Anyone have predictions to their outcome? I wouldn't be surprised if Ron Paul happened to pull a surprise upset, but at this point I'm expecting a Romney victory because of how much money he's been blowing to slam Gingrich along with the Super PAC Restore Our Future running negative ads around the clock. I'd imagine (or at least hope) that the field of candidates will thin a bit after the caucuses and New Hampshire primaries too, since a few of the candidates (Santorum, Huntsman, Bachmann) seem to have put all of their eggs into the early state's baskets, and that can't be good if they ultimately fail to get enough support.
.
I live in Iowa. Those jags got my mobile number and fill my voicemail about every other day while I'm at work. I swear to christ I'm gonna flip out here soon.
On that note, Bachmann is done after Iowa, Huntsman after New Hampshire. Gingrich won't do so well in either, but he has a nice lead. No clue how Romney will fare, Paul and Perry are wildcards, they have money and are gaining exposure, but I don't think they'll pick up the slack if/when the others drop. I think most of it will go to Newt.
ya hear about the guy who put his condom on backwards? He went.
Fringe candidates like Bachmann are done after Iowa methinks. Seriously, it's time to separate the viable candidates from the people that should have dropped out long ago.
But with that, Iowa is merely the first stop, we may get a surprise upset or two, but I've seen nothing so far that makes me think that by November it'll be Romney vs. Obama in the General Election.
You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.
At 1/2/12 09:18 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: But with that, Iowa is merely the first stop, we may get a surprise upset or two, but I've seen nothing so far that makes me think that by November it'll be Romney vs. Obama in the General Election.
*ahem* Please post all political predictions for this year in this thread http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1287 558
Thank you! <3
Well, it looks like Romney pulled it out by a short-and-curly. 8 votes. Eight. That's how much he won by. Not technically official yet, but it also looks like Perry is stepping out. Gingrich is still going strong even after coming in a distant 4th behind Santorum and Paul.
Next up is New Hampshire where Romney has a substantial lead in the polls and has for some time, but it looks like Gingrich is happy to split the bottom half of the ticket in order to guarantee a Romney win. South Carolina and Florida right now are up in the air. If Gingrich or Santorum can pull in some good numbers in NH, then either one could gain some momentum heading into those two, much more important numbers-wise, States.
One way or another, it looks like this nomination process will be just as long and insane as the Obama/Clinton one.
Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.
Santorum has his own skeletons to answer for. He wasn't targeted before, he will be now.
On a moving train there are no centrists, only radicals and reactionaries.
I used to live in Iowa, and it makes me realize that I've never attended a meeting of presidential candidates before. There were a few times where presidential candidates (heck, even Barrack Obama himself) showed up in my city, but I never saw him. I find it strange how some people complain that there are only two parties in this country and yet there are half a dozen people on each political party that we get to choose from.
You know the world's gone crazy when the best rapper's a white guy and the best golfer's a black guy - Chris Rock
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505103_162-5 7351926/michele-bachmann-to-end-presiden tial-campaign/
I like, have the shining, or something.
At 1/4/12 09:51 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Santorum has his own skeletons to answer for. He wasn't targeted before, he will be now.
True. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Santorum's a threat to win the nomination. Actually at this point the only true threat is Gingrich. Romney and Gingrich are going to be tough pills to swallow for the republican base (and Gingrich will have even more issues with moderates and disenfranchised Dems than Romney). If Santorum can't keep his momentum and win a significant percentage of New Hampshire and South Carolina, I would expect him to fold and back Gingrich, hoping to pull Florida towards him. Then we'll have our horserace.
Don't get me wrong, either. I would love (LOVE!) to see a Paul nomination. I don't think he could win, but the race would be fanTAStic!
Then again, the stars could align and we could get the darkest of all dark horses: a sane republican with executive experience and foreign policy chops...
...naaah, never happen.
Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.
