This is an open thread for chatting about Mitt Romney’s fate in today’s Iowa caucuses.
And if you’re feeling jealous of all the fun these Iowa voters/caucusers are having, be sure to stop by our Boggs-Doniphan (Gentile of the Year) Award voting thread, and Aaron B’s Food, Intimacy or Cars? polls. At least the Boggs-Doniphan voting actually results in an official prize, unlike the non-binding-convention-delegate determinations coming out of Iowa!
Update: See the comments thread for the liveblog action. Here’s my final update of the night (off to watch Colbert sans distraction):
Clinton Co official on CNN said that precinct voted 51 Mitt & 33 Santorum. That would shift 4 vote Mitt deficit to 14 vote lead/win
— Greg Giroux (@greggiroux) January 4, 2012
By Common Consent, a Mormon Blog 
Some voter dude on CNN re: Santorum: “He’s not about the polls, he’s about the people.” Lulz. Idealism and/or delusion and/or cynical feigning of optimism is so cute.
Atlantic Wire has some good live-blogging updates if you aren’t near a TV. Or if you’re one of those people, who is proud about not owning a TV [looks accusingly yet affectionately at Kristine Haglund].
Sad visual on CNN of vote-counting in one county: giant red vote tickets sitting in piles labeled for each candidate, empty Huntsman pile. :-(
From dailykos.com: “Of counties reporting results: Santorum leads in 24 of them. Ron Paul has the lead in 15 of them. Mitt Romney in 12 of them. Gingrich? One.”
This is proving to be a very good night for Mitt Romney. Santorum, Romney, Paul, Gingrich = Romney will be the nominee.
CNN is saying that with 46% reporting, Romney leads:
Dailykos is giving stats for 48% reporting, with Rick Santorum overtaking Romney with a narrow lead:
I’m guessing Santorum takes it, with Romney at 2nd. Romney then takes NH, but Santorum could well take SC. But I think from there on, Romney starts the sprint. I agree that he’ll be the nominee. Santorum is extreme.
Agreed, Mike. A first place finish would obviously be great for Romney, but I think a second place behind Santorum is almost as good, because I feel like he’s really the current flavor of the week and, like [Gingrich, Cain, Perry, Bachman] before him, Santorum will implode shortly.
Margaret, I agree totally.
Interesting. CNN’s exit polls (actually, they’re calling it an “entrance poll,” but whatever) has tonight’s Iowa electorate as 57% male, only 43% female. That seems quite extreme. I don’t recall men usually having higher turnout than women in elections in the US generally. Is that typical for Iowa caucuses? Another reason to overhaul the primary calendar system.
This is crazy. How is it possible a person like Santorum is favored by so many people??
(Answering my own question from #9:) Looking at 2008 results, it looks like this is not a turnout issue (more men turning out than women), but just a party affiliation thing. More women are Democrats than Republicans, and men vice versa. So in 2008, Democratic caucus-goers in Iowa were 57/43 women/men split, and Republicans the opposite, same numbers as this time.
With almost 80% reporting, it’s 25% Romney, 25% Santorum, with Romney having just a slight lead.
And now 88% reporting, it’s 25% Santorum, 25% Romney, with Santorum having just a slight (45 votes out of 52,000) lead.
Tonight’s results will hurt Ron Paul. His rationale has been that his supporters would walk-over glass for him, that his folks were more motivated. Looks like he’ll be third. He’ll be weaker from here.
Bauchman is toast. The little money flowing in will diminish to virtually nothing. Prediction: Out by weekend.
Perry has been crippled. Only question is when he departs.
Gingrich is in an in-between state. He has to jump up in New Hampshire.
Why are you people watching CNN instead of The Daily Show and Colbert?
Bad news for Ron Paul. If his volunteer machine can’t pull off a miracle win in Iowa, where retail and ground game by volunteer is king, where can he?
Steve, don’t lose *all* your faith in humanity—just look at Bachmann’s dismal showing.
Steve,
What can I say, we’re the same state that chose Huckabee last go around.
Speaking of Bachmann, did she just say that we need a candidate “in the likeness and image of Ronald Reagan”? As in, quoting scripture about God/Jesus? Saint Ron has gone from saint to actual Christ replacement idol. Creepy.
