Iowa Caucus Prediction Thread

[Abe Sargent]

It's early days, and she'd have some Sikh questions to answer in a national campaign, but I can see a lot of value in a young, female, ethnic Republican candidate. Can you imagine what it would say to the world to follow Barack Obama as the US President a few years later with one with Indian heritage? Or Latino? Especially if they come from different parties?

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

It's early days, and she'd have some Sikh questions to answer in a national campaign, but I can see a lot of value in a young, female, ethnic Republican candidate. Can you imagine what it would say to the world to follow Barack Obama as the US President a few years later with one with Indian heritage? Or Latino? Especially if they come from different parties?

It's beyond idealistic at this point in time, but...I'd prefer we get to a point it would say absolutely nothing to the world, due to no one giving a shit about what ethnicity our elected officials are. How 'bout we elect people based on qualifications and integrity, instead of "look how progressive we are, we elect brown people now!"

I'm very, very tired of race being a qualifying factor/benefit in political candidates.

[Abe Sargent]

I think it would do a world of good to have a qualified candidate, like, say, Susana Martinez, follow Barack Obama and from the other party. Race/ethnicity have been *bad* things if you weren't white and running for a high office for so long, I don't mind that we may be entering an era when that changes. I'd be happy to have a few more Martinezes and Jubals and few less Bushes and Clintons.

[Coffee Warlord]

Which, in theory (I say in theory because I know almost jack shit about Susana Martinez), is just fine in my book. What I seem to be seeing/hearing a lot of, though, is moving from one extreme (non white males need not apply), to the other extreme (let's go find our very own minority so we can look good, qualifications be damned!). Personally, I think it's that mindset that got us Sarah Palin on the GOP ticket.

Neither extreme makes for good government.

[larrymcg421]

LOL at Rick Perry refusing to drop out. That's basically an endorsement of Romney.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

I find it amusing the media and people outside of SC somehow think Haley is the future of the Republican party. Her approval ratings in SC are lower than Obama's.

I feel the same way about Jindal.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

I find it amusing the media and people outside of SC somehow think Haley is the future of the Republican party. Her approval ratings in SC are lower than Obama's.

Even parts of her own party don't like her I think

[Abe Sargent]

It's important to understand that governors have a tougher road to hoe. For example, a survey by PPP at the end of 2011 who looked at every governor's approval rating found that only 11 governors had an approval rating of at least 50%. You don't have to have a huge state popularity in order to amass a national reputation. You just have to win, and have buzz.

(site: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/m...iscellany.html)

[stevew]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

LOL at Rick Perry refusing to drop out. That's basically an endorsement of Romney.

Epic assdouchery on his part.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Which, in theory (I say in theory because I know almost jack shit about Susana Martinez), is just fine in my book. What I seem to be seeing/hearing a lot of, though, is moving from one extreme (non white males need not apply), to the other extreme (let's go find our very own minority so we can look good, qualifications be damned!). Personally, I think it's that mindset that got us Sarah Palin on the GOP ticket.

Neither extreme makes for good government.

let's not get over-extreme. The reason Sarah Palin was on the ticket was to bring in the areas that voted for Hillary Clinton won to McCains side, rather than Obama's. If McCain carried the areas of Ohio and Pennsylvania that went heavily Clinton in the primary, he would win those states and the election. Palin was selected with the intention of having a strong country woman to appeal to the blue-collar, Ohio River valley Appalachian areas that went heavily Clinton and might be convinced to support McCain. It was a smart strategy, but Palin was the wrong person to pull it off. It wasn't, "Let's get a woman in, even if she's unqualified." There was a specific strategy in mind.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

It's important to understand that governors have a tougher road to hoe. For example, a survey by PPP at the end of 2011 who looked at every governor's approval rating found that only 11 governors had an approval rating of at least 50%. You don't have to have a huge state popularity in order to amass a national reputation. You just have to win, and have buzz.

(site: New Mexico Miscellany - Public Policy Polling)

I'd be curious to see the list of 11

SI

[JPhillips]

CNN has Romney with a big lead in SC. If he wins there it's all over.

Romney: 37 (20)
Santorum: 19 (4)
Gingrich: 18 (43)
Paul: 12 (6)
Perry: 5 (8)
Huntsman: 1 (1)

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

CNN has Romney with a big lead in SC. If he wins there it's all over.

Romney: 37 (20)
Santorum: 19 (4)
Gingrich: 18 (43)
Paul: 12 (6)
Perry: 5 (8)
Huntsman: 1 (1)

My bad misread you had South Carolina thought it said New Hampshire.

[gstelmack]

I always love how 2 or 3 states can determine who I get to vote for for President.

[ISiddiqui]

Holy crap... SC now saying Romney is quite shocking.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I always love how 2 or 3 states can determine who I get to vote for for President.

You don't like that less than 1% of the U.S. population(one party in IA, NH, SC) in effect picks the nominee? What could possibly be wrong with that!

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

You don't like that less than 1% of the U.S. population(one party in IA, NH, SC) in effect picks the nominee? What could possibly be wrong with that!

What is it in Iowa? I saw the other day... 0.0000038% of the US population or something?

Ah wait. Doing the math that was clearly on a sarcastic website (that I forgot about) that I saw that. No way that can be true. Although maybe...of the % that are registered Republicans and voted in the primary...could be?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

What is it in Iowa? I saw the other day... 0.0000038% of the US population or something?

Ah wait. Doing the math that was clearly on a sarcastic website (that I forgot about) that I saw that. No way that can be true.

I saw .04% of the US population participated in the IA caucuses.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I saw .04% of the US population participated in the IA caucuses.

That makes more sense.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I always love how 2 or 3 states can determine who I get to vote for for President.

As opposed to a smoke filled room?

SI