The Iowa Thread

[*michaelsean*]

(02-02-2016, 02:26 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Trump - nothing but class and dignity in defeat that only a billionaire could bring:  "I really like Iowa...I think I might buy a farm here"

"You know that land you've worked your whole life to keep and earn a living.  I might grab one of those on my way out."

[GMDino]

(02-02-2016, 10:17 AM)michaelsean Wrote: "You know that land you've worked your whole life to keep and earn a living.  I might grab one of those on my way out."

I was starting to like him...but now he's a loser.  I only like candidates that win.

(Did I do that right?  )

The internet being what it is is having a field day, btw.

http://www.bustle.com/articles/139130-donald-trump-loses-iowa-memes-and-jokes-about-his-second-place-finish-are-first-rate

[*michaelsean*]

(02-02-2016, 10:21 AM)GMDino Wrote: I was starting to like him...but now he's a loser.  I only like candidates that win.

(Did I do that right?  )

The internet being what it is is having a field day, btw.

http://www.bustle.com/articles/139130-donald-trump-loses-iowa-memes-and-jokes-about-his-second-place-finish-are-first-rate

He's a loser.  He lost to a Canadian.  Winners don't lose to Canadians.  

[GMDino]

(02-02-2016, 10:58 AM)michaelsean Wrote: He's a loser.  He lost to a Canadian.  Winners don't lose to Canadians.  

[BmorePat87]

Winners:

Cruz, obviously.
Rubio, he did better than expected.
Clinton, she won.
Sanders, he basically tied.

Neutral:
Trump, he still did well, but he didn't win.
Kasich, he is 2nd in NH in some polls. A Trump non-victory might mean a possible surge. I'll wait for NH before I call him a loser.

Losers:
Carson, you were the 2016 Bachmann and Cain wrapped into one. Your 15 minutes was cut short by national security issues.
O'Malley, .6%?
Bush, New Hampshire won't bring redemption
Rand, he was 4th place with the 17-29 vote. There goes your demographic.
Huckabee, bye felicia
Fiorina, her post caucus event was empty so she skipped it
Santorum, wait, you're still around?
Christie, sorry, Fat Bush, you're not having any NH redemption.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-02-2016, 12:04 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Winners:

Cruz, obviously.
Rubio, he did better than expected.
Clinton, she won.
Sanders, he basically tied.

Neutral:
Trump, he still did well, but he didn't win.
Kasich, he is 2nd in NH in some polls. A Trump non-victory might mean a possible surge. I'll wait for NH before I call him a loser.

Losers:
Carson, you were the 2016 Bachmann and Cain wrapped into one. Your 15 minutes was cut short by national security issues.
O'Malley, .6%?
Bush, New Hampshire won't bring redemption
Rand, he was 4th place with the 17-29 vote. There goes your demographic.
Huckabee, bye felicia
Fiorina, her post caucus event was empty so she skipped it
Santorum, wait, you're still around?
Christie, sorry, Fat Bush, you're not having any NH redemption.

that was the most disappointing for me.

[StLucieBengal]

Wouldn't it also be fair today the establishment GOP And Dems took a hit by the voters.

Progressives have to be scrambling.

[BmorePat87]

(02-02-2016, 06:38 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Wouldn't it also be fair today the establishment GOP And Dems took a hit by the voters.  

Progressives have to be scrambling.

I would disagree. The establishment exceeded expectations with Rubio's polling. They lost the two Iowa's prior to this and did just fine in the primary. The moderate, even keeled Republican always wins.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-02-2016, 07:17 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I would disagree. The establishment exceeded expectations with Rubio's polling. They lost the two Iowa's prior to this and did just fine in the primary. The moderate, even keeled Republican always wins.

Isn't Rubio the one the establishments are left with basically? He was a tea party guy until gang of 8.

Establishment took a lot of losses. Bush, Christie, Fiorina, Kasich, Huckabee, Santorum. Rubio wasn't even on their radar.

The establishment Dems lost because a socialist was able to gain almost a virtual tie.

[BmorePat87]

(02-02-2016, 09:02 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote:  Rubio wasn't even on their radar.    

lol, what?

[StLucieBengal]

(02-02-2016, 10:12 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: lol, what?

He obviously has since the failings of establishment Favorites. He started this race as half in half out with the establishment. As far as I am concerned he has always been establishment. But I am sure some establishment supporters here weren't supporting Rubio before the failings of bush, Kasich, Christie, Fiorina....