Meanwhile, at the Michelle Bachmann headquarters, she was introduced as “the next President of the United States”…(Insert Giggles Here)
yowza- you have to be seriously spooked by mormons to vote for santorum. is it too soon to look into charging santorum voters with a hate crime?
Re: 10
Dude! 29,000 people in Republican Iowa supported Santorum, who makes Huckabee look like Reagan. “So many people”??? More turn out for the White Party in Palm Springs every year. Iowa is pure entertainment. In terms of it being representative of anything, you might as well have a caucus in Orem. Fun to watch, though. Romney will be the nominee. I can feel BCC heating up already……
Rick Perry? Go home already.
Dailykos predicts a win for Romney, with a margin of 85 votes:
re: 22 Perry pretty much conceded a few minutes ago. Thank goodness. That drawl is like nails on chalkboard.
First it was Bachman. Then Perry. Then Newt. Now it’s Santorum. There is a large block of the Republican party that has elevated every candidate except Paul and the other Mormon against Romeny. And when each one fails, they move on to the next one. What is to explain this pattern? It is the anyone-but-the-Mormon evangel power brokers at work among the Repub party.
A few minutes ago on CNN, they showed Romney and Huckabee colors on that map they use. The Suckabee colors now correlate with Santorum.
Pathetic.
“That drawl is like nails on chalkboard.”
Soooo true. Spine-chilling echoes of W.
Good ‘ol Dub-Ya.
Paul’s third-place finish is unfortunate, because it will take that much more gas out of what was never going to be a serious shot at the Republican nomination, but had been, thus far, an interesting and important intra-libertarian argument. Santorum’s second-place finish is mildly interesting, and perhaps poses some idle questions about what a Santorum with momentum might be able to do to Gingrich in South Carolina and Florida, especially if Perry bizarrely chooses to stay in the race, but given that Santorum is going to be hammered in New Hampshire, those questions will truly be idle, at best. Romney’s first-place finish only makes what every political scientist worth his or her salt has known to be highly likely for months that much more likely. There may be some intriguing hiccups along the way, but basically, settle in for 10 months of Obama vs. Romney, everybody.
I think the problem with Paul is that he’s a pretty poor representative of libertarianism. Look at what his critics can focus on – either racism or the opportunism of making use of racists. Most of his fans are projecting onto him their dreams.
re: 28
Oh for sure. It’s hard to see the nomination going any other way now. If you think 2011 was an interesting year for Mormons, watch out.
Hey, Mike, how do you think the Dems will go after Rommey’s religion when Reid is one of their top leaders? I don’t mean they won’t; I just wonder how they will do it.
and I understand PAC’s, so that probably is the answer . . .
RIP, Rick Perry’s campaign. Glad to see I picked such a prophetically a propos title for this post. Let’s relive the magic:
I think the problem with Paul is that he’s a pretty poor representative of libertarianism.
From my point of view that’s not a bug, Clark, that’s a feature. The longer Paul was a serious, or at least consistently annoying, presence at GOP debates, the more libertarians were forced to think about the fact that so much of their thinking is wrapped up in Paul’s anti-imperialist, neo-Confederate, property-is-king gestalt. It was fun to read, and even learn from. A saner, less crackpot libertarian candidate wouldn’t have obliged so many thoughtful libertarians to clean house in that way. That’s why I wanted Paul to win: not because I wanted someone who thinks Brown v. Board of Education was wrongly decided anywhere near the White House, but because keeping Paul in play kept the argument going. After Paul is buried in New Hampshire in a week’s time, he probably won’t be able to force many such arguments forward any longer.
Anyone else catch the guy in the background (or maybe foreground) during Romney speech that raised a beer bottle? The next 10 months is gonna be a hoot.
Seeing as I’m one of those don’t-own-a-tv types, that’s the first I’ve seen of ANY campaign ads. I think Perry must’ve been eavesdropping on family dinners with my parents and then copied the conversation verbatim into his ad. Almost any LDS family dinner, really. Except maybe yours, Cynthia.
Does anyone else find it odd that the two most moderate GOP candidates are LDS? It just doesn’t seem right somehow.
