In the just completed Iowa caucus about 122,000 people voted. There are 2.2 million eligible voters in Iowa. That means less than 6% of all voters thought there was a candidate they wished to support. All voters could have voted. Ron Paul picked up voters who switched their registration on the day of the caucus. For instance this voter switched parties to vote for Ron Paul on caucus day: Yet 94% of the electorate decided not to vote for one of the GOP candidates. Strange. The state was blanketed with ads and people screaming about the opportunity to change the direction of the nation by voting for one of these GOP candidates. 94% of the electorate didn't believe that. In 2008 Almost 1.6 million Iowans voted in the General Election for President. Evidently 92% of those people decided that the GOP candidates in the 2012 Iowa caucus weren't worth the time of day. In 2008 Obama got almost 829,000 votes: McCain got a little more than 682,000 votes from Iowans. In this caucus, Romney the winner and Santorum in a virtual tie each just got over 30,000 votes each. They each gathered less than 1.5% of the voting eligible people of Iowa. And with that fact....the major point is......WHO SHOULD GIVE A CR@P about these candidates??? Its clear that the vast vast majority of voters....THAT IS THE VAST VAST MAJORITY couldn't give a whit for the candidates running for the GOP nomination of President this year. I just don't understand why the press writes so much about these people or there was a willingness to have them debate endlessly with wilder and wilder radical comments. Basically over 90% of the voting population doesn't consider these candidates worth a couple of hours of their time. My suggestion: Get us some new candidates. Quit giving the radicals air time.
They need to fill their news with something I guess. Can you imagine how limited media would become if they didn't saturate their papers/tv with useless crap? Real news costs too much to report on, in getting there, and in defamations & damage. No shareholder wants that as they would go broke. Media has to make the tiny things much bigger in order to gain readership / loyalties. Today's "experienced" media is bad for thinkers but good for shareholders.
How stunningly dishonest. Lets have a look at the Iowan voter registration. Democrat: 701,163 Republican: 647,201 No Party: 764,756 Other: 1,913 Total 2,115,033 Did you really expect the 701,163 Democrats to caucus with the Republicans? Then, we look at Historical caucus turn out. While I appreciate your dishonest attempt to compare caucus turnout to general election turn out, most people are not familiar with the Caucus process. Here are the numbers: 2000 Democrat turnout 59,000 Republican turnout 87,000 2004 Democrat turnout 124,000 One might be lead to ask why only 20% of the registered voter population turns out for an Iowa Caucus, as compared to the near 50% that could show up for a regular primary election (yes, I am pointing out that you also tried to mislead people into believing any election gets much over 50% voter turnout). This article by the liberal New York Times explains it nicely. Anyway, I'm happy to see 122,000 show up, and I'm looking forward to this November. This near record turnout at the Iowa caucuses shows real excitement about booting the deadbeat out of office.
Your numbers don't tell the whole story. You say that there are 2.2 million voters and then only 6% voted. That's actually 2.2 million TOTAL voters. Of those, many would vote for a Democrat or an Independent and not a Republican. Also, you're not taking into the fact that during the general election for President, many people just decide not to or can't vote. As you said, only 682,000 actually voted Republican in the GENERAL election. This lowers the number down even more. And then add, or subtract rather, those that don't even bother with the primaries or caucuses like I do, although I might this year for my first time in a Primary. So in actuality, 6% might be a bit low, but it's not what you have made it out to be. I'm sure it's probably more along the lines of 70 to 80% of those that actually vote in caucuses and also for Republicans actually voted. Plus it's the first one, so few people turn out anyway. And as for the quote about the person thinking that Paul would have a better shot at winning as an independent, they're strongly fooling themselves. Independents aren't viable as a third party at this time in the U.S. Not at all. If anything, it would hurt him as he wouldn't get as much Republican support if he were to have to go against Romney or whoever in a general election along with Obama as the Democrat. And as far as Democrats backing him, they can do that with him on the GOP ticket unless they're one of those "Only bet straight party line" people. And you're quote, "Who should give a crap?..." seems like it's an anti-GOP post to attack these candidates with false math to me. And I just realized Obamanation actually beat me to it with legit, real numbers. I felt the urge to post before I read ALL of the other posts. I actually agreed with Obamanation this time with all the valid points and the good article, thanks. . . .Times must be changin. lol
@sunfyre: LOL If you have a long history of disagreeing with O_Nation don't jump the gun relative to his "information" which is little more than a severe slanting of facts in a way that supports whatever perspective he wants to sell. Lets review some more: In 2008 over 240,000 people participated in the Iowa democratic caucus. That is an incredible increase from the 120,000 or so that participated in 2004. Its a change that demonstrated enormous growth in participation. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#val=IA During that heated and active campaign Obama got just under 94,000 votes while John Edwards received slightly more than 74,000 votes and Hillary Clinton slightly less than 74,000 votes. That participation and those vote totals are dramatically higher than what occurred this year in the contested GOP caucas and the in 2008....let alone earlier years. Why doesn't the GOP Iowa caucus attract voters? Meanwhile in 2004 and 2008 only about 120,000 participated in the GOP Iowa caucus. No change. What is going on??? Why do so few participate??? Why doesn't the GOP presidential caucus get more participation? None other than extreme Right Wing Columnist Michael Barone also has problems with this paucity of participation: http://www.freedompolitics.com/articles/iowa-2974-caucusgoers-conscientious.html Barone published his concerns on Dec 27 last year, just days before the vote. Some excerpts from his writings and review of history: All of that is interesting...but I found Barone's research here even more interesting: Amazing: A non presidential year...which always produces lower turnout...generated greater GOP participation in a primary...and that greater participation resulted in the defeat of an evangelical conservative!!! There is something weird about the Iowa GOP Presidential caucus. It doesn't grow. It doesn't encourage participation. Essentially the vast vast majority of registered Republicans...(More than 80%) simply don't participate. But they will participate in other GOP primaries. maybe its not the candidates. Maybe its the Iowa GOP caucus which year after year manages to discourage the majority of GOP registered voters from participating. I still believe it merits a big big story. Obviously others agree!! For some time the Iowa GOP caucus limits participation and the results reflect a view heavily slanted to one small segment of the population. What gives???
