Romney wins Iowa caucus by 8 votes

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/03/politics/i...?hpt=hp_t1

Election season never gets real than like this. 8 vote difference between Romney and Santorum. That's a nanometer-thin margin no matter how you look at it.

Final totals:

1. Romney: 30,015
2. Santorum: 30,007

Important significances of this caucus:

- This caucus, if anything, reflects how every freaking vote counts. No matter if you're Republican, Democratic, an independent voter, or a voter affiliated with one of the minority political parties out there, it still shows that exercising your right to vote is incredibly important. Things could drastically change if more people had participated. In conclusion, the Iowa Republican caucus shows how every vote counts. Do your right as a citizen and go out to vote in your local, city, state, and federal elections. For those that say "f*** elections, why does it matter, my vote won't have an impact on anything", the 2012 Iowa Republican caucus is proof that every vote counts.

- No matter who you're affiliated with, this should be a proud moment for the United States. CNN was covering the Iowa caucus for the entire night, and its known that they have a worldwide audience. With that in mind, this electoral event shows how the United States does democracy the peaceful way. There has been a lot of drama and emotion going on with this event tonight, but in the end, this was resolved peacefully

- The nanometer-thin margin reflected in the final vote counts in the Iowa caucus shows that Republicans still need to find a candidate to unite behind with. The primary/caucus season for them will be a long and drawn-out battle, no doubt about it.

Also, the 2012 Iowa GOP caucus results set a record for being the closest presidential GOP contest in U.S. history (surpassing the margin of 230-something votes in the South Dakota GOP primary in the 1930s)

 Ground rules for this thread in order

- No bashing on others because of their political views
- Opininated posts (ex: Ron Paul 2012!) are not permitted here
- Discussion of individual Republican candidates are permitted, as long the discussion are kept to factual things and without the opinionated nonsense.
- In all aspects, keep discussion on this thread neutral.

Thank you

How can you keep a thread about politics neutral when the entire thing is based on debates and which candidate most closely matches your opinions.

>Politics
>No opinionated posts

You might as well have not made this thread in the first place.

What President Obama wants to do, his economic plan is to make more people dependent upon government. To grow the government, to make sure we have more food stamps, and more SSI, and more Medicaid. Four in 10 children are now on government-provided health care. It just keeps expanding.
[...]
They're pushing harder and harder to get more and more of you dependent upon them so they can get your vote. That's what the bottom line is. So I don't want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else's money.

Who are these voters I don't even


O right Republicans.
This post is 100% factual

To be honest none of the canindates are real shiners to me. I'm getting bored of Obama because his heart maybe in the right place, but he's not a leader. He's very wishy washy, we need someone stern and essentially take congress by storm. As they say, less of two evils seem's to be romney although he wants to essentially dismantled the government which he won't be able to do in two terms lol

The problem is most of Congress is Republican. Consider the fiasco of Obama lowering taxes for example. The Republicans hate taxes, yet they still denied him of extending his tax cut. It's ironic. The Republicans don't want Obama to end up doing anything that makes him look good and it's unfortunately working.

The problem is most of Congress is Republican. Consider the fiasco of Obama lowering taxes for example. The Republicans hate taxes, yet they still denied him of extending his tax cut. It's ironic. The Republicans don't want Obama to end up doing anything that makes him look good and it's unfortunately working.

No what's ironic is the country critisizes obama for hitting a wall when we as the voters put it there. "HEY OBAMA ISN'T BENEFITTING ME, SO I"LL CHANGE MY REPS TO CHANGE THE CLEARLY CORRUPT DECISIONS THEY SUPPORT".

owaitnoprogress, fu`cking idiots.

Assuming your comment was directed at me, I'm talking about is so called promises to remove clearly dumb bills (the two big ones in the current events thread for example) yet does the complete opposite. It's completely fickle and makes him undependable.

I'm just going to bring this up here with the NDAA.