With Ron Paul having a respectable portion of the vote and given he has views that aren't always what one would call Republican, I'm wondering that if after the Republican candidate is finally nominated and he's not their pick, if we might see him run as a third party candidate?
If life gives you lemons, read the fine print; chances are, there's a monthly fee attached.
well it looks like it will be a face-a-face against Romney and and Dr.Paul in the future.
Ron Paul has a strong following of people that truly wants some change at any costs, but the reality is that he is despised by the media and the rest of the establishment republicans, so he will have a really hard time to get the support of an older demographic, due to the lack of exposure in the mainstream media. I think he still has a chance, mostly because he gets the "internet advantage" over his opponents: his current supporters are making themselves known(as the paulbots) but for all his negatives, he'll surely end up being the first choice for the younger demographic.
Mitt Romney on the other hand has a better support from the rest of the republicans and monetarily he crushes the Doctor. so ha has a better chance to last way longer. The only thing that will bring him some trouble is that he is a Mormon, which will make a challenge to try to get support from the Christian voters, but even then it's gonna be hard to try to beat such brute force of politics. especially now that he Won Iowa, he just get Even more monetary support
in general, it;s gonna be a stamina game, we just have to see who is gonna last longer in the long run and right now, it doesn't look good for Paul and God helps America if Romney ever gets elected.
:P
At 1/5/12 05:10 AM, RPGShadow wrote: ...it doesn't look good for Paul and God helps America if Romney ever gets elected.
Romney will get the Republican nomination but Obama will get four more years. It's a done deal. A majority of Americans are in no mood to hear, "Don't tax the job creators!" They're creating jobs in CHINA and INDIA!
Obama is a lying whore, of course. You have to be a sold-out whore in order to be draped with the Mainstream Media Mantle of Legitimacy. Not even the New York Times has the courtesy to call Dr. Paul "Doctor" -- they call him "Mister" when they mention him at all. Obama is just another corporatist who works for the elites, and in return they give him big, fat campaign donations. You don't think those billions come without strings attached, do you? All the front-runners are, lying whores, but the incumbent tells prettier lies.
That's why he'll get another four years. It doesn't matter if his approval rating drops to 25% like Bush's did.
if they use the "Ron Paul will never beat Obama" defence then they would have to ignore the fact that he does better with independents than any other candidate in his party.
but the one thing I learned from Iowa caucus is that the main supporters of your party don't matter, its the baby boom that decides every election. The majority of them are voting for better pensions and senior care, free meds for seniors, etc. I'm seeing the irony of it all, these people call you socialist if you want help with your student loan while you are working your ass off for an education so that you can work for a living while they are sitting around collecting dust demanding free stuff and more money.
it goes to show that very few people are actually dedicated to free market, and that the majority just use it as an excuse to not pay for OTHER PEOPLE'S entitlements. want lower taxes? then you have to make sacrifices, don't want to sacrifice your own entitlements? then don't expect other people to lose theirs just for you.
ya hear about the guy who put his condom on backwards? He went.
At 1/5/12 08:46 AM, marchohare wrote:
Romney will get the Republican nomination but Obama will get four more years. It's a done deal. A majority of Americans are in no mood to hear, "Don't tax the job creators!" They're creating jobs in CHINA and INDIA!
Obama is a lying whore, of course. You have to be a sold-out whore in order to be draped with the Mainstream Media Mantle of Legitimacy. Not even the New York Times has the courtesy to call Dr. Paul "Doctor" -- they call him "Mister" when they mention him at all. Obama is just another corporatist who works for the elites, and in return they give him big, fat campaign donations. You don't think those billions come without strings attached, do you? All the front-runners are, lying whores, but the incumbent tells prettier lies.
That's why he'll get another four years. It doesn't matter if his approval rating drops to 25% like Bush's did.
All of this, except the Ron Paul thing. Paul may not be a whore, but he is a racist dick. All of the things that he is right on, he is right on for the entirely wrong reasons. Obama is a complete whore and is in total submission to the right, and nobody knows why the fuck that is.
