Iowa: Meaningless?

Let me give lyu these FACTS (as distinguished from media stupidity):


1. Who "wins" Iowa means absolutely NOTHING (unless Romney were to win with at least 30% of the vote). Ijust saw MSNBC--of all networks--give an analysis of the NUMBER OF VOTGES involved. Mike Huckabee won Iowa in 2008 by more than 10 percentage points. But how many VOTES was that? It aturns out it was about 10,000 votes (NOTING). Further, the diffreence between 3rd, fth and 5th was a matter of HUNDREDS of votes "LESS THAN NOTHING). This time, unless the polls are wrong (as they consistently have bneen worthless this election season), the difference in the TOP THREE candidates (seemingly Paul, Santorum and Romney)will be only a few percentage points, or that same HUNDREDS of votes (rather than thousands). ONly someone as STUPID as a "JOURNALIST" would say that it matters who actually finishes first, second and third--with that small a difference in the number of votes. Indeed, the candidates who finist 4th and 5th MAY be close enough so thaqt they are only a few thousand votes behind. That will NOT be enough to even discurage them--especially Gingrich and Perry--because Gingrich and Perry have the wherewithal to keep going no matter what the result in Iowa (unless the result is so very bad that they finally get discouraged, and that would bmean SINGLE DIGITS). Bachmann will WANT to continue, but if she finishes in single digits, it will really be over for her. What if all six candidates finish in double digits? Possible, in which case Iowa will likely not eliminate AnYONE. . Say Romney gets 20%; Paul and Santorum 18%; Perry and Gingrich 15%; and Bachmann 12%? Wouuld that mean ANYTHING? Again, you have to be as STUPID as a "JOURNALIST" to try to find meaning in that kind of result, or even a result somewhat more spread than that. Look at what has happened in those ridiculous and evil POLLS, which have EXPOSED today's "journalists' as the most LAZY and STUPID 'journalists" to ever live. Why should CHANGES in voter sentiment STOP just becaue of Iowa. Gingrich went frm 30% or so to 14% or so IN ABOUTA A WEEK. . Who is to say that Perry or Gingrcih might not RISE AGAIN, or Snatrorum, Paul and or even Romney FALL. I would elxpect Paul to fall, as a matter of fact. And Gingrich has jsut decleared war on Romney. That may not help Gingrich, but it may hurt Romney. And Santorumm has not yet faced "attacks" as a serious contender. Do you see how EVIL tPOLLS ARE? This election has PROVEN it yet again. Think of how much better it would be if both the media and candidates did not KNOW who to "target" with their negative ads (the media being the MAIN source of negative ads), because NO ONE new for sure who was "sruging" and who was not . The media MIGHT (their laziness and stupidity being so massive that we can't be sure) even have to do real "journalism" and actually INFORM you about the CANDIDATES (not smears, although they would do that, but where the candidates STAND--maybe even the DETAILS of things like their tax plans, etc.).


2. The reason that Paul, Romney and Santorum are likely to be the tp; three in Iowa has only a little to do with 'polls", ever shifting, and a whole lot to do with MOMENTUM and JUDGMENTA. Bachmann has faded away because she just does not have a consistent message beyond the uNIMPORESSIVE one hat she has been a heroine if FIGHING OBAMA (which she has, but that is not enough to get her elected President). Gingrich has faded because of ATTACKS, especailly from Romney, Romney surrogates and teh GOP estalbishment (pro-Romney). Perrry has faded for obvious reasons. In contrast, Paul is supported by FANATICS, and people--like me--who are DISGUSTED with "politics as usual". Paul can get his usupporters to a caucus, AND to any unscientific, online or telephone poll around. Romney is Romney--the estalbishment favorite (this time, after they chose McCain last time--what a RECORD these people have). He will automatically get 20 to 25% of the vote, which will be enough to put himm in the top three--how high depedning on just how mcuyh his opoponents jump on the Santorum or Paul bandwagons as the most likely "anti-Romney", anti-establishment candidates who can actually make a difference. I do'n't see Romney getting 30%, and Iowa would be more significant if he did. It is actually more likely that Paul or Santorum could get 30% r more, just like Huckabee, becaues voters MOVE to those two as they ABANDON Bachmann, Perry and Gingrich.


