Thanks for the quality comment!

In reply to this comment by Boise_Lib:
*quality

I have some very close friends who are farmers. They have to be proficient in a vast number of very different things. From repair of very complex equipment--in the fields--to horticulture, to veterinary medicine, to computer science. They don't call a repairman to fix something--they fix it now, or learn to fix it themselves.

Thank you!

In reply to this comment by geo321:
*promote

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Iowa has picked 6 of 8 of the last nominees of both parties (including unopposed 2nd term seekers) which is a decent track record.


That sounds a bit like number-fudging If you only have one choice, you could argue an inherent strong correlation of candidate and outcome, so no real point in counting those.

Throwing out the unopposed candidates and going back to 1980, we have 5 of 7 correct picks on the democratic side and 2 of 5 correct picks on the republican side. So in sum 7 of 12 or about 58% where there was an actual choice.

So just from the numbers, I would argue that there isn't that strong of a connection between Iowa caucus winners and chosen candidates. The abrupt about-face of the media (as presented here) is strange though.

Edit: Speeling

There will be a little of that. But unfortunately most voters want to pick a "winner" so if the candidate they agree with most is predicted to lose an election they will jump ship and vote for someone else that has a better chance of winning. This is why what they are doing here is so evil. It's bad enough for them to tell voters their candidate doesn't have a chance to win. It's even worse that they are now saying "even if they win, it won't count".>> ^Lethin:

isn't this like the best thing that could happen for ron paul? Big media says "Oh he bad! dont vote for him!" so every kid that hates big media then goes "F U big media! votes for ron!"

One insight I gathered during the 2008 primaries is that according to the media, only "unexpected" results matter. Unexpected in that sentence of course means "something contrary to media conventional wisdom", not something actually unexpected.

So if Romney wins Iowa, it'll be reported as huge because he wasn't "expected" to win, even though his numbers have been fine in Iowa this time around.

If Santorum or Paul wins, it'll be a non-event because Iowa is "expected" to pick someone offbeat and unconventional.

That said, whoever winds up on top will get a flurry of intense media scrutiny until New Hampshire, for good or for ill.

If Romney wins Iowa, expect the media to offer him public blowjobs. If Paul wins, expect to hear lots about racist newsletters and crackpot theories about AIDS, and how New Hampshire will be the "real" start of the primary season.

I know the topic is "Ron Paul deserves the respect", and he does.

But this all just reminds me of how much I hate our primary election system. By the time most Americans get to vote in the primary it's already been decided. I know people from Iowa and other early primary states have arguments about how it's a good thing. But to anyone who's disenfranchised by the system it's all just bullshit.

^The Iowa caucus was not very important in 2008. McCain (the eventual Republican nominee) finished a distant 3rd.

28.3 Romney
28.1 Huckabee
11.9 McCain

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2012_2008_gop_iowa_caucus_4_years_ago.html

Thanks for the promote!In reply to this comment by legacy0100:
*promote lying politicians

Your video, 4 Years Ago Iowa Was EXTREMELY IMPORTANT!, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 1 Badge!

Look at the numbers for 2008...you could make the same argument about Huckabee. Winning Iowa has always been hit or miss at predicting who the nominee will be. The point of this video I think is that this is the first time when the media is basically telling the voters of Iowa if they vote for a certain candidate then it just won't count. Trying to kill any momentum that RP might get out of an Iowa victory.>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I think people are saying a Ron Paul win in Iowa doesn't mean much because his popularity there is not reflected at the national level.
National:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/
2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html
Iowa:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll
s/2012/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html

I think people are saying a Ron Paul win in Iowa doesn't mean much because his popularity there is not reflected at the national level.

Iowa:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html

National:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

Iowa has picked 6 of 8 of the last nominees of both parties (including unopposed 2nd term seekers) which is a decent track record.

It's clear the media does not want Ron Paul to get any kind of bump if he wins Iowa.

No true Scotsman.

It really shouldn't matter. Iowa is a placebo, a self fulfilling prophecy. Only Ron Paul is too large a pill to swallow. If people don't believe its significant it won't be.

Iowa matters for helping to generate campaign donations which can affect the outcome of the primaries. The problem is the field of candidates this year and their chances in the general election.