In the history of mankind, many republics have risen, have flourished for a less or greater time, and then have fallen because their citizens lost the power of governing themselves and thereby of governing their state. TR

Wh3

White House Dossier

Obama Was Not the Victor in Iowa

The Obama line, being faithfully parroted in many corners of the mainstream media, is that the Iowa results are a victory for the president.

Well, they’re not.

One of the key points Obama’s various foot soldiers are making is that turnout among Republicans for the GOP primary is a bit below expectations – just above where it was in 2008. This, they say, shows Republican enthusiasm for Election 2012 is lagging.

But the 2012 turnout is still a record, beating the 2008 turnout, which was also a record. And the turnout this year was indeed high GIVEN THE ADMITTEDLY LACKUSTER GOP FIELD.

I'm bringing these over to the bargain shelf where they belong

Let’s face it, there’s nobody this year for Republicans to get particularly excited about. But we already knew that. What the numbers actually say is that despite this, Republicans will head to the polls, whether it be for Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum, whatever their flaws.

What’s more, Republicans turned out EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO ONE NAMED BARACK OBAMA ON THE BALLOT.

What the Obama operation fails to get, but which I get from my readers and other sources, is the depth and passion of the unhappiness with his presidency. The turnout in Iowa was strong. In November, when Republicans have something to be against as well as something to be for, the turnout will be overwhelming.

Romney stands accused by the Obama team of having suffered a massive hit because he can’t get above 25 percent of the Republican vote. But really, Romney had mostly ignored Iowa, and did much better their than expected. And once other candidates start dropping out of the race, he’ll get much more than 25 percent.

The Obamafolk are also said to be giddy at the prospect of a divided Republican Party and a drawn out nomination process.

This can only be spin, since it’s coming from the very camp that seized the presidency after emerging from A DIVIDED PARTY AND AN DRAWN OUT NOMINATION PROCESS.

Difficult nominations do not hurt presidential candidates. It didn’t harm Obama, nor Bill Clinton, nor Jimmy Carter. Bad candidates win the presidency, and good candidates lose, whether they’ve slogged through the primaries or not.

And it’s not at all clear that this is going to be a difficult primary. Romney, in my view, is poised to lock things up pretty early. He has the money and organization to swamp Santorum nationally.

And Republicans, more conservative than Democrats by temperament and less likely to be swept away by something novel, simply don’t nominate for president relative unknowns who come out of nowhere. It has just never happened in modern political history.

Romney will be the nominee, and it will probably become clear soon. Though a good fight that forced him to let his hair down a bit would help him, not Obama.

53 thoughts on “Obama Was Not the Victor in Iowa”

  1. anneinarkansas

    Romney gained a vote last night from me. My candidate did not win (Perry) and I have never cared for Santorum.
    I will now be 100% for Romney.
    He can and will defeat Obama.

  3. Car in

    YOu get the Messina email? It’s a doozie. See if you can pick out my favorite part from this quoted bit:

    But tonight, GOP voters there couldn’t decisively get behind anyone.

    Who exactly leads the Republican race going forward isn’t clear, but we do know two things:

    1) The extremist Tea Party agenda won a clear victory. No matter who the Republicans nominate, we’ll be running against someone who has embraced that agenda in order to win — vowing to let Wall Street write its own rules, end Medicare as we know it, roll back gay rights, leave the troops in Iraq indefinitely, restrict a woman’s right to choose, and gut Social Security to pay for more tax cuts for millionaires and corporations.

    2) We’ll be facing an onslaught of unprecedented spending from outside groups funded by corporations and anonymous donors. In Iowa alone, so-called “super PACs” spent $12.9 million on almost exclusively negative ads. These groups will turn their fire even more directly on us in the weeks ahead to prove that their candidate is the most anti-Obama.

    Ok, I made it easy for you ;)

    2. William

      He left out “force old people to eat dog food” and “require you to have the mark of the beast tattooed on your forehead,” but otherwise it sounds pretty standard.

    1. Paul

      If Mitt Romney is the nominee running against Barack Obama the only thing that will change in the White House is the type of food on menu and the names on the guest list.

      If it weren’t for the color of their skin I’d think Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are the same candidate in every meaningful way.

  5. EOSRedux

    Debbie Wasserman-Schultz had the team at Fox and Friends this morning laughing their heads off when she, Schultz, said Romney was the loser last night. Oh really, said Gretchen?

    I suppose spin is spin and both sides have their take on what is going to happen going forward but DW-S’s words are so outrageous, she should be on the Comedy Channel.

    Politico has a good article about the same topic:
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71069.html

  6. Paul

    Too many contradictions in this piece to address all of them so I’ll just try the one: to say that Obama was not the winner last night AND the results also portend an early wrap for Romney is blatantly contradictory.

    The Obama campaign has been working on the assumption that Romney will be the nominee and is one of three candidates (assuming you take Huntsman seriously) they and their surrogates in the media have been promoting in order to give him the best shot at winning re-election. Why, because they know that Romney is one of three that Obama can campaign to the right of on key issues (albeit not honestly but that won’t stop them) and depress GOP turnout.

    If Romney is the nominee, as suggested here, Obama is the big winner because conservative like myself are not going to vote for a gun-grabbing, Romney-care creating, tax and spend northeastern liberal just because he has an R by his name instead of a D.