3. Rick Santorum is the solid conservative in the race, on both fiscal and social issues: the most CONSISTENT conservative on most issues (outside of Bachmann, who just has not been able to develop a consistent message, and is probably out of it--although this year shows that ANYTHING can happen). Paul is an libertarian isolationist, rather than a conservative, even if Paul would be the MOST reliable at DISMANTLING the Federal Government. Gingrich is NOT a "conservative" at all, despite his references to Reagan and Goldwater. Gingrich's agile ind simplyh flits from idea to idea like a butterfly, with not real consistent, guiding principles. Ropmney, as Gingrich says, is an old-style GOP "moderate" like LOSERS Bob Dole, George H. W. Bush, Gerald Fordand the rest (not as far left as people like Nelson Rockefeller, Scott Bron, and other Northeastern types, but capable of going that direction in terms of principle if he considers it the appropriate "management" option at the time). This is why this blog has ENDORFSED Santorum: he is a consistent, reliable conservative (mostly), even if too much of a standard Washington politician who smells a little too mcuh of a more conservative "politics as usual'. On foreign policy for example, Paul is to the LEFT OF ANYBODY (including Obama). Santorum is a fairly reliable conservative across the board. And Santorum is actually sounding more like a real nhuman being recently--gining his stride as a campaigner. Thus, Santorum is the last refuge left for conservatives, and NOT A BAD ONE (if not yet in the class of Ronald REagan, but no GOP candidate is).


4. Santorum is hard to SMEAR. So he was once "for earmarks". Compared to Gingrich and Romney, that makes him RONALD RFEAGAN (despite my caveat in item 3). The MEDIA is DESPERATE for "smears" if they suggest Santroum is "vulnerable" on that kind of relatively small betrayal. Then there was Alan Colmes (EVIL, dishoenst political hack, as this bog showed long ago), who ATTACKED Santorum for teh way Santorum and his wife treated the death of their almost still born child. LYlu simply cant't attack the way a parent handled such a death (barring cannabalism, and Santorum is actuallly impressive on the way he explans what he and his family did to honor the child wo lived two hours or so), without exposing YOURSELF as a truly EVIL person. Alan Collmes exposed himself as that. I wonder how many otehr media leftists have so exposed themselves? You don't have to agree with Santorum on what he did (which was to bring the body home, and talk to hi sother children about the event, before the funeral). But to ATTACK Santorum on this is, again, to expose yhourself as an EVIOL person. if you are such a person (Alan Colmes, this means YOU), I hope Hell exists, because I will then meet you there. Sure, it is possible the media will come up with a BETER SMEAR of Santorum. So far, their efforts are pathetic. They may be reduced to attacking Santourm on POLICY, whihc is the LAST thing they want to do. The SMEAR/NEGATIVE AD (distuised as "news') is what they are about.


5. Romeny will win New Hampshire, but that is even more meaningless than Iowa. South Carolina and Florida are where it gets serious, although someone is going to fave to show that they can compete with Romney on a NATIONAL level, and not just in individual states. Romney has such an edge in money, that someone like Santourm is going to have to have conservatives RALLY AROUND HIM fairly quickly to be able to compete with Romney in multiple states (like on Super Tuesday). It is no accident that Romney is only one of two candidates to get on the ballot in Virginia (along with Ron Paul). It is gong to take a MAJOR move of conservatives to someone like Santorum (or Gingrich or Perry, but you feel they have had their chance). And that will have to be SOON. Or, as with McCain, it will be TOO LATE. That is why this blog advised Rush Limbaugh to ENDROSE SANTORUM. otehrwise, Limbaugh will have BETRAYED conservatives yet again, as he did in 2008 (as this bog CALLED HIM OUT ON in 2008, IN FORESIGH).