A vagina is really just a hat for a penis.
Romney's win (despite the ever so thin margin) is not surprising. Nor is Sanorum's surge. However, some interesting things that will come out of this, expecially since now Bachman's dropped out.
1. Voter turnout: it's not a huge difference from the 2008 caucuses, whihc is both a good thing and a bad thing. The good news is that it's still a record fopr Iowa, but the lack of a huge spike should be concerning to any Republican candidate, because it shows that voters are not as enthusiastic about a Republican candidate as the GOP claims it to be.
2. Romney's percentage is still the same as he got 4 years ago. Basically, voters in Lowa still like/dislike him despite the millions of dollars he's put into campaigning. That's not good. And besides, about 75% of the voters were against Romney. Again, not good news. And here's the kicker: the districts Romney carried in Iowa this time are the same ones who went Democratic in 2008.
3. Santorum's surge will help him somewhat in NW so he'll get out of single digits, but he still won't come close to winning there. Romney, Paul, and Huntsman have too strong of a foothold in NW, even with the Evengelical vote coming over from Bachman.
4. What is Rick Perry and Newt thinking? I'm not surprised Bachman dropped out, but I'm even more surprised Perry's coming back for a second round. He's not going to get NW, let alone SC where it's the final stand for most conservative candidates. Same thing with Newt,; he's collasping so quickly he might as well cut his loses now.
New to Politics?/ Friend of the Devil/ I review writing! PM me
"Question everything generally thought to be obvious."-Dieter Rams
I think Newt is hoping for another surge. He went from totally dead and a non-factor to the front runner for a couple weeks there. Seems like just about every candidate in the Republican field has had at least a flirtation with being "the chosen one" in this cycle. I think Newt is stubborn enough and delusional enough to believe something bad will happen with Romney to take him down, or Newt will find that magic message that gets those that want no part of Romney to come over and put him on the ticket.
I certainly can see Romney's GOP credentials being attacked by someone for carrying districts that went Dem in 08 as well.
You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.
At 1/5/12 08:40 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:
I certainly can see Romney's GOP credentials being attacked by someone for carrying districts that went Dem in 08 as well.
yes that's right I had forgotten about is Major flip-flop......
it's really all up to luck after all... -_-
At 1/5/12 08:40 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: I think Newt is hoping for another surge. He went from totally dead and a non-factor to the front runner for a couple weeks there. Seems like just about every candidate in the Republican field has had at least a flirtation with being "the chosen one" in this cycle. I think Newt is stubborn enough and delusional enough to believe something bad will happen with Romney to take him down, or Newt will find that magic message that gets those that want no part of Romney to come over and put him on the ticket.
I certainly can see Romney's GOP credentials being attacked by someone for carrying districts that went Dem in 08 as well.
True, but as with Santorum's campaign, Newt doesn't have the infrastructure to support such surge. There's simply not enough personel to hold such a large scale campaign.
Here's the thing about Newt: unlike Perry, who hasn't seen as much national spotlight, Newt knows how the game works. He's been too much of a polarizing figure in conservative politics for awhile. His brand of negativity no longer works. The scary thing is that Newt knows all of this, yet he continues to push onward, bruising his reputation and ego instead of cutting his losses.
New to Politics?/ Friend of the Devil/ I review writing! PM me
"Question everything generally thought to be obvious."-Dieter Rams
At 1/5/12 10:35 AM, camobch0 wrote: Paul may not be a whore, but he is a racist dick.
I've been following him since '88, and I don't believe he's a racist. What I do believe is that he wasn't watching his campaign staff closely enough (I'm not sure how one could), and that it even might have been infiltrated. That was common practice in discrediting Libertarians back then. The idiotic "Guns for Tots" fiasco (which Paul had nothing to do with, but it was another case of a weasel getting into the Libertarian henhouse) was a prime example of that tactic. It was tailor made to make Libertarians look like idiots, and it worked.
