Analysis: Obama among the winners in Iowa

Comments (29)
Gall0wz wrote:

I know I’m not enthusiastic. What a bunch of clowns…. Why would I want to vote for any of these guys….

Looks like obama 2012…. and nothing is going to get done because he and congress can’t figure out how to get along with each other.

Jan 04, 2012 4:59am EST  --  Report as abuse
IwantJustice wrote:

Congratulation Obama! You are going for a home run, because the crazy Republicans messed it all up!!

Jan 04, 2012 5:24am EST  --  Report as abuse
justusforall wrote:

Romney is corporate sponsored banker backed traitor. He supports NDAA, SOPA, The Patriot Act and all things unconstitutional. Santorum is “Family values:” which means he values his family and not the American one. You can’t pray away gay Santorum! Ron Paul is the ONLY one that can bring this country together and protect our Bill of Rights. The only hope to beat Obama.

Jan 04, 2012 5:28am EST  --  Report as abuse
darr wrote:

“which include dramatic defense cuts and an isolationist foreign policy – are opposed by most party members.”

Seriously? Why do you have to purposely mislead your readership? He has proposed NO cuts to *DEFENSE* spending. And his foreign policy is non-interventionist.

Defined: Non-interventionism – Says that political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial differences (self-defense). However, most non-interventionists are supporters of free trade, travel, and support certain international agreements, and therefore differ from isolationists. (source Wikipedia… but you can look elsewhere also)

So your facts are patently FALSE.

Jan 04, 2012 5:31am EST  --  Report as abuse
humu wrote:

Well who cares at long as it’s ABO (ANYBODY BUT OBAMA)!!!

Jan 04, 2012 5:35am EST  --  Report as abuse
micurmudgeon wrote:

Why govern when you can campaign?

Jan 04, 2012 5:40am EST  --  Report as abuse
SameOldStory wrote:

Journalism is dead…
Even-handed reporting is as well.

It is stunning how consistent the media is about excluding Ron Paul from their ‘reporting’.

This report skips over the fact that Ron Paul’s results in Iowa show he finished just THREE points behind both Romney and Santorum – and instead discusses Gingrich – who got almost HALF the votes that Ron Paul received.
How is that?

New organizations have switched form reporting the news to being the outright ‘shapers’ of the public’s knowledge base and therefore their opinions and beliefs.

Its sad that so few people are involved in studying the candidates and sadder still that biased ‘News’ organizations are now the ones most likely to shape the public’s opinion.

Good luck to us all…(Luck is required where truth is absent).

Jan 04, 2012 5:45am EST  --  Report as abuse
wyldbill wrote:

The voters will speak – it’s ‘none of the above’. Obama will get a second term.

Jan 04, 2012 5:53am EST  --  Report as abuse
Levendi wrote:

OWS understands that the 99% are getting crushed but they don’t know why. It is big government spending, military intervention overseas and crony capitalism orchestrated by lobbyist. All supported with propaganda from the left wing media trying to socially engineer America into socialist country to satisfy their ideology. Only one candidate solves the puzzle and that’s Ron Paul.

Jan 04, 2012 6:03am EST  --  Report as abuse
Beachdudeca wrote:

Okay lets look at the top 3 choices
1st Rick Santorum – He is a social conservative with economic ties to corporate america. Of the 3 he would be the choice of the christian right as was shown by their support. But even if he were to win the nomination he could not win the election.

2nd – Mitt Romney – Conservative also but with more of a moderate appeal. He has a great chance at winning the nomination and a decent chance of winning the election.

3rd – Ron Paul – He wants a small Fed and the elimination of almost all existing programs from FEMA to the Reserve. His is a radical solution that would scale back the FED to a size not seen for 100 years. He is in a position to build his support but if he does not have the votes the convention will not support him. He is the only candidate that is not obligated to a group or organization. He has an outside chance of winning the nomination and could beat Obama in the election.

Jan 04, 2012 6:04am EST  --  Report as abuse
dojo724 wrote:

Obviously, the media has gone back deep into the tank for Obama. This article is an example of pitiful and biased analysis. Iowa is historically known for putting social conservative values ahead of other issues in the Republican caucus. All week the media has been saying this time was different, that the economy would be the run away issue. What does it mean that Santorum (social conservative) was in a dead heat with Romney? It proves the media and any “Democratic heavyweights” celebrating should find something to do that they don’t suck at. The surprise isn’t how well the social conservative did in Iowa, it is that he didn’t win. The fact that a moderate Republican like Romney won the Iowa caucus means that he poses serious trouble for Obama in a general election. In a head-to-head campaign, where us independents will break heavily to a moderate like Romney and Obama will be forced to run on his pathetic record, there is little to no chance Obama sees a second term.

Jan 04, 2012 6:55am EST  --  Report as abuse
anneshelby wrote:

There is not a republican alive that can beat Obama.