6. "Polls" as to hwo Romney and Snatourm would do against Obama are totally meaningless. Sure, Romney would do better TODAY. It is NOT that clear that Romney will be that good a candidate next fall. These hypothetical polls, before there is even a nominee, are evidence of how STUPID and worthless the media really is, rather tahan any real indication of who will best be able to defeat Obama. Santorum is basically as "atarctive" as Romney, and is lookng more "Presidential" every day. He "debates" at least as well as Romney, and perahps better. The real "knock" against Santorum is the standard GOP estalbishment mantra that Santorum is too conservative on SOCIAL ISSUES> What this rally means is that NO consevative on social issues should EVER vote for a GOP establishment candidate. NO MATTER WHAT SUCH A CNNDIDATE SAYS ON SOCIAL ISSUES, HE DOES NOT MEAN IT. Romney says essentially the same thing on "soical issues" as Santorum (except for "faith", because Romney does not want to highlight he is a Mormon)--maybe more so on illegal immigration . But CNN and the rest DO NOT BELIEVE ROMNEY. Maybe we should not believe him either. As a matter of fact, I don't --just like I don't believe Barack Obama is a Christian (as Bill Maher and I--as professed agnostics ourselves--agree).


You se the point? Iowa just cannot mean much, in this year where the situation of the candidates is STILL largely in flux. It is POSSIBLE that the media will stil find an EFFECTIVE SMEAR on Santorum, although these media SMEARS are becoming so obvious that they have to stop being effectgive at some point (especially when the BIAS iss so obvious--look at the SMEARS that COULD have been urged as to Obama--some of them not even really smears--had the media wanted to push them in 2008, OR NOW). As to NOW, think Solyndra, "green" failures, "Operation Fast and Furious", and several other things. No real delegates are even at stake until we get to Florida. Even South Carolina is not that important, in terms of delegates, due to the proportional rules and size of the sate. Even Flrida does not mean much in terms of DELEGATES, if the vote is still SPLIT. It is not until we get to "winner take all" lprimaries that the delegate count will mount up. In fact, the mostr imortant DELEGATE win this month is probably Romney's ballot "vicotory" in Virginia--assuming it stands and only Romney and Paul are on the Virginia ballot. The race is still fluid, and the only REAL significant thing that can happen in Iowa--uotside of a really major Romney vitory by 10 points or so--has alreayd happened: the rise of Rick Santorum to a CONTENDING positon. If Santorum did not(or does not--if the polls are worng and my judgement wrong) get that, he would have been DEAD. As it is, Santorum probably cannot "put away" Gingrich and Perry in Iowa, be HE lies on to be a major contender for the conservative vote in future primaires. ; Otherwise, as the headline suggests, the result in Iowa is probably pretty much MEANINGLESS, as to exact ranking and votes. No, even a Santorum win (entirely possible) will not mean much more than a Santorum third palace finish. As Gingrich is saing, no matter waht happens in Iowa, the "Massacusetts moderate" (Ropmney) will probably be OUTVOTED by something like 75% to 25%. That leaves a LOT of room for ANYONE else who can CATCH FIRE (and not flame out). There still remains the possibility that NO NOE will be able to take amajrity of the delegates or s close they canot be denied). Then thre might be a DEADLOCK, and how knows who the nominee might be.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). When yu are listening to the electino coverage tomorrow night--if you botehr, as you probably should not--you might read this blog's previous article on Chris Collinsworth. It is amazing how SIMILAR the "analysis" of sportscasters is to the "analysis" of political commentaqtors/"journalists" on election results and their significance. It is all about saying the SAME OLD THINGS the SAME OLD WAY, without regard to whetehr they have any relationship to reality. The idea is to say the EASY thing, with total contempt for yoru audience, rather then do any REAL THINKING. Chris Collinsworth could step in as a political commentator without missing a beat, and vice versa as to political "journalists" stepping in as "sports analysts". As usual, what I am saing here applies fully as much to the unfair and unbalanced network (not worth watchign) as it does to CNN and the reast of the mainstream media.