All of the things that he is right on, he is right on for the entirely wrong reasons.
They're right as far as they go. The Drug War is a stupid waste of money and trying to be the Global Police does as well, on top of making us less secure. I share his positions on those things for humanitarian reasons along with fiscal and strategic ones, but that doesn't make him wrong.
I disagree with about half his positions (eliminating safety nets for the "little guy" would be an unmitigated disaster at this point -- our economy is FALLING APART), but I agree with about half, which is better than I can say for any other candidate in either party for a reason we agree on...
Obama is a complete whore and is in total submission to the right...
...and that's the reason.
...and nobody knows why the fuck that is.
Yes we do. The "elites" bought his unbelievably expensive ticket into office. Only an idiot could believe that our campaign finance system doesn't guarantee that every election will introduce a fresh crop of sold-out whores. It's built right into the system.
System's gotta change.
At 1/6/12 11:47 AM, marchohare wrote:
I disagree with about half his positions (eliminating safety nets for the "little guy" would be an unmitigated disaster at this point -- our economy is FALLING APART), but I agree with about half, which is better than I can say for any other candidate in either party for a reason we agree on...
His plan is to allow people younger than 27 to choose to opt out of SS and Medicare if they agree to pay for it themselves. Current beneficiaries get to keep their SS Checks. I am guessing that his plan for welfare is to gradually wean people off of it, which is what most Republican candidates say they will do. The difference is that one can actually believe Paul when he say's he'll do it. The thing about actual welfare for the poor though is that it comprises a very small portion of the budget.
In my view his plan is the fairest and safest way [economically speaking] end the liquidation of America's youth.
The status quo is the worst of all possible scenarios, since it guarantee's that the Dollar will lose it's value, and render all Social safety nets void. Efforts to reform the system through tax increases and benefit reductions defeat the purpose of the SSN entirely since it would entail people paying more in taxes than they receive in benefits.
On a moving train there are no centrists, only radicals and reactionaries.
At 1/6/12 01:36 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: His plan is to allow people younger than 27 to choose to opt out of SS and Medicare if they agree to pay for it themselves.
I'm not sure how Medicare works, but I don't see how one could do that with Social Security. It's never been an investment. That money was never invested. Instead, current workers are paying the benefits of those who are retired. That worked as long as the population kept increasing, but the Baby Boomers reaching retirement will blow it all to hell.
The politicians know that. That's why they're scrambling to excuse screwing the Baby Boomers. They're going to have to. You can't change the laws of mathematics by wishing things were different. The Royal Screwing is coming, like it or not.
Young people (and that even includes me: I'm 52) should never expect to draw out what they've paid in. Unless Social Security starts dipping into the general fund in a big way (which they aren't likely to do), it ain't gonna happen.
Current beneficiaries get to keep their SS Checks.
No, they won't, for reasons I've already stated. We can wish and hope until we're blue in the face, but that won't change reality one iota.
I am guessing that his plan for welfare is to gradually wean people off of it, which is what most Republican candidates say they will do.
Believing we'll ever reach a point where welfare is unnecessary (real welfare... FOR THE POOR! ...not the obscene bailouts for the wealthy we're seeing now) is a pie-in-the-sky opium dream. There will never be enough jobs to go around. It doesn't take 307 million workers (okay, subtract the kids) to see to the needs of all Americans. Even now, most of those "at-least-he-has-a-jobs" range from useless to destructive. Outsourcing and technological advances will continue to make our situation even worse.
Like it or not, we can't keep making the ability to survive contingent on holding a job. Call it "socialism" if you like. Call it "communism" for that matter. Bitch and whine until you're blue in the face. You can't change it. We're either going to have to guarantee certain things like access to food, shelter and health care, or Americans will die in droves.
Don't think you won't be one of the casualties, either. You just might.
That said, I still like Ron Paul better than any of the other candidates. Admittedly, that's damning with faint praise, but so what? The others are pure poison.
