are too!" (linked to source)

Apparently Michele Bachmann ate her Wheaties yesterday, and came out fighting. At several different points it felt like it was Bachmann v. Everyone Else. She reminded me of an angry Yorkshire Terrier, barking and nipping at Newt Gingrich's heels. She also had a very memorable heated exchange with Ron Paul on foreign policy. She flat out said she had "never heard a more dangerous answer" than Paul's positions on Iran. (Which is to say, he doesn't think they have a nuke.)

"My name is Ron Paul, and until we open free trade with Iran, I won't be able to find a suit that fits." (linked to source)

Ron Paul doesn't back down in a fight, which is amusing considering his pacifist position on other issues. He really spent sometime standing up for his positions on Iran. "Why are we flying a drone over Iran?" He apparently thinks Iran sings kumbaya at night and prays for our peace.
I can finally sum up how he feels about Iran and Israel. "Our neighbor have guns, so we don't need to worry that we'll get attacked." (My words, not his.) His most memorable quote of the night was, "I don't want to run the world. I don't want to police individual activities or people's lifestyle, and I don't want to run the economy." Strange talk for a man running for the most powerful position in the world. It doesn't matter if anyone thinks he won or lost, because his supporters will think it was all rigged anyway.
In other news, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Ali Khamenei endorse Ron Paul. He finally gets some big name, national endorsements!

"My name is Mitt Romney, and I wear better ties than you!" (linked to source)

Mitt Romney was Mitt Romney last night. In many ways it was his night to lose, and I don't think he lost. But I don't think he "won" either. My favorite quote for him last night was, "Timidity and weakness invite aggression on the part of other people. This is a president, the spy drone being brought down, he says 'pretty please'? A foreign policy based on pretty please? You got to be kidding."
When attacked (by the moderators, and then Santorum) about his changing positions, his response essentially sounded like, "I used to favor flip-flopping, but now I'm against it."

Tim Tebow 'tebowing' (linked to source)

Rick Perry- what do I say there? I think he will gain a fan or two. It was definitely his best debate so far. But probably too little, too late. Calling himself the Tim Tebow of politics was pretty funny. Other than that, he wasn't all that notable or quotable. He did suggest that we should limit Supreme Court terms. That was sort of interesting.

New Poll Shows Romney Leading in Iowa

Mitt Romney Leads in Iowa (in one poll at least)

The Rasmussen Reports today announced that for the fifth straight week a different candidate has emerged at the head of the pack in Iowa. And everyone is shocked that this week's leader is Mitt Romney!
Remember that just 3 days ago the Iowa polls were showing Romney trailing Gingrich by 11 points. And the Rasmussen Reports have never had Romney in the lead in Iowa before! This is a pretty significant change.
(The survey of 750 likely Iowa Republican Caucus participants was conducted on December 13, 2011.)

But before anyone puts too much stock into this poll, let's see if anyone else has reported any new polls in the last few days.

The NewsMax/InsiderAdvantage survey of 517 registered likely Iowa caucus-goers, conducted Dec 12, 2011.
Newt Gingrich= 27%
Ron Paul= 17%
Rick Perry= 13%
Mitt Romney= 12%
Michele Bachmann= 10%
Rick Santorum= 7%
Jon Huntsman= 4%

Don't forget tonight is another debate in Iowa. And so far, we've had a new sweetheart after every debate. It will be interesting to see how things shake out after tonight. But can there really be that many undecided voters left in Iowa? Is it possible that every registered Republican hasn't had their hand shaken by every single candidate? I often wonder as well- considering how many letters and phone calls I get asking me to donate to help a candidate succeed in Iowa, how many free meals have I provided for the registered voters of Iowa?

Gingrich Iowa Director Calls Mormonism a Cult, Resigns

Craig Bergman, Former Gingrich Iowa Political Director, Source: LA Times (linked to source)

Craig Bergman just lead a very short political career. On Wednesday, Dec 7 he participated in a focus group for TheIowaRepublican.com. In that focus group the Tea Party activist and campaign veteran also called Newt Gingrich “the smartest unwise man in America. Because unwise means making bad choices.” Bergman leans towards backing Gingrich, but feels incidents like appearing in a global warming ad with Nancy Pelosi are reasons for concern.
Well, his statements about Gingrich aside, he still got hired the very next day as the Gingrich Iowa Director.
Then word got out on Monday of this week that he also said, “There is a national pastor who is very much on the anti-Mitt Romney bandwagon. A lot of the evangelicals believe God would give us four more years of Obama just for the opportunity to expose the cult of Mormon…There’s a thousand pastors ready to do that.”
On Tuesday Bergman resigned.
Personally, I would have a little more respect for Gingrich if he had fired Bergman. Allowing him to resign fails to make it clear where he, Gingrich, stands on that issue. As a Mormon, I am more than just a little bit offended.