Jan 04, 2012 7:08am EST  --  Report as abuse
Markb16262 wrote:

Winning is winning but not after spending 10 million dollars and only beating some unknown senator by 8 votes. I did predict that Senator Santorum would win Iowa but I was off. Stayed up till 2:30. The difference between Mitt and Obama to me is, Mitt believes corporation have Natural born rights and would expand them and Obama is more concerned for people. Mitt could be more liberal or as liberal as Obama that’s why the corporate and party elite want him to be the nominee. In a general election the difference and similarities between the candidates would be blurred, so that the corporate agenda could be advanced if Mitt wins which in my opinion is not good for the country. That is why as a democrat from PA I will support Santorum. I would rather see a social conservative whom I have fundamental problems with become president at least I know where he stands.

Jan 04, 2012 7:45am EST  --  Report as abuse
jcfl wrote:

What parts of pres obama’s record is so bad? is it taking the tanked bush dow of 6500 to present day 12,400? is it turning a gop created depression around in less than 4 years? is it actually doing something about health care instead of pushing the status quo? is it expecting the wealthy to return part of their unearned huge gop tax breaks? any right wing facts out there (and remember an opinion is not a fact, no matter how many times it gets repeated)?

Jan 04, 2012 9:29am EST  --  Report as abuse

If Obama can get them to work this year, get things going again, clean up some corruption, he may get authentic votes as to just winning by republican default. people are awake. They are talking, starting to pay attention. Let’s see some politics where things get done, amaze us with your craft. I’m like an old man at the construction site watching the next generation doing it a new way with a touch of the old. Impress me. ha ha hahahahahahahaha

Jan 04, 2012 9:31am EST  --  Report as abuse
doggydaddy wrote:

This isn’t just about the poor Republican choices, it also demonstrates how inept and dysfunctional the Republican Party is. Everyone running has been at the top of the polls at some point except Jon Huntsman, who, ironically, is the most qualified candidate running. He’s just not extreme enough and too many Republican voters are looking for an extremist. They’ve moved to the extreme right in order to attack Obama, but when it comes to governing they are discovering that it’s problematic. That’s how the Republicans almost forced our country into defaulting on our debt, an insanely stupid thing, but the extremists in the Republican Party didn’t care. All they cared about was being extreme. It’s like a snowball effect. The extremists have gotten out of hand, but no one knows how to stop it. That’s exactly how Germany got itself into trouble during the 1920s and 30s.

The bottom line is that the Republicans don’t know what the h_ll they’re doing. They’ve become so dependent on what FOX News and other rightwing propaganda sources tell them that when it comes to making a decision on their own, they don’t know which way to turn. It does not bode well for our country’s future. We are headed someplace this country has never been and extremism never turns out for the better.

Jan 04, 2012 9:54am EST  --  Report as abuse
Sensibility wrote:

Romney has never gotten above about 25% of the general Republican electorate, yet Rasmussen has him beating Obama by about 6 percent in a head to head match up if the election were held today.

I don’t like Romney or any of the other Republican candidates, and I think many other voters feel the same. But we also know how awful Obama has been. If Romney is the nominee, people will coalesce around him to defeat Obama.

Jan 04, 2012 10:00am EST  --  Report as abuse
William78 wrote:

Conservative denial in a nutshell:

“Obviously because the Media reports that current events are favoring to win the election then it MUST be Liberal Media Bias. It could not POSSIBLY be because 90% of the conservative candidates who have run in the last 12 years are relying on mis/uninformed, xenophobic, religious fundamentalists for their support.”

If you depend on the support of a group of people who either:
A. Expect the world to end in the next X years, or
B. Believe that the President honestly wanted to instituite death panels, or
C. Want to rewrite history to better support their conservative views, or
D. Shout ‘COMMUNISM’ every time the government tries to protect it’s bread and butter Middle Class
…then you’re building on shakey ground to begin with and you’ll never amount to anything more than a corporate/conservative stooge.

By the way, Thank You to Citizens United for allowing Corporations and Corporate Wealth to enter the polictical fray and emphasize the vitriolic hyberbole of Conservative America so that the once great American Middle Class can now be reformed to look like some new Red Socialist Threat.

Conservatives are sheep for the Corporate Slaughter.

Jan 04, 2012 10:16am EST  --  Report as abuse
Eideard wrote:

The vote [if you can call it that] defines the right wing of the right wing divided between old-fashioned Romney and the next generation of even wealthier losers.

Folks forget the election of Kool Aid Party types raised the already-high wealth of the average Congress-critter to the highest level of all time. All that wealth aids our elected officials in sinking to a new level. Ideology concerned with ethics or even the essential good and future of this nation have long been forgotten.

Jan 04, 2012 10:46am EST  --  Report as abuse
doggydaddy wrote:

Sensibility: The nation’s biggest problem is the corruption that has hijacked our government resulting in the end of any real exercise in democracy by the American people. The Citizens United decision demolished what few restraints we had left holding back the corrupting influence of outside money. Citizens United was decided by a 5 to 4 vote, the 5 votes in favor all coming from Justices who were appointed by Republicans. The 4 votes against Citizens United were all appointed by Democrats. If we can get one more Supreme Court Justice who is not in favor of the corruption of our government we can take back our country from special interests by passing serious campaign finance reform without having to worry about the Supreme Court shooting it down. It’s the only path toward taking back our country that we have available to us, besides revolution. We can’t afford to have a President Romney who claims that “Corporations ARE people, my friend.” Corporations most certainly are NOT people. Romney would love to nominate a Supreme Court Justice who believe in his corporate philosophy, but American democracy cannot afford to let that happen.

