Iowa Caucuses

[Frank]

@Marley23

Hillary’s problems are not dissimilar from Romney’s problems in a lot of ways: they were both establishment candidates who had the lead in prep time and money, they both took what they felt were the most presidential positions on the major issues but were caught off-guard when the wind shifted, they were both seen as willing to say anything to get elected, and they both struggled to connect with large numbers of voters on a personal level.

My bolding.

Romney has no such expectation of an early knockout.

I’m fairly convinced that if Clinton had put effort, people, and money into the states after the early primaries before the early primaries, that she would be President today. I see no indication that Romney has made the same mistake. He is planning for a long haul.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@Measure_for_Measure

I hate to break it to you Qin, but you’re probably a Democrat. No worries, there’s a decent chance that the sanity brigade will overtake at least a corner of the Republican Party by the time you’re old enough to pull the lever. Here’s hoping. (Then again, I was a Republican at your age, FWIW, YMMV, then again so was elucidator, etc. etc.)

If I were a Democrat I’d probably be extremely Blue Dog, to the right of Ben Nelson

@Lamar_Mundane

Call me crazy, but I think Perry might have another run in him. Santorum was in a perfect storm in Iowa. The caucuses there are dominated by extreme evangelicals, of which he is one.

Santorum’s Catholic, not Evangelical (well at least in the usual sense of meaning Protestant Evangelicals).

Elections, caucueses, and Santorum, oh my…

[Marley23]

@Frank

Romney has no such expectation of an early knockout.

I agree with that, although I’d say both Obama and Clinton thought they could end the '08 race early. Since Romney is in a different position against a much more fractured field, he’s not expecting that to happen. There’s also less at stake on Super Tuesday than there was for the Democrats in 2008, which means less chance of a knockout on that date. I do think the Republicans have set things up to try to prevent the race from dragging out for so long.

[BrainGlutton]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

Santorum’s Catholic, not Evangelical (well at least in the usual sense of meaning Protestant Evangelicals).

I wonder if that might hurt him in Southern-state primaries? (At least it’s not quite as bad as being Mormon.)

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@BrainGlutton

I wonder if that might hurt him in Southern-state primaries? At least it’s not as bad as being Mormon . . .

Catholicism is a nonissue nowadays among Evangelicals except to Jack Chick.

[Frank]

@BrainGlutton

I wonder if that might hurt him in Southern-state primaries?

I’m surprised it hasn’t hurt him with Qin, who has in the past expressed great appreciation to Martin Luther for saving the world from Catholicism.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@Frank

I’m surprised it hasn’t hurt him with Qin, who has in the past expressed great appreciation to Martin Luther for saving the world from Catholicism.

:dubious: Martin Luther was also the fellow who said he’d rather have an intelligent Turk as a ruler than a stupid German.

[elucidator]

A wee bit anti-Semitic. OK, a bit more than that. Pretty anti-Semitic. Make that “really”. A whole lot.

[Frank]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

:dubious: Martin Luther was also the fellow who said he’d rather have an intelligent Turk as a ruler than a stupid German.

He didn’t say he’d rather have an intelligent Catholic as a ruler than a stupid Lutheran.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@elucidator

A wee bit anti-Semitic. OK, a bit more than that. Pretty anti-Semitic. Make that “really”. A whole lot.

I certainly do not approve or tolerate such statements whether its by Martin Luther or anyone else.

[Marley23]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

Elections, caucueses, and Santorum, oh my…

This works best if read in a George Takei voice.

[Balance]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

Catholicism is a nonissue nowadays among Evangelicals except to Jack Chick.

I will gently point out, Qin, that there are people who actually buy and distribute Chick tracts. I assure you that they are not all doing it for laughs.

[Trepa_Mayfield]

So, how did the Democratic Caucuses go?

[Frank]

@Trepa_Mayfield

So, how did the Democratic Caucuses go?

Some guy with a weird name won. Probably a flash in the pan.

[Spoke]

@joebuck20

I just saw it also, and was wondering the same thing. But then again, most of the characters in that film didn’t seem overly concerned about ethics either.

By the simple expedient of recording his conversation with Paul Giamatti’s character in the bar, Ryan Gosling’s character could have used this provision to destroy the opposing campaign.

[Lamar_Mundane]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

Santorum’s Catholic, not Evangelical (well at least in the usual sense of meaning Protestant Evangelicals).

Iowa Evangelicals are not mainstream Evangelicals either. They are mostly Lutheran - Missouri Synod. Equally crazy as the Southern Baptists, but with more Hot Dish and Ambrosia Salad.

[elucidator]

And shoes. Shoes are pretty much universal amongst Lutherans.

[UltraVires]

@Spoke

Right, but people in this thread have been talking about offering cabinet posts to Iowa’s losers in exchange for their support. You can’t do it. Here’s the code language:

Sure you can’t promise a job, but you can promise to give the person the fullest and utmost consideration for the job. *wink *wink. That is very common.

[Measure_for_Measure]

So how did they do? TPM and Bloomberg tally up the votes vs. TV ad spending:
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/chart-how-much-does-an-iowa-vote-cost.php?ref=fpblg
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-05/romney-s-iowa-tie-cost-75-a-vote-to-santorum-s-10.html

Santorum got the most bang for the buck at $10.12 per vote. Or actually Bachmann did, at $9.87. But Santorum had five times the budget and I doubt whether Bachmann would have scaled up very well. Perry did laughably, spending $219 per vote: his TV spending apparently exceeded Romney’s.

I got curious and fashioned a scatterplot:
http://wm55.inbox.com/thumbs/52_130b6c_9e9c7f1_oP.png.thumb

As measured by distance from the predicted line, Santorum, Ron Paul and Romney punched above their weight, Bachmann and Huntsman did worse than expected and Perry lagged behind. Gingrich was average. Then again, I drew a linear fit: if it was permitted to curve it may have been more forgiving of Huntsman who after all spent nothing in the state.
Data:

. list candidate votes spending valueForDollar dollarPerVote, clean

       candid~e   votes   spending   valueFor~r   dollar~e  
  1.     Romney   30015    2.3e+06    7973.9637      76.63  
  2.   Santorum   30007     303570    15125.176      10.12  
  3.      Perry   12604    2.8e+06    -11230.04     222.15  
  4.   Ron Paul   26219     997370    8849.2043      38.04  
  5.   Gingrich   16251     611470    265.04449      37.63  
  6.   Bachmann    6073      59930   -7935.1291       9.87  
  7.   Huntsman     745          0    -13048.22       0.00  

Interestingly Romney got the same percentage as he did back in 2008. $2.3 million is a lot to spend to stay where you are, but I guess his campaign has deep pockets.

[DianaG]

In somewhat related news, I’m rather enjoying the apparent glee with with which local newscasters covering the upcoming NH primary refer to Santorum’s “surprise come-from-behind” placing in Iowa.