Sources-
Huffington Post: Craig Bergman, Newt Gingrich's Iowa Political Director, Resigns
The Iowa Republican Focus Group: Evangelicals Will Revolt Against Romney Nomination
Politico: New Newt Gingrich Iowa hire said some voters will reject Mitt Romney over Mormonism
USA Today: Gingrich staffer resigns after Mormon comments

The Polls in Iowa, New Hampshire, Florida, and South Carolina

After such a lengthy post about the national polls yesterday, I decided to wait a day to do the Iowa and New Hampshire polls, and take a look at the rest of the country as well.

Iowa-
Last week we saw the RCP average ranking Gingrich 26, Romney 15.8, Paul 13.6, Cain, 12.0, Bachman 7.8, Santorum 4.6, Huntsman 2.0.
Data came from polls conducted by Des Moines Register, NBC/Marist, Insider Advantage, Rasmussen Reports, and The Polling Company, gathered over November 11-30

This week the data comes from completely different sources, and from overlapping dates!

Considering the overlapping dates of this week's polls and last week's polls, I decided to make my own table, only pulling in data that covers November 29-30 (which mind you was nearly 2 weeks ago, and means Cain was still in the picture).

My numbers don't really change anything. But I really didn't like that RCP was combining polls that overlapped before Cain dropped out. My numbers all intersect two days, which theirs did not.
In short, Gingrich has Iowa locked up. Which is why the accusation in stonezine.com yesterday that the Romney camp is telling people to vote for Paul makes absolutely no sense. I didn't make this up (they did).

Why would any candidate want to tell his supporters to vote for someone else in order to avert defeat? If anything, Romney would be doing everything in his power right now to make sure he himself comes in second, and to not let Ron Paul beat him.

One thing is for sure though, the Gingrich team doesn't have the money of the Romney team. (Romney had a fundraiser in New Jersey last night that brought in $1.1 million! It rumored that Gingrich may only have $4 million total in his war chest. (Source: Chicago Tribune) That money won't last long with media buys coming up in more states.

Speaking of other states (that matter more in the long run), let's take a look at New Hampshire.

The only new poll on here is the CNN/Time poll. NBC and Rasmussen were in last week's numbers (along with a few other sources as well). And the CNN/Time poll was also taken over the days that covered the Cain drop. So again, not really indicative of what people are really thinking now. We still have Romney with a significant lead over Gingrich, and the rest of the pack. Last week's numbers, which again, covered most of the same dates, had Romney leading with 16.5. Just goes to show you how little you can trust polling. Drop some data, add some data, and tada! You can change the results!

So let's take our first look at the rest of the country, shall we?
South Carolina (primary to be held January 21, 2012)-

Gingrich is in the lead. And looking back at the polls over the past few months tells us that Cain had a stronghold there until mid-November. That support appears to have gone to Gingrich. It is interesting that Romney really maintains that 20% across the country (as I discussed yesterday). The real fight is going to be for third place between Perry, Paul, and Bachmann.

After South Carolina will be the Florida primary on January 31.

Romney has never had a strong lead in Florida, but up until the end of October, he maintained a fairly steady lead. Then Cain had his short burst of fame, and quick demise. And just like in all of the other states, that support moved over to Gingrich.
It scares me to see that Gingrich line on the graphs skyrocketing up like that. Anyone else remember the last time we saw a skyrocket candidate at the last second?
Let me remind you-

Anything look familiar there? Look at the way the McCain line (brown) just jumps up at the last minute. Remember how we all came to quickly regret McCain? He wasn't a candidate anyone felt strongly about, or wanted to support. (And then there was the Palin disaster... Oy vey. At least we dodged a bullet there.) The Gingrich rise scares me in the same way the McCain rise did. Makes you wonder if Giuliani had cared more about Iowa and New Hampshire, if things would have gone differently?

But if you look at the news today, I'm not the only one wondering if we're about to see another "Giuliani moment" among the candidates?

I read the Iowa debate coverage news so you don't have to

Newt Romney at the Iowa Debate. Linked to Source at NY Daily News.

Having read nearly all of the Iowa debate coverage news (and having not seen the debate yet myself), I hereby give you the summary without any hidden bias-

Rick Perry attacked Mitt Romney by saying, "I read your first book and it said in there that your mandate in Massachusetts should be the model for the country. And I know it came out of the reprint of the book. But, you know, I'm just sayin', you were for individual mandates, my friend." In return, Romney denied such a thing, and went so far as to bet him $10,000 Perry was wrong. Romney haters (also known as Southern Baptists, Texans, and Democrats) are saying a wager of so much money makes him out of touch with real people. Romney supporters love him all the more for it.