Under the circumstances, with the Republican Party trying to block everything he tries just for political gain, Obama has actually done quite well. The economy does have a long way to go, but we’ve been making definite progress and the last thing we need to do now is return to the policies that got us into trouble in the first place and knock us off our current fragile path out of this mess.

Jan 04, 2012 11:19am EST  --  Report as abuse
JWnTX wrote:

Obama’s got as much chance of winning the White House again as the Dems have of winning back the House (ie, NONE). All you Dems had better be ready to eat what you will consider a big crap sandwich–lots of personal freedom and liberty and Constitutional government along with a big dose of financial conservatism–no matter who wins the Republican nomination. Obama’s failed this country magnitudes more than GWB ever did and having been burned so badly by Obama’s propaganda and his handmaidens in the press, the American people are paying attention this time around.

Jan 04, 2012 12:11pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Ciao wrote:

What this article fails to recognize is that Romney had essentially written the state off as unwinnable and put little effort there until the last minute, so winning is an amazing accomplishment.

Jan 04, 2012 12:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse
doggydaddy wrote:

William78 & Eideard: Excellent posts, both.

Jan 04, 2012 12:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JamesChirico wrote:

As in the article Romney can’t get above 25% of the GOP faithful. A slew of not Romney candidates have been in the lead showing more against him than for him. The only one before yesterday that was a serious challenger was Gingrich. Romney used his PAC as the attack dog killing Gingrich’s chances. Gingrich made no bones about trying to take Romney out as revenge in yesterday’s final speech. Romney’s win hut him as Perry and Bachmann both appear to be giving up. The only way Romney can win with 25% is with a large candidate field. Santorum may not be able to campaign for months like in Iowa, but only needs some campaign funding to possibly win the nomination. No doubt the Perry/Bachmann Evangelical base supporters will vote for Santorum. Gingrich may take his ire to another level using his 8 million to ony attack Romney, pull out before SC handing the state to Santorum with the kind of push that will make him the nominee, not Romney. Romney can win moderates and independents that decide elections, Santorum cannot. Paul can’t be base supported based on his libertarian views and lack of Israel support. If the race comes down to Romney, Paul and Santorum, Santorum wins. Santorum wins, Obama wins.

Jan 04, 2012 12:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
William78 wrote:

-Ciao wrote: “…winning is an amazing accomplishment”

Or is it amazing that Santorum essentially tied Romoney despite the fact that Romney had over $2 million worth of advertising from Corporate SuperPACs. Seems like a lot of money to spend on an unwinnable state.

No, I don’t think it’s amazing either. Money will buy votes. If not for the money spent by the Corporate SuperPACs there would have been a very different result.

I think it speaks volumes that Santorum made a good a showing as he did. You should Google Santorum and see how much $$$ this man has invested in his campaign. ;)

Jan 04, 2012 1:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Sensibility wrote:

Doggdaddy: Concerning the influence of money in politics being a threat to democracy, I totally agree with you. The ability of wealthy people and corporations to spend unlimited money on one side and the ability of other wealthy people and labor unions to spend unlimited money on the other side is sure to translate into an unprecedented cacophony of bitter negative advertising (from both sides) accompanying the 2012 election.

Romney, a flawed candidate in many ways, appears to be on the wrong side of this issue. But what is the alternative? Even though Obama is vociferously opposed to the Citizens United decision, he is part of the problem. Criticizing the Supreme Court does nothing to improve the situation. As is his wont, Obama confuses acrimony for action. So, come November, our choice may be between two people whose positions are deeply objectionable for different reasons.

But for now, all of that is beside the point. This Reuters article was about a perception that somehow Romney’s win last night was a victory for Obama. I hardly think that’s true.

Jan 04, 2012 4:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse
kasjun wrote:

Obama is just digging his own hole. While the Republicans are trying to figure out how to shrink the government and pay for what we have now. Today Obama is buy setting up another dept to protect consumers. We already have two departments for this so he decides we need another. So who is supposed to pay for this new deepartment when we can’t even pay for the one we have now. Obama has become power drunk and is going to take us all down…!!!!!!!!!!!! What an idiot.

Jan 04, 2012 5:34pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Ralphooo wrote:

On the face of it, as a Democrat, my impression is that Romney might not make a bad president. But experience suggests a different result. Every politician from either party has to kowtow to the big money influences. Obama seems to be no different.

Presumably Romney would end up in the same position. The only real power a president has, independent of Congress, is in military action. Too many presidents wind up starting or continuing unnecessary wars. Maybe they get frustrated by their powerlessness in domestic affairs.

Jan 04, 2012 7:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JSeagram wrote:

This is true. Romney simply cannot count on conservatives to turn up at the polls to support him come the presidential election. They view him as a RINO, and his Mormon religion is still a problem for many evangelicals.

Vote for Mitt now and you get another Bob Dole or McCain – a nice guy but a loser.

Jan 04, 2012 7:16pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.