Am I /like/ the only one who looks past all of this, and thinks that it's incredibly vague and flawed the way they evaluate a new figure that presents themselves; their opinions; their virtues; to the mass?
Every man has a thousand of faces; but not every man reveals them.
You do not make examples, you make excuses; you do not solve problems, you shift problems; you do not stand behind your statements, you stand behind your stasis.
At 1/6/12 02:13 PM, Insanctuary wrote: Am I /like/ the only one who looks past all of this, and thinks that it's incredibly vague and flawed the way they evaluate a new figure that presents themselves....
No, not that Ron Paul is a new figure. I voted for him for President in '88. This is just the first time enough people have heard of him that the MSM can't ignore him out of existence.
That said, we really are just talking about a few rotten trees in a very diseased forest. As I've said, Romney will get the Republican nomination and Obama will win four more years. This is a done deal. It doesn't matter, however, because both are tin-plated sold-out whores. If you really want to change something, eliminate the corporate funding of campaigns. Establish that corporations are not people, and that money is not speech. That's how to change it.
And good luck doing that. The folks who hate that message REALLY hate it. I submitted a Flash to that effect a couple of months ago, and two guys (or more likely one guy with two accounts) has been coming back every day for two months to blam it. It came out of its first day in Daily 6th Place with a score of 3.55. They (or he) has it down to 2.88 now.
Those who are opposed to those changes are SERIOUSLY opposed to them.
At 1/6/12 02:46 PM, marchohare wrote:At 1/6/12 02:13 PM, Insanctuary wrote: Am I /like/ the only one who looks past all of this, and thinks that it's incredibly vague and flawed the way they evaluate a new figure that presents themselves....No, not that Ron Paul is a new figure. I voted for him for President in '88. This is just the first time enough people have heard of him that the MSM can't ignore him out of existence.
That said, we really are just talking about a few rotten trees in a very diseased forest. As I've said, Romney will get the Republican nomination and Obama will win four more years. This is a done deal. It doesn't matter, however, because both are tin-plated sold-out whores. If you really want to change something, eliminate the corporate funding of campaigns. Establish that corporations are not people, and that money is not speech. That's how to change it.
And good luck doing that. The folks who hate that message REALLY hate it. I submitted a Flash to that effect a couple of months ago, and two guys (or more likely one guy with two accounts) has been coming back every day for two months to blam it. It came out of its first day in Daily 6th Place with a score of 3.55. They (or he) has it down to 2.88 now.
Those who are opposed to those changes are SERIOUSLY opposed to them.
Well of course, I was generalising the scheme of electing candidates. It just seems it's always going to get rigged, thus we are always going to get stuck with some half smiling, deceptive apparel wearing, idea mangling, porcelain figure who wins ignorant people's hearts with empty words.
It's quite digusting if you ask me, how nobody has realised that this is completely ludicrous and how it's only working against us while the people behind it are scheming. They might aswell change the part in the declaration of independece where it says ''We the people'' to ''We the businesses''. Money is controlling everything now, not our humanly idea.. not our freedom and what we are fighting for.
Money. Our human race is so 'intelligent', so 'superior' and we have silk destroying our world..
So amusing. ^^
People think that people's ideas hold merit when they dress well, when they have good book knowledge and use big industrialise words..when they wear nice suits and smile; speaking of their lies.. Their ideas hold value.. When it appears to me that those who were normal people changed alot in this world.. Not these baboons.
You do not make examples, you make excuses; you do not solve problems, you shift problems; you do not stand behind your statements, you stand behind your stasis.
At 1/6/12 03:05 PM, Insanctuary wrote: It's quite digusting if you ask me, how nobody has realised that this is completely ludicrous and how it's only working against us while the people behind it are scheming.
It's not true that nobody has realized it, but perhaps you were just generalizing again. A lot of people realize it -- just not a majority. A majority never will either, and the elites know that. They know it because of the Milgram experiment.