The facts? In the first version of Romney's book, a line referring to a universal health care mandate reads: "We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country, and it can be done without letting government take over health care." In the later paperback version, the line was edited to read, "And it was done without the government taking over health care."

Apparently Twitter loved this moment, and Romney stole the Twitter show. Analysts report that out of 43,000 messages about the debate on Twitter, Romney was most popular with 30 percent. The rest: Gingrich at 22 percent, Bachmann at 19 percent, Paul at 13 percent, Santorum at 10 percent, and Perry at 5 percent.

Michele Bachmann's big zinger (and she does love her zingers) of the night was aimed at Newt Gingrich's lobbying past (ahem, present), saying that his office was located on "the Rodeo Drive of Washington, D.C., K Street." (A great way to make sure the deeper pockets of DC don't donate to your campaign. Also, K Street? Not that impressive to us local girls. We prefer to do our shopping on M Street.)

The Washington Post's political blogger, "the Fix," proclaimed his winners of the debate to be Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry. And solely put Mitt Romney as the only candidate in the loser column. The Fix feels that Gingrich had a few good moments, wasn't condescending, and was approachable. He commended Bachmann for her ever so popular soundbites and zingers, particularly, "Newt Romney." And for pandering to the former Herman Cain fans. And he lauded Rick Perry for his now popular line, "If you cheat on your wife, you will cheat on your business partner." Oh, and for Perry's attack on Romney about the health care mandates, which we've now learned are incorrect. So strike 1 for The Fix. Interesting to note that the winners and losers (Romney was considered a loser for his wagering), had nothing to do with policy and accuracy.

So how did Gingrich respond to Perry's (and others) attacks on his three marriages? (Let's not forget both Perry and Romney have ads out right now touting their fidelity. And Perry's is an unforgiving pandering to the religious right.) “I think people have to render judgment,” Mr. Gingrich said. “In my case, I said up front openly, I’ve made mistakes at times. I’ve had to go to God for forgiveness. I’ve had to seek reconciliation.” How can all those evangelicals turn their back on a penitent sinner? Well played, Mr. Speaker, well played. Of course, I'd like you more if you hadn't cheated on your wife and married the mistress, but that's not the point now, is it?

Gingrich, who has promised to take the high road and not resort to mean or personal attacks, lobbed one at Romney anyway, "The only reason you didn’t become a career politician is that you lost to Teddy Kennedy in 1994." Oh and Romney started it by calling Gingrich a career politician. (Well, duh.)

Not to be left out of the Gingrich attacks, Ron Paul reminded us that Gingrich received a lot of money from Freddie Mac. (Gingrich was paid up to $1.8 million in consulting fees.) “By the way, Newt, you probably got some of our taxpayer money.” He added, “You were a spokesman for them and you received money from them.” Gingrich again denied being a lobbyist for Freddie Mac, (he claims he was an historian), “I offered strategic advice — I was in the private sector.” To which Romney replied, “K Street is not the private sector!” Wow, K Street was popular last night.

In no-brainer news, all of the candidates attacked President Obama and the economy. And yet, they are split down the middle on who supports extending the Social Security payroll tax cuts (Romney, Gingrich, and Paul), and who are against it (Bachmann, Perry, and Rick Santorum.) (Jon Huntsman was not present.)

CNN didn't really have anything different to say from the other news outlets, but was the only site to explain that Huntsman opted out on his own accord. They also mentioned that Huntsman immediately sent out press release announcing he'd purchased the website 10kBet.com, after the Romney-Perry wager. 



With all of the news sources titling their articles with "Newt Attacked!" I was surprised at how few of them actually listed what those attacks were. Here is what I could find amidst the wreckage-

Romney to Gingrich: "We could start with this idea to have a lunar colony that would mine minerals from the moon," referring to a Gingrich proposal to mine for precious minerals on the moon.

Paul on Gingrich, "has taken some positions that are not conservative."

Bachmann's big zinger, "if you look at Newt-Romney, they were for Obamacare principles. If you look at Newt-Romney, they were for cap and trade." Apparently she was going for a 2 for 1 attack.

No quotes on barbs from Santorum. In fact, the only quote I can find from Santorum in any article is where he defended Gingrich's marital woes. Marital character is important, but added, "I would not say it's a disqualifier." Wait, wasn't Santorum running on the pro-family first ticket? Has he dropped his one and only platform idea to run for Gingrich VP?