TL;DR The President's opponents played the electorate like a fiddle and will get away with it because people don't seem to realize they've been tricked into being angry at the wrong person.
He signed it because if he didn't, defense spending including benefits to veterans and their families would not have been authorized. The sections of NDAA that many people here seem to have a problem with are sections that were added into the document by primarily Republican legislators and which the President adamantly opposes but was powerless to stop. I'll repeat that: the parts of this bill that many people here hate were included against the President's wishes and in a way that he is powerless to stop. The only way he could have stopped these sections from being included would have been to try to veto the bill in its entirety, a move that would have been both political suicide as well as being futile, as Congress would simply have overridden him. He is explicit in his opposition to exactly the parts of the bill everyone here hates, going so far as to detail exactly which sections he opposes and why.
You'll notice that the bill also restricts his ability to close Guantanamo Bay; this isn't coincidence. These sections are openly hostile to the President's stated mandate - they are effectively a giant 'pineapple you' to the President, as well as a nasty way of eroding the President's support with his own base. Observe:
Draft legislation that is almost guaranteed to piss of the President but more importantly piss of his base.
Attach said legislation to another piece of larger, more important legislation like, say, the Defense Spending budget for the entire year so that any attempt to dislodge the offensive legislation will result in a political pomegranatestorm, as well as place the larger legislation in jeopardy.
Once attached, begin a PR campaign that highlights the offending legislation and brings it to the attention of as many media outlets as possible - not just the traditional media, but alternative media outlets as well (Fox news, MSNBC, Media Matters, Huff-Po, Infowars, etc.)
Here's where it gets tricky: Simultaneously, speak to both your party's base and the opposition's. To your base, argue that the legislation is necessary to 'Keep America safe' and that the President, by opposing it, is clearly soft of terrorism and endangering the military by trying to strip the legislation out. At the same time, sit back and watch your opponent's liberal supporters tear into the offending legislation as being dangerous, anti-democratic, and a threat to civil liberties. You know they will; that's what they care about most. You've designed legislation that will make them froth at the mouth. You don't even have to keep flogging the message; one look at the legislation will be enough to convince most people that it is anathema to everything they hold dear. Because it is.
Pass the 'parent' legislation. Doing so forces the President to sign it or attempt to veto it. Since the legislation in question just so happens to be the military's operating budget, a veto is out of the question. The President must sign the bill, you get the legislation you wanted, but you also practically guarantee that your opponent's base will be furious at him for passing a bill they see as evil. Even if he tries to explain in detail why he had to sign it and what he hates about it, it won't matter; ignorance of the American political process, coupled with an almost militant indifference to subtle explanations will almost ensure that most people will only remember that the President passed a bill they hate.
Profit. you get the legislation you want, while the President has to contend with a furious base that feels he betrayed them - even though he agrees with their position but simply lacked the legislative tools to stop this from happening. It's a classic piece of misdirection that needs only two things to work: A lack of principles (or a partisan ideology that is willing to say anything - do anything - to win), and an electorate that is easy to fool.
This is pretty basic political maneuvering and the biggest problem is that it almost always works because most people either don't know or don't care how their political system actually functions. The President was saddled with a lose-lose situation where he either seriously harmed American defense policy (political suicide), or passed offensive legislation knowing that it would cost him political capital. To all of you here lamenting that you ever voted for this 'corporate shill', congratulations: you are the result the Republicans were hoping for. They get the law they want, they get the weakened Presidential candidate they want. And many of you just don't seem to see that. You don't have to like your country's two-party system, but it pays to be able to understand it so that you can recognize when it's being used like this.
EDIT: typos
EDIT2: There are some other great observations made by other posters downthread. This makes me happy. Of particular interest is the discussion about potential SCOTUS challenges to parts of the bill - specifically parts of the bill that Obama highlighted in his signing statement. Court challenges are a messy, but effective way of limiting the power of any branch of government, and in this case, such a challenge should be demanded.
EDIT3: Off to make Baklava before my wife becomes disappointed in me I'll try to be on again later to answer any questions or comments that I feel are worth my time responding to. THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH for such a stimulating discussion! I don't care who you vote for (although I have my preferences), but please, take this passion and use it to get involved in your nation's politics. The single most important obligation that any person has to their society is to be educated about its mechanisms and to be active in them. Don't let your anger dissuade you from becoming involved. Political change is incremental and measured in electoral cycles. Be passionate, but PLEASE be patient.
FINAL EDIT: Well, the comments have turned into insults and whining as I more or less expected them to. To all of you who assert (without knowledge) that I'm an 'apologist', a shill, or in the pocket of 'the establishment', I'll let you in on a couple of secrets. I'm not an American. I don't live in America. I don't care who you elect to lead you - although I have my own preferences. I agree that your political system is in need of an overhaul. I think a third party or even a fourth would be awesome. I think it's hilarious the way some of you condemn support for Obama whilst placing your own candidate of choice on a pedestal, as though he or she is any different. I'm not making normative claims here; I'm not telling you how things ought to be. I'm simply explaining what I see. If you don't agree, fine, I'm glad you have an opinion on the matter. Dissenting views are great. What is not great however is the way in which some of you try to intimidate others for holding different views - or use your downvotes to censor views that you don't wish others to see. Some of you rage about Orwellian doublespeak or doublethink or how 'those in power' want to impose a police state where free speech and civil liberties are censored. I don't know why you bother condemning it, since you're essentially doing the same thing yourselves.
Have a happy New Years everyone. Go out and register, then go out and vote.

