I’ll say the voting tonight goes like this: 26 percent for Romney, 23 percent for Paul, and 18 percent for Santorum. As a second guess I’ll say that nobody drops out right after the caucuses because the race is still so uncertain.
I rather doubt Romney wins tonight. About 40% of the likely caucus-goers were undecided in the last poll, it seems to me if they could stomach Romney they would have already gotten behind him. I’m going to go with Santorum to win, Paul to place, and Romney to show. Gingrich takes 4th and Perry 5th. Bachmann drops out and starts her congressional reelection campaign.
Your focus on important things is admirable…
… just like your enjoyment for doing the right thing.
It’s hard to debate with attitudes like this.
To paraphrase Bush Junior – your attitude (and quite some others, too) is… you’re so sensitive and worried about offending minorities HERE that you’re willing to kill innocent ones OVER THERE.
I’m thinking the opposite: a chunk of the undecided voters and some voters who prefer one of the more ideological candidates will end up voting for Romney because he’s the one who has the best chance of getting elected. They don’t particularly care for Romney and the polls reflect that, but they’ll make a pragmatic decision and that’ll put him over the top.
Really? I’d say people who haven’t decided have been hoping for a strong non-Romney to support. Now that there isn’t one, they’ll split between Romney and his competitors, but since there isn’t one anti-Romney, the undecideds that decide even without a clear competitor they can’t vote for Mitt will split there vote four ways while the ones that decide they’ll have to stomach Romney won’t.
So I’ll guess first place Romney, second Paul, and…I dunno, Perry for third I guess.
When Romney wins, Newt, Bachmann and Perry will hang on till SC and then give up before the end of January.
I would suspect you’d be right in another state, but Iowa doesn’t tend to go for the electable ones.
Santorum, Paul, Romney, Perry, Gingrich, Bachmann.
You heard it here first, and probably last since I’m almost certainly wrong. 
I guess I’ll throw in my WAG: Romney, Santorum, Paul, Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann.
At least everyone agrees Bachmann runs last. Very reassuring.
No, they’re just not bothering to mention Huntsman. But no, Bachmann’s been out of the running for a long time. If not for the fact that her campaign manager jumped ship, she’d have gotten no coverage at all in the last month.
I think we can all agree that if Santorum does make an appearance, some kind of runoff won’t be far behind.
Since it’s unprecedented (or nearly so) for a Republican in a contested race to win both Iowa and New Hampshire (and Romney is said to have a pretty safe lead in NH), I doubt he’ll win Iowa. Since turnout is limited and the crazies are the most motivated, I expect either Paul or Santorum to win.*
Then it’s on to New Hampshire, to the relief of the news media who will no longer have to spend time in places like Le Mars and Pella, and can stock up at the state liquor stores in NH, and the Manchester Union-Leader can have its brief period of national relevance.
*then again, my prognostication record is terrible, so who knows?
Romney, Paul, Santorum - that’s my call.
Then Romney wins NH and the cable news channels have to find a way to keep us interested until the General.
OK, let’s see . . . I once spotted Romney at a . . . Mormon orgy.
But, not much happens at those, they’re not allowed to remove the underwear. :rolleyes:
I see what you did there.
I didn’t want to start a new thread for this, but some of the early results from Iowa are coming in. A great place to follow is here.
My prediction isn’t impossible yet! 
Hi guys. First post.
I’m one of the apparently crazy people that like Paul.
Now that doesn’t mean I support the entirety of his philosophy or plan. It also doesn’t mean I am racist or give him a pass for those newsletters.
I don’t think he wrote those, though, nor do I think he is racist. This article does a good job tackling the issue imo.
As far as his policies, I think his foreign policy is mostly great. I agree with him that we have provoked other nations and peoples to disdain for the United States. Blow back is real and has been a consistent problem in our foreign policy since WWII. Much of our foreign policy in relation to use of the military or CIA has come back to hurt us. Then there’s the great cost of lives and money associated with our foreign policies. Overall, keeping mostly to ourselves in terms of military force and meddling in foreign governments will save us a ton of money, keep our armed forces much safer, and decrease the motivation for terrorism.
Now some of his domestic policies I have more of an issue with. I certainly like the idea of greatly reduced spending and taxes, but I’ll admit he goes to far with it.
I do happen to agree with him that the war on drugs should be another war we retreat from.
But like the OP said, if somehow elected, he would not have the power to make the extreme changes he wants. And of any of the candidates or recent presidents, he is least likely to attempt to circumvent the checks and balances in order to get done what he feels is right. What he would be able to do is get our troops home and keep them home in all likely hood, cut spending and taxes by a more reasonable level than he’d want, and make some much smaller reforms than his plan calls for.
With all that said, I don’t think he is electable due the newsletters and some of his more extreme positions, especially the domestic ones.
I’m sorry buy your responses here are absurd. Even if you ignore the newsletters, Paul is inarguably a racist.
Since you want to try and ignore the words he published, how about we take a look at his recent statements.
Now, please explain to me how someone who claims that Blacks, Hispanics and other minorities “don’t look very American to me” and how they “look suspicious” is not a racist.
Please explain why I shouldn’t label someone a racist who tells me I “don’t look American”.
While the killing of a teenaged white boy in a strike against guerillas engaged in a war against America is tragic I don’t see how it’s proof that Obama is “a racist”.
Are you saying that Al-Awlaki’s son was targeted because he was white?
Ok, then once again please explain how someone who says things like
is not a racist.
Explain how someone who says that I “don’t look American” and “look suspicious” is not a racist.
Does that also mean someone who insists that black people smell bad and white men have small penises is a racist?
Admittedly the latter is a true statement while the former is clearly false.
Just to add the cherry on top of the intolerance sundae, Ron Paul is apparently scared of using the same bathroom as a gay man. So says a former Paul staffer.
He’d better be, the cutie-pie!