Chelsea, this is for you: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mysticpolitics/6485346317/
My super-secret-conspiracy theory is that Huntsman is only in the race as a favor to Romney by making sure he has *somebody* running to the left of him, thereby making him appear more conservative and appealing to GOP primary voters.
The most disconcerting thing about that image, Cynthia, is the creepy jacket. I’m going to have nightmares tonight.
On a more electorial note, I love how Gingrich just slammed Romney big time with his “I want to congratulate Rick on running a positive campaign…” line. He’s endorsing another candidate before even dropping out of the race. Looks like someone has VP on the brain…
Ooh, ooh, Cynthia! Like! Like! I second that!
Hey, don’t diss the jacket! In fact, when Heath Ledger rocks that jacket, it looks downright fetching. Of course, probably not the association Perry was going for.
I’ll have to respectfully disagree with you, C. I suppose I’m just not into cowboys of any political-, sexual, or wizarding-orientation.
I’m biting my nails over the outcome of this thing! An 18-vote difference will decide the fate of… of…
the next Huckabee?
Ouch:
Dailykos’ linear projections from the remaining precincts now predicts Santorum by 17 votes.
re: 31
I’m not sure either, Ray, but I suspect it will be fairly subtle….and utterly ruthless. Obama (and Hilary!) play to win.
Wow, Jon Stewart is extra hilarious tonight. “Romspringa”–when GOP voters go out and experiment wildly with all variety of candidates, before coming back to the farm and committing to Romney. Awesome.
Did anybody see Romney behind the ball in Times Square on New Year’s Eve? (I was asleep.) 2011 Year of the Mormon, indeed!
Dailykos says Romney camp says they win by 13 votes. I really was worried about this being decided by a single vote and shaking my testimony of voting-doesn’t-matter!
Don’t worry, Scott. As a Californian, your vote still TOTALLY doesn’t matter. Just don’t move to Florida or Iowa.
Quick! Everybody go scour Revelation and Jeremiah and Isaiah and D&C for scripture quotes and/or Bible code stuff that seems to foresee this 14-vote result!
8 votes, per CNN as of 11:46 pm PST. That should greatly change the biblical interpretation.
Folks, Romney will definitely get the nod and Obama will definitely win. You heard it hear first. Also, third party run by Paul.
John C., yes Romney will definitely get the GOP nomination, but no, Obama will not definitely win…unless your third condition comes to pass, in which case Obama’s chances greatly improve (which is one of the reasons why I think most of the big Republican players have been mostly quiet about the racist newsletters which came out under Paul’s name years ago, or his other gold-standard/neo-Confederate craziness: they’ve saving that to use against him should he go independent). It’s be no means certain that Obama will be a one-term president, but he’s looking at a bad electoral hand, and there are lot of ways Romney can make that hand even worse. The fact that Obama has, despite the ACA, despite the end of the war in Iraq, done relatively little to ingratiate himself to the populist/activist Democratic base only makes things easier for Romney…and should the Occupy movement come back hard against Obama in 2012, as some of their leaders have threatened to do, rallying the base just gets harder. All things considered, I wouldn’t bet on either outcome, but overall I still suspect we’ll have a Mormon president come next November.
Ron Paul will not run third party. Why? Because his son Rand Paul will be waiting in the wings to run in 4 years if a Republican doesn’t beat Obama. If Ron Paul goes Independent/Libertarian, then it throws Rand Paul under the bus in 4 years.
I don’t think Obama can win against Romney. It will be very easy for Romney to show that Pres Obama has done nothing, except send in a squad of Seals to kill Bin Laden. Otherwise, Obama has been extreme when he has lead, and usually has not lead on anything but been happy to allow Congress to lead and bicker. Remember Simpson-Bowles? Where is Obama’s plan to recover the economy?
There is just as big of a chance of a liberal independent as there is a conservative one.
Santorum is very conservative on social issues, but big government otherwise. I think that will be his downfall. That and he does not have governing experience. Few senators ever win the presidency, and of those who do, few have been top-notch leaders (just look at Pres Obama). Meanwhile, Romney has shown he can create jobs, he can govern a state, he can work across the aisle, and he is business savvy. I think as Bill Clinton once said, “it’s the economy, stupid”. I think Pres Obama paraphrases it differently: “It’s the stupid economy”..