CNN also brought back their debate analyst, Todd Graham. Graham is a professor of debate at a small, no-name university in Illinois. I bring this up, because I don't get why they keep going back to this guy. He doesn't even have a professional head shot next to his byline which bugs me for some reason. After every debate, Graham has written lengthy diatribes about how he doesn't like Romney's style. Not that he doesn't like Romney's policies (although, I suspect he doesn't), he doesn't like Romney's stage presence. Seriously, that's what he wastes 1,000 words to tell us. This week was no different, so I'm not feeling compelled to repeat him. But let it be known, CNN ran a piece saying Romney lost the debate.

Also, I felt like sharing this little cutout from the front page of CNN. Apparently their editors slept in on Sunday morning.

How many spelling errors is that?

Want to see the whole debate for yourself? ABC News already has it up and running on their site.


Sources:
ABC News: Iowa Debate: Republican Candidates Clash Amidst Newt Gingrich Surge, Mitt Romney Attacks
Washington Times: Gingrich assailed by rivals, fires back
ABC News: Bet On It: Twitter Loves Romney's Wager
NY Times: In GOP Iowa Debate, Rivals Target Newt Gingrich

Do the Iowa caucuses represent American voters?

It is hard for me to write about the influence Iowa has over the national elections without a great deal of bias. If Iowa did not insist on being the first state to hold a caucus and/or primary, our country would not be so detrimentally forced to be dependent on corn and ethanol. It is only because every single politician who ever had the slightest amount of ambition had to kowtow to the desires of Iowan voters that the American diet is stuffed full of corn, paid for by government subsidies, while we lament the plot of the farmers who forced the politicians to pay them the subsidies. No politician would dare go against Iowa. And in no way, shape, or form, does Iowa represent a diverse cross-section of America. In fact, the interests of Iowa very rarely are the same as any other state. And yet, presidential hopefuls will spend more time and money in this state than any other state overall.
With that in mind, let's take a look at how often the Iowa caucuses, both GOP and Democrat, have accurately picked the national nominees, and the eventual president.

Iowa Democrat Caucus Winners, with national nominees highlighted in blue, and the eventual presidential winners in italics
2008- Barack Obama 2004- John Kerry
2000- Al Gore
1996- incumbent Bill Clinton
1992- Tom Harkin
1988- Dick Gephardt
1984- Walter Mondale
1980- Jimmy Carter (incumbent but contested)
1976- "Uncommitted" 37%, Jimmy Carter 28%
1972- "Uncommitted" 36%, Edmund Muskie 36%

Iowa Republican Caucus Winners, with national nominees highlighted in red, and eventual presidential winners in italics
2008- Mike Huckabee
2004- incumbent George W. Bush

2000- George W. Bush

1996- Bob Dole
1992- incumbent George H.W. Bush
1988- Bob Dole
1984- incumbent Ronald Reagan
1980- George H.W. Bush
1976- Gerald Ford

Iowa managed to pick the national nominees eight times out of fifteen times. But only managed to be indicative of the next president twice. (I am not counting 1976 when more people chose to not commit rather than vote for Jimmy Carter.) In fact, it is interesting to note that they managed to repeatedly pick candidates (in both parties) that didn't just lose, but lost by significant numbers. Cases in point, Harkin, Mondale, Carter, Huckabee, Dole, Dole again, and anyone who ran against Ronald Reagan (1976 and 1980). And yet, in spite of this historical trend to be completely not representative of the nation as a whole, candidates continue to spend millions of dollars and thousands of hours trying to woo Iowa voters. Not to mention all the things that happen in off-years when hopefuls quietly vote in favor of everything Iowa wants, just to create some goodwill for the future. 
Does anyone else see a problem with this?  

Michele Bachmann's Foreign Policies

Michele Bachmann Source: Candidate's website

“I will use absolutely everything in our arsenal against the Iranians, because they need to know that they should fear the United States... We want to be both feared and respected. Number one, you want respect. But when you’re respected you’re also feared.” Michele Bachmann's statements at a campaign event in Storm Lake, Iowa.

Michele Bachmann spoke about the key foreign policy issues of defending Israel and challenging Iranian influence in the Middle East — and declared that other countries ought to be afraid of the United States.
“That’s the problem today in foreign policy: You want the other nations to fear us,” Bachmann said, the Des Moines Register reports. “They don’t fear us today. They laugh at us. This is serious. The United States is being mocked at and laughed at. We’re the military super power of the world and we’re being mocked at and laughed at and being disrespected?”

Source: Des Moines Register, "Michele Bachmann: US should be 'feared' by the world"