It sounds ridiculous now because he is so establishment compared to Cruz. Which makes Cruz look even better.

My point is the new establishment has moved more conservative.

[BmorePat87]

(02-02-2016, 10:29 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: He obviously has since the failings of establishment Favorites.    He started this race as half in half out with the establishment.    As far as I am concerned he has always been establishment.   But I am sure some establishment supporters here weren't supporting Rubio before the failings of bush, Kasich, Christie, Fiorina....    

It sounds ridiculous now because he is so establishment compared to Cruz.   Which makes Cruz look even better.      

My point is the new establishment has moved more conservative.

My reaction was suggesting he wasn't on the radar. If you're saying the radar in terms of being the favorite pick of the establishment, I understand. Obviously that was Jeb (though we both know Fiorina, Santorum, and Huckabee never were), so I get what you're trying to say. Rubio has certainly been on the "viable November candidate radar" from the start.

[*bfine32*]

The biggest winner on the Dem side of Iowa was Joe Biden.

If they want the Presidency, he should declare before NH. But I think the Dems would rewrite the rules if he declared later and that would lead to another entertaining Sanders explosion.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-03-2016, 12:05 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: My reaction was suggesting he wasn't on the radar. If you're saying the radar in terms of being the favorite pick of the establishment, I understand. Obviously that was Jeb (though we both know Fiorina, Santorum, and Huckabee never were), so I get what you're trying to say. Rubio has certainly been on the "viable November candidate radar" from the start.

The clear establishment favs were bush, Christie, and Kasich. Huckabee, Santorum and Fiorina were just establishment candidates. Not favs.

Rubio has certainly been in he mix as viable for the general for certain. All I'm saying is that he hasn't been establishment until now he is the most establishment of the favs. Trump is also in the same breath but he is less likely to be manipulated with money. Which is why Rubio is where the money will go .

[BmorePat87]

(02-03-2016, 01:14 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote:  Huckabee, Santorum and Fiorina were just establishment candidates.  Not favs.    

I don't know if I can call two religious conservatives and an anti-politician outsider "establishment". 

Also, Christie hasn't been a favorite since Bridgegate happened.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(02-03-2016, 01:14 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Trump is also in the same breath but he is less likely to be manipulated with money.   

Trump's god is The Almight Dollar and he is probably more easily influenced by money than any of the others.  It's not a question of if money can influence him, but how much?

[Benton]

(02-03-2016, 12:11 AM)bfine32 Wrote: The biggest winner on the Dem side of Iowa was Joe Biden.

If they want the Presidency, he should declare before NH. But I think the Dems would rewrite the rules if he declared later and that would lead to another entertaining Sanders explosion.

if he had declared before Iowa, he'd have been able to be a serious contender. Now, after a tie and coin flipping, sanders got legitimized. In truth, I think the majority of those votes were probably just for anyone other than Clinton, but it gave the impression half the dems there like Sanders, instead of just disliking Clinton.

[fredtoast]

(02-03-2016, 01:14 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote:    Trump is also in the same breath but he is less likely to be manipulated with money.

Trump has spent his entire life telling everyone that money is the single most important thing to him.  He values himself based on his net worth.  He has never at any time in his life indicated that he is interested in anything other than making money.


The people that believe him now when he says he will not be influenced by money are like the rubes in the fable who agree to help a rattle snake because it promises not to bite them.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-03-2016, 10:32 AM)Benton Wrote: if he had declared before Iowa, he'd have been able to be a serious contender. Now, after a tie and coin flipping, sanders got legitimized. In truth, I think the majority of those votes were probably just for anyone other than Clinton, but it gave the impression half the dems there like Sanders, instead of just disliking Clinton.

While I get why people like Sanders I don't think most of his supporters realize just how unelectable he'll be in a national election.  Socialist is the worst word you can be tagged with in this country, Bernie has zero chance against anyone but Cruz, and that would be uncomfortably close.  

[fredtoast]

(02-03-2016, 11:53 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: While I get why people like Sanders I don't think most of his supporters realize just how unelectable he'll be in a national election.  Socialist is the worst word you can be tagged with in this country, 

Obviously a lot of people are getting past the label and listening to what he is actually saying.

I think income inequality is a huge issue with most American people.  Plus a lot of people are starting to see that unregulated banking was the main cause of the '08 financial collapse.

the peopl who just automatically discount Bernie becuase of the socialist label are the hard core right wingers who are not going to vote democrat anyway.  If he gets into the general election more and more people will hear his message and agree instead of just running away from a label.