The fact that Romney barely won over a nutcase like Santorum says a lot, a lot about the Republican field, a lot about Romney himself, and a lot about the stupidity of allowing something as trivial as the Iowa caucuses to determine something so important. More seriously is the issue of super PAC money and how our elections are now influenced by big donors. Candidates can now pretend to be above the fray and allow their super PACs to get down and dirty against the opposition. Romney can actually stand before the camera and pretend to have clean hands while his super PAC totally trashed Newt Gingrich. That Gingrich deserved to be trashed is sort of beside the point. The sad fact is, we may think we have democracy in our country, but increasingly we have ceded control of our government to interests other than the American people. and that is true regardless of who wins.
RAF,
I know the conventional wisdom, but I just don’t believe that (if Iowa represents the base of the Republicans) Republicans will ever rally behind Romney. While Dems, for all Obama’s lack of leadership, are basically committed to the guy. I think Republican turn-out will be really, really low. That’s why I think O’s got this one put away.
I think that this race will have the lowest overall turn-out in years, because both bases are fairly well disgusted with their candidates. But I also think even the Republican base sees the opposition to Obama is based in some fairly nasty stuff, while the Dems, facing the radical conservative escalation of late, will feel a need to fend off the least able representative of the escalation. In other words, I think Dems currently have more at stake than Republicans (but just barely).
Ram,
“Romney has shown he can create jobs, he can govern a state, he can work across the aisle, and he is business savvy.”
The Republican base hates at least two of those things (the state he governed and his ability to compromise (an ability he is working hard to distance himself from)) and his business savvy-ness often didn’t result in “creating jobs” (possibly it resulted in strengthening the jobs and companies that survived him, but his goal was never to “create jobs”).
For years Mormons were mocked for driving big cars like vans and Suburbans. Now one large Econoline van might have given Mitt Romney victory in Iowa. He won Iowa by eight votes, which happens to be exactly how many people can be comfortable sat in a Suburban. One Mormon family giving a ride to their fellow ward members to their local Caucus site might have made all the difference.
For all the Romney haters, remember that he invested in Staples, which now employs 90,000 people. That’s a lot of jobs.
“I know the conventional wisdom, but I just don’t believe that (if Iowa represents the base of the Republicans) Republicans will ever rally behind Romney. While Dems, for all Obama’s lack of leadership, are basically committed to the guy. I think Republican turn-out will be really, really low. That’s why I think O’s got this one put away.”
There’s still one thing that Romney has going for him and that’s the VP Nomination. He can use that to shore up the conservative votes on the far right. Someone like Rubio from Florida would go a long way to accomplishing this.
Yes, we need to remember that Iowa is not really representative of the entire USA. Ronald Reagan lost Iowa, but was rather popular everywhere else, for example. Santorum is just the newest blip on the screen. He will get some money and endorsements out of this, but I don’t think it will be enough to win. And if Mitt selects someone like Rubio, or perhaps a Condee Rice, we could be in for a very excited Republican crowd.
Romney also did Dominoes, which also employs lots of people, btw. And I like Dominoes much better than Godfather’s pizza….
“Iowa is not really representative of the entire USA”
Lord I hope so. That was really, really weird.
Wow! Hey look everyone! Steve Evans quoted me!!!! ;)
Seriously, I agree with the Boston Globe, which called this a race of Mitt and the “clown car.” I like clowns, but one gets to a point where weeks of who can out-clown the other really gets to be old.
@ Rameumpton
Good point about Domino’s pizza. They employ 145,000 people. Mitt Romney may not only have created more jobs than any presidential candidate in history; he may have created more jobs than all presidential candidates combined, from George Washington up to Barack Obama.
Good thing the caucuses were held on a Tuesday night, rather than a Monday night.
Yeah, gotta love all those new pizza delivery jobs!
Well, right now unemployment among young people (18-29) is at an all time high (between 40-50%). So there is a big need for pizza delivery jobs, just to help college kids pay for school, etc.
re # 54, the people still end up voting so not sure how the presence of advertising money makes this less of a democracy (I’m no fan of super PAC money flowing into races because it just adds to the whole overdone process that has developed but I’m not following you on the point about not having a democratic process anymore based on that).