Source of comment, if interested
Pretty long winded but it makes some good points.

Ended up watching some of this this morning. I could have sworn one of the candidates indirectly compared Obama to Mussolini, and there seemed to be more talk of "taking back america" and beating Obama rather than actually fixing the country. Even if I did for some reason agree with the Republicans and their way of thinking, none of the candidates I saw stood out as one that would be worth rallying behind. Probably too early to tell too much.

How big is Iowa btw? Going by the percentages, 120-130k total votes doesn't sound like a lot for an Iowan Republican population of eligible voters that's almost certainly larger.

Doublepost@@@

Wow, conservatives refusing tax cuts? Damn. Also,
[politics 101] Why is Congress allowed to be proportionally imbalanced? I know that House of Representatives are based on states' population, so the only reasonable explanation would be that crowded states somehow prefer Republicans.

On topic: Bachmann seems to have backed out after the results of this caucus. Well, at least tea party ain't having much of a party.

I'm just going to bring this up here with the NDAA.

Source of comment, if interested
Pretty long winded but it makes some good points.

I understand why he did, what I don't understand is why he would make such a bold statment that was merely a threat. I voted in Obama, I don't necessarily regret it, but I understand the common critism and see those faults.

I think I'm safe to say that the entire country isn't necessarily fed up with the president (the educated populous at least) but rather the congress that is overpaid to stall lol

The problem is most of Congress is Republican. Consider the fiasco of Obama lowering taxes for example. The Republicans hate taxes, yet they still denied him of extending his tax cut. It's ironic. The Republicans don't want Obama to end up doing anything that makes him look good and it's unfortunately working.

Political cockblocking at its finest. That's how I see it. =\

How big is Iowa btw? Going by the percentages, 120-130k total votes doesn't sound like a lot for an Iowan Republican population of eligible voters that's almost certainly larger.

If you're talking about its population, its small.

EDIT3: Off to make Baklava before my wife becomes disappointed in me

ITT: Baklava's dad wrote the article and has to go "make" him~ .... this article is from the past?!

lawls.

Seriousness:
Disappointment in people as usual.

The best thing to come out of this caucus is Bachmann has now quit. Good, crazy b'itch.

The best thing to come out of this caucus is Bachmann has now quit. Good, crazy b'itch.

Ikr? I woke up, read that she was bailing out of the race, and it completely made my day.

Now to wait whether Perry will join her in jumping from his own sinking ship.

Ikr? I woke up, read that she was bailing out of the race, and it completely made my day.

Now to wait whether Perry will join her in jumping from his own sinking ship.

And the next leg of the marathon is the Palmetto State. ... Here we come South Carolina!!!

ITT: Baklava's dad wrote the article and has to go "make" him~ .... this article is from the past?!

lawls.

Seriousness:
Disappointment in people as usual.

I read it as "Off to make Baklava my wife before she becomes disappointed in me".
I was confused.

And the next leg of the marathon is the Palmetto State. ... Here we come South Carolina!!!

I'll still be waiting to see if he jumps ship after he gets owned down there.

Did Rick Perry get plastic surgery to permanently plant a sickening smile on his douchebag face or something? And what's this speculation about Sarah bloody Palin entering late?