@Earlpearl: Doubling down on your BS? Lets stick with the facts we know: 1) there are 701,163 registered Democrats in Iowa vs.647,201 registered Republicans. Comparing apples and apples, Democrats would have to turn out nearly 10% more people to have it be the same percent of their registered voters as Republicans 2) In 2008, Democrats turned out 240,000 people in the caucus vs the 2004 number of 124,000, an anomalous number by any measure. Why? Iowa Democrats were given the choice of electing the first woman, electing the first black man, or electing a guy who was cheating on his dying wife and embezzling campaign funds for his mistress. To say there was a lot at stake was putting it mildly. Anyway, I'm glad you've shifted off of your initial misrepresentation, implying that the Iowa Republican caucus turnout was lackluster, and have now moved on to dick measuring by bragging about your anomalous 2008 Iowa turnout. It is equally laughable, but somewhat more sane. Their turnout was good, but when you consider the fact they know a guy like Santorum isn't going to get a lot of play elsewhere(he wont even be on the ballot in 5 states), their turnout was spectacular. In an election year with the Republican candidate a near forgone conclusion, we should be seeing much lower numbers in the primaries. Just wait till they get a chance to pull the lever in the general election. "Frothing at the mouth" would probably be an understatement.
Once again, you took the points right out from my proverbial mouth Obamanation. However, I do have to disagree that the nomination is a foregone conclusion. Assuming Romney will win is a smart bet, but it's far from 100 or even 90%. I'd give it about a 2 to 1, or around 2/3 chance. He should win, but things always can take a turn in a long drawn out battle. Just as heavy favorites don't always win in sports and in other areas, things can sometimes go awry for the favorite and the dark horse can sometimes trump.
I'm impressed Ron Paul has a good shot at presidency this election. He's finally one of the top candidates.
O_Nation: oh my....you left out some of what your source said. oh my. must have been an oversight Here is some more of what your source said preceded by a comment by the Governor...who experienced 220,000 votes in a primary during a non presidential year..when voting is invariably dramatically lower. but he was wrong. They didn't turn out. and then your source, tim hagle, made a rather involved statement, only some of which you shared. He also added.... Ultimately something doesn't smell right in Iowa. Michael Barone, the ardent conservative columnist I cited above is bothered by it. So am I. The GOP primary caucus in Iowa is screwy. It turns off potential participants. It focuses attention on a particular group of people who are in a small minority and reflect a radical perspective that doesn't seem to work for the mainstream, let alone registered republicans, nor does it attract independents. Yep, it may just leave people thinking that the Radical Right Wing isn't worth engaging in any way whatsoever in these dramatically closed caucuses, let alone outvoting them, as happened in 2010.
@Earlpearl: My how the story has changed. We kicked off this thread with a bold statement of public rejection and repudiation of the Republican field. Half a page of facts later, you are walking it back to "something doesn't smell right". LoL. My recommendation: Check your shoe.
My prediction is Romney will win the challenge but Obama will be returned. If RP wins then Obama might not be returned.
10,000 is far from what you had said earlier. That's 10,000 out of a possible 130,000 or so he had predicted which is less than 10% of what could have been. Just looking at that by itself, I wouldn't call that cause for any alarm. Once again there are reasons for the turnout not being quite where it should be. Those facts were listed earlier such as the time of the caucus and the amount of time one spends there. Also, the level of participation not mattering could be attributed to various factors not listed such as many people assuming Romney's going to win anyway so why vote. People also might not even care to vote in the primaries as it's not as big of a process as the general election and many don't want to even bother going to vote in this. Many are also uninformed about how the process works as well. Simply attributing a lack of participation simply and directly to people not knowing who to choose because all of the candidates are bad or crazy is an inflammatory and misguided attack on both the candidates running, most likely due to the party, and the people choosing not to vote in the caucus. It's just a fact that many people don't bother voting in primaries or caucuses due to personal reasons. Many choose to just vote in the general elections and even that turnout is low by standards of total voting age adults registered to vote. People, in my opinion, are just turned off by the whole process and politicians in general, especially after 8 years of Bush Jr and now Obama in addition to what many people consider a bad Congress judging by their nose diving approval ratings over the last decade.