Rameumptom, fair enough.
Next time Mitt or anybody else brags about how many jobs he has created, he needs to say that he has created 145,000 $7.00/hour jobs. It ain’t chopped liver, but it also isn’t he wants people to think.
Romney was focused on creating businesses and profit. Both were found in companies like Dominoes and Staples. BTW, there are more than just pizza delivery boys that work at Dominoes for minimum wage. There are managers, assistant managers, etc., who do much better.
As President, he would have greater resources to develop a variety of jobs, both low and high salaried.
Ram,
like I said, he probably strengthened existing jobs, but anyone focused on creating businesses and profit would have necessarily cut a lot of jobs, too. Probably jobs worth cutting, but painful to the job-holders nonetheless. I’m just saying that Romney’s work record is mixed on jobs at best.
I heard a rumor that Romney invented the Noid.
I demand that we start that rumor!
The presidency will be decided by how bad the economy is doing in August. You heard it here first. There are a few folks who think the economy is really going to pick up next year. (Say for example Modeled Behavior) But I think most think improvement will be slow and many are worried about the effect of Europe’s mess.
Given that improvement will be slow and decreases in unemployment may be followed by more people entering the market, I think Obama will have his work cut out for him. Romney also has baggage that bugs conservatives but is ideally positioned to be able to avoid most of Obama’s anti-tea party rhetoric.
James, why do you think Iowa matters that much? Until recently Romney was largely sitting Iowa out. No one expected him to win and I don’t think the winner of Iowa wins the nomination that often. If I recall only George W Bush and Bob Dole won it in recent memory. They rejected Ronald Reagan for heavens sake and Pat Robertson won it in ’88!
New Hampshire is arguably much more important. I think Iowa matters primarily to those who need strong conservative vote to remain competitive. It’s more about eliminating weak candidates. For instance had Perry done well there he’d have a chance. Now he is pulling out.
“Yeah, gotta love all those new pizza delivery jobs!”
This is a typical Occupy Wall Street attitude. Not everyone gets to have a six-figure job just handed to them. You need to earn it.
re: 61
What you saw last night represents about 30% of the American population, though. Make of that what you will.
I just have to say, despite my general dislike of almost all the Republican candidates, there was a huge difference in how Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney delivered there victory speeches last night. Santorum may have won a bunch of votes in other primary states by his easy, comfortable very personal speech, while Romney’s was pretty much a memorized stump speech. My wife was impressed with Santorum’s comfortable, personal speech, while she remarked that Romney seemed stiff and forced, kind of like his hair.
Ultimately, I think it will be a two man race after South Carolina, either Romney vs Gingrich, or Romney vs Santorum. Huntsman has to score in the 20%+ range to continue after New Hampshire, or he won’t be able to stay in. Iowa was Ron Paul’s zenith, from here on out, it’s only a matter of time.
“Romney seemed stiff and forced, kind of like his hair.”
Whoa, whoa, kevinf. Don’t go after the hair. When the primary rolls around to my state, I intent to write in “Romney’s hair stylist.”
@ kevinf
Until he was voted out of office in 2006, every dollar Rick Santorum had ever earned was taxpayer money. He’s a lifelong politician.
Meanwhile, Mitt Romney created a few hundred thousand jobs by judiciously allocating capital. We live in a capitalist society. We need jobs.
Romney/Huntsman, I wasn’t endorsing Santorum, I was only reflecting that, as many others have pointed out, Romney is just always a bit stiff in most of his public appearances, while Santorum seemed much more at ease. Lifelong politician or not, at least he’s not a total whack job, a trait shared only by the Mormon candidates in this ridiculous circus that the Republican race has become. As for me and my house, we are still thinking Obama is better than any alternative we’ve seen so far.