If you don't know what that is, Google it. Stanley Milgram proved (and other researchers have repeatedly verified it) that 65% of us are "Good Nazis." That 65% will even administer fatal electrical shocks to a test subject (actually an actor) when instructed to do so by an authority figure. That's how much Milgram's 65% (also known as "sheeple") trust and respect authority just because, in that case, it was wearing a white lab coat and holding a clipboard.
As I said, other researchers have repeated it. They always get that magical 65%. One study even went so far as to question whether the test subjects might realize that the shocks were fake on some level, so they substituted a sweet, helpless puppy and had the test subjects really kill it.
The test subjects did. It's really 65%, all right.
At 1/6/12 03:35 PM, marchohare wrote:At 1/6/12 03:05 PM, Insanctuary wrote: It's quite digusting if you ask me, how nobody has realised that this is completely ludicrous and how it's only working against us while the people behind it are scheming.It's not true that nobody has realized it, but perhaps you were just generalizing again. A lot of people realize it -- just not a majority. A majority never will either, and the elites know that. They know it because of the Milgram experiment.
If you don't know what that is, Google it. Stanley Milgram proved (and other researchers have repeatedly verified it) that 65% of us are "Good Nazis." That 65% will even administer fatal electrical shocks to a test subject (actually an actor) when instructed to do so by an authority figure. That's how much Milgram's 65% (also known as "sheeple") trust and respect authority just because, in that case, it was wearing a white lab coat and holding a clipboard.
As I said, other researchers have repeated it. They always get that magical 65%. One study even went so far as to question whether the test subjects might realize that the shocks were fake on some level, so they substituted a sweet, helpless puppy and had the test subjects really kill it.
The test subjects did. It's really 65%, all right.
Yes, I'm glad you caught my generalisation. Sorry about that, I was going to say something different but my mind completely decided to go down a different track.
I believe that this whole 'Milgram' is just another fancy word to cover what is subtly blatantly obvious.
Our human race has been polluted for 1000's of years, and nobody knows how to distinguish what is right from wrong; what is real from fake anymore.. Not even with the slightest bit of effort.
I wish to bring this awareness unto our human race with my philosophy. ^^ That's off track though.
Still.. I don't like to jump to assumptions and believe in alot of the things I read. I don't like to swim in pudding; I like to swim in my universe that I have long studied; which is constituted by the same language of other's minds.. What I am trying to say is.. This world is being over complicated by our fucked up human race.. The answer to fix everything is so simple.. Yet the ignorance and weaknesses of our human race is why it's so god damned complicated.
I believe that humans never were limited. There is no such thing as a limit. Everything was in our grasp before we were told we couldn't do something by ourselves or those around us.
/We/ are our own obstacle. ^^
You do not make examples, you make excuses; you do not solve problems, you shift problems; you do not stand behind your statements, you stand behind your stasis.
At 1/6/12 03:53 PM, Insanctuary wrote: Our human race has been polluted for 1000's of years, and nobody knows how to distinguish what is right from wrong; what is real from fake anymore.. Not even with the slightest bit of effort.
I don't believe a majority ever could. For example, that anyone ever could have considered the Old Testament to be a legitimate moral code, much less the "Word of God," just says to me that most people have never been able to tell right from wrong or truth from bullshit.
This mess isn't new. It's as old as the species itself.
This mess isn't new. It's as old as the species itself.
Indeed.
You do not make examples, you make excuses; you do not solve problems, you shift problems; you do not stand behind your statements, you stand behind your stasis.
Select between 5 monster racers, upgrade your monster skill and win the competition!
4.23 / 5.00 3,881 Views
Build most powerful forces, unleash hordes of monster and control your soldiers!
3.93 / 5.00 4,634 Views
© Copyright 1995-2014 Newgrounds, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
newgrounds.com — Your #1 online entertainment & artist community! All your base are belong to us.
