Great news from Iowa

Bachwoman will finish in the LAST place.

Bachwoman will finish in the LAST place. Originally Posted by waverunner234

no surprise there she's a dim bulb.

Sounds like Perry is out, too.

So now Santorum is the new flavor of the month?????

He credits his "surge" to wearing "sweater vests" that make him look older! OMG! LMAO! Why do ALL their flavors of the month have to be brain dead, too?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/click/...er-109416.html

..

TOO CLOSE TO CALL ON THE TOPSIDE - If the eye of Newt and Paul get all the lower votes, about a 4 way time!

Rick Santorum 29,944 24.6%

Mitt Romney 29,926 24.5%

Ron Paul 26,163 21.5%

Newt Gingrich 16,210 13.3%

Rick Perry 12,574 10.3%

Michele Bachmann 6,064 5%

Jon Huntsman 744 0.6%

Herman Cain 58 0%

Buddy Roemer 31 0%

No Preference 133 0.1%

Other 117 0.1%

Based on last nights record turnout, it looks like the Republican base is more motivated than Obama's !!!!


Other Yesterday's News:

In a video conference with Iowa Democrats on Tuesday night, President Obama made his case for another term. Obama outlined his progress during his first term and asked for their help in the upcoming campaign.....

Obama also reminisced about his 2008 bid for the presidency.

"We've still got a lot of work to do. But think about the change that was accomplished because of those caucuses four years ago," Obama said in a message that was distributed to more than 200 Democratic caucus locations throughout the state of Iowa.

CBS News reports "there was no cheering, chanting or clapping for the president's message during the address, distributed to more than 200 caucus locations throughout Iowa."

As you can see from the one post Michelle Bachmann did not finish last. Here is what we can take away from this;

Romney actually got less votes this time than last time 30, 021 (2008) vs 30, 015 (last night) with a higher voter turnout and 10 million dollars spent. The man spent the last five years running for president and almost became an Iowa resident the last year.

Santorum was in single digits just two weeks ago and spent considerably less money.

Now if Perry and Bachmann drop out Santorum would pick up the lion's share of their supporters and he would lead over Romney.

Romney can only claim a technical victory as this caucus is non-binding but it is a victory without a satisfying taste. Santorum had the victory because he demonstrated the Romney can't get over 25%.

I do have to ask, what is your problem with Bachmann?

Based on last nights record turnout, it looks like the Republican base is more motivated than Obama's !!!!


Other Yesterday's News:

In a video conference with Iowa Democrats on Tuesday night, President Obama made his case for another term. Obama outlined his progress during his first term and asked for their help in the upcoming campaign.....

Obama also reminisced about his 2008 bid for the presidency.

"We've still got a lot of work to do. But think about the change that was accomplished because of those caucuses four years ago," Obama said in a message that was distributed to more than 200 Democratic caucus locations throughout the state of Iowa.

CBS News reports "there was no cheering, chanting or clapping for the president's message during the address, distributed to more than 200 caucus locations throughout Iowa."

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Where are you getting your sources from- they all expected a very high turnout than what actually turned out and this is from conservatives: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/pol...astellanos.cnn
And than the winner(Romney) got less votes in 2008 and he spent 7 times as much as Santorum who was virtually dead before Iowa caucus. They were expecting 150,000 to show up to send Obama a message and only half of that showed up- so where in the hell are you getting your facts WW?

WE: Your CNN clip is prior to the Iowa vote being counted.....it turns out that last night's voter turnout was a record !

Here is the latest headline from the HF, 63 minutes ago !

"Iowa Caucus 2012 The Closest Ever, Voter Turnout Breaks Record "


A record 122,553 votes .

No doubt, the Republican base is motivated: "Anybody but Obama"

Let's be clear; liberals like yourself don't deal in facts.....where are you getting your socalled "facts", because they are wrong !

Where did you get your phony numbers that only 75,000 voted in Iowa last night?
The same source that tells you Obama is doing a good job?

The correct facts are that more than 122,500 voted last night, a record in Iowa, exceeding the 2008 record !

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1182572.html

They were expecting 150,000 to show up to send Obama a message and only half of that showed up- so where in the hell are you getting your facts WW? Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Let's be clear; liberals like yourself don't deal in facts.....where are you getting your socalled "facts", because they are wrong !

Where did you get your phony numbers that only 75,000 voted in Iowa last night?
The same source that tells you Obama is doing a good job?

The correct facts are that more than 122,500 voted last night, a record in Iowa, exceeding the 2008 record !

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1182572.html Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Still 30,000 south of what they were expecting- wasn't the Iowa vote supposed to send a message to Obama- what happened to the 30,000 that didn't show up WW????
By the way 119,000 turned out in 2008- if you call 3000 more people voting a record breaking deal more power to you.

Who was expecting 150,000?

And where did you get facts that only 75,000 showed?

The same source that tells you Obama is doing a good job?

Who was expecting 150,000?

And where did you get facts that only 75,000 showed?

The same source that tells you Obama is doing a good job? Originally Posted by Whirlaway

If you listen to what they were saying they expected 150,000 and those were Republicans talking in that video they wanted to send a message to Obama looks like it feel on deaf ears LMFAO- even Trump trashed the results of the Iowa vote: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1183270.html