I have heard some rumors, perhaps more wishful thinking, on NPR and other outlets that there is some hope that Jeb Bush will enter the race if it appears that Romney really is leading after South Carolina, encouraged by some major social conservatives who don’t trust Romney. No question that Romney benefits from the division amongst evangelicals and the more radical social conservatives while Perry, Bachman, and Paul were still in the race. Once they are gone, along with at least one other candidate (take your pick), it will need to be seen if Romney can really break through into higher poll numbers than the 25% range, where he has been consistently over the last year. If Romney is the Republican nominee, I can see the Tea Party folks actively backing, with a lot of other disaffected conservatives, a third party candidate, probably from someone who failed the clown auditions early on. Palin, anyone?
I believe I’ve seen her in one of those Perry/Voldemort/Ledger jackets, too.
Well, Pat Robertson didn’t really win in Iowa in 1988. We was second to Dole (37% to 25%) but pushed the eventual nominee, George HW Bush, into third (19%). HW, ironically, had beaten Reagan there eight years earlier. By 1996, Dole won again, but with only 26% this time, with Robertson’s voters going to Pat Buchanan. Those Robertson/Buchanan/Huckabee/Santorum voters have made Iowa republicans irrelevant for quite some time.
“Not everyone gets to have a six-figure job just handed to them. You need to earn it.”
That is a typical kool-aid drinker’s attitude. If that is what Romney really means when he talks about the hundreds of thousands of jobs he is personally responsible for creating, he ought to be an honest man and say it. Guess how many votes that would get him?
Look, I kind of like the guy, but I get tired of the campaign B.S. He’d do himself a favor if he would just learn to keep it real.
How many jobs did Romney remove or offshore? And how many of these jobs were created after he took out his money and moved on?
“Not everyone gets to have a six-figure job just handed to them. You need to earn it”
Let’s frame that another way: Raise a generation with the expectation that a college education is the best gaurantee of a decently paying white-collar job, create a culture that demonizes low-paying service jobs, and become irritated when backlash occurs when there are way fewer good jobs than available workers. It’s like telling a jobless person to just go get a job. Well, yeah…that’s kinda the point.
“Look, I kind of like the guy, but I get tired of the campaign B.S.”
Think we’re tired now? Ten months still to go.
I was tired in 1994. So much for not a career politician.
John, I know. I think this is going to feel like 15 rounds in the ring with Mike Tyson before it’s over.
Romney just got a late Christmas present from Rick Perry, who announced he is staying in the race and focusing on South Carolina. I bet Santorum and Gingrich are furious right now.
Good point Ray. I think everyone (myself included) assumed he’d leave. It’s probably smart on Perry’s part as I think Santorum will wither under the scrutiny.
Casey, problem is no one was saying merely having a college degree would guarantee a good job. Interestingly the growth in STEM fields has been non-existent. There are as many computer science majors as there were years ago. The growth has all been in fields like performing arts, English, literature and so forth where people have been saying you’ll have a hard time getting a career for years. Interestingly those fields also have suffered the worst grade inflation the past decades too.
John, I really hate politics. While I’m no fan of Gingrich to say the least the dishonest ads by Romney’s SuperPAC have been disturbing as well. Part of the problem, as has been oft said, is how weak the field is. I think Huntsman was the only good contender but he seemed to do everything he could to alienate the very people he needed. Which is why he’ll never be the not-Romney. His best hope is to hope Obama wins and try again in 4 years. But I doubt he could do even that.
Bill, thanks for the correction. I could have sworn Robertson won.
Kevin, Romney’s lack of charisma and lack of comfort speaking normally are by far his biggest weaknesses. If Obama wins it’ll be that which allows the win.
Mike, I’m not sure Iowa Republicans willing to go to a Caucus represents a 1/3 of the country. I’d be willing to say 10 – 15% tops.
First, Iowa is not really significant in determining who wins the Republican nomination. It can’t even deluver its few electoral votes to the Republican candidate in the general election.
Second, people in Iowa KNOW they are not pucking the nominee, so they feel free to use their votes to “send a message.” The Iowans who wete focused on nominating a candidate who can win in November voted Romney by 50%. The people who voted for Santorum or Paul or Gingrich were indulging in the luxury of expressing their feelings instead of fulfilling their duty to select a winning candidate. If you asked most of them who they expected to be the nominee, most would say Romney.
Indeed, Raymond. As the original post notes, Iowa caucus is utterly inconsequential–in stark contrast to the Boggs-Doniphan vote! Go vote now, people!!