    My decision is already made and there is zero chance it will change between now and November: I would vote with varying degrees of enthusiasm for most of the current and former GOP candidates by not Mitt Romney.

    If Romney is the nominee I’ll vote for the Republican options for congress, state and local offices, write in a name for the President and go home and stack more food, ammo and supplies to await the await the inevitable calamity that will result from either of to leftist winning.

    And I know for a fact I’m not alone.

    1. Susan

      I’m a true conservative as well and I’m going to campaign my heart out for whoever wins the Republican nomination — even if it is Romney. Obama must be defeated, even if means putting a moderate in office. Romney would never do the damage to this country that Obama will do.

      2. Paul

        Were Romney a moderate I might buy it, but he’s not. At various times in campaigns he’s tried to portray himself as either a moderate or a conservative depending on who’s vote he was trying to garner at the time. His actions as governor however paint a very clear picture of a far-left, bleeding heart true blue northeast liberal no different in any way that I can discern from Barack Obama.

        No matter what he claims in this campaign based on his past actions in office I would expect policies and judicial appointment virtually identical to Obama’s with the same negative results.

    2. Star

      conservative like myself are not going to vote for a gun-grabbing, Romney-care creating, tax and spend northeastern liberal just because he has an R by his name instead of a D.

      So a gun selling, nationally crippling health plan creator, deficit buster and power grabbing phony would be better…?

      Okaaaay.

    3. Huuf Arted

      Paul says exactly what Im thinking also. Let a Repub congress and senate stop Obama in his tracks. If the Repub nominee is Romney (a true RINO Liberal) congress just might go along with things they would prohibit Obama from doing…

      Pay attention Repubs cuz ROMNEY CANT WIN !!!

    5. ObamaLIES

      You may not be alone, but you will not be in the majority of conservatives who will be voting. I am a conservative and will vote for the Republican candidate no matter who it turns out to be. By not voting for the Republican, you are hurting this country and saddling it with another 4 years of this presidential nightmare. You certainly are entitled to your opinion, but it is one that will hurt America. And that, sir, is as unpatriotic as it gets.

  7. Susan

    I won’t vote for Romney in the primaries. He is not conservative. In this do or die election we need someone who will fight Obama tooth and nail. Romney won’t admit that Obama is a socialist…even with all the usurpation of power Obama has accomplished in his time in office. If we get some milquetoast nominee like McCain again, America as we know it is gone. I’m putting my support behind Santorum because he is the last conservative left standing.

    1. srdem65

      This is one of the very few times we have opposing opinions. I will vote for MrRomney’s dog if he is nominated to the Repub ticket.
      While most look at his record that he made while Govenor of a liberal-leaning state, I look to his ability to change course and give us the conservative leadership that most of us are looking for.
      Some people call it “flip-flopping”, I call it changing your opinion when facts dictate that your original thoughts were proven to be wrong.
      Scientists do that all the time, the same as ordinary people do in their everyday lives. I want a leader who can admit that the first course of action didn’t work, was wrong and can reverse his thoughts to move to a better solution.

      The pollsters are predicting a change in Congress that will give the Repubs a majority once again. That’s where all the change that we had hoped for will come from, and it would be nice if we also had a President who can work with Congress to repeal all of the onerous regulations that are keeping our economy from dying.

      1. Star

        I agree–I would not chip away at Romney at this point–just doing their work for them…why would I? As for flipflopping–I am a lifelong Dem! Straight ticket–until “he” turned up. He flipped my flop.

      3. Paul

        Except that he really hasn’t really changed his positions at all when you listen to him, he’s just changed his presentation to make you think he has.

        Again to use the same example I did earlier, asked to day about his position on the second amendment he says he “supports it” while qualifying it with his support of a so called assault weapons bans which is the left’s argument in a nutshell; the second amendment is about hunting and sportsmen and not self defense even against a tyrannical government. And since the term assault weapon is at best ambiguous and arbitrary he can apply it to anything he wants at a later date.

        Support for the second amendment and an “assault weapons” ban is inherently contradictory as they are mutually exclusive positions and he and every leftist who makes this argument knows it.

        So when Mitt Romney signs another ban as President you will know, but much to late, that you got duped by a true blue leftist again.

      4. Paul

        “The pollsters are predicting a change in Congress that will give the Repubs a majority once again.”

        Ah no that’s not exactly true. What pollsters are predicting is that there is an opportunity for Republicans to retake control of congress due to deep and widespread dissatisfaction with Obama in particular and the Democrat Party in General. In fact if you look at some of the in depth analysis there are indications it could turn into a watershed event for the Republicans and catastrophic event for the Democrats IF, and only if the Republican know how to take advantage of it…

        And that’s where Obama’s desire to see Romney (and to an even greater extent Ron Paul) win the nomination comes it because they know that these are the guys they have a billion dollars to spend portraying as even more out of the main stream and to the left on key issues that Obama is.

        On guns and the Second Amendment: Obama will hammer home the point, disingenuous at is may be, that he hasn’t pushed any gun control measures as President but Romney as governor signed one of the most restrictive gun control measures and gun bans in the nation and is on record saying he’d do it as President… and it’ll stick because it’s true.

        On Obamacare and personal mandates; you hate them sure but heck we not only got the idea for the plan from Romney’s own plan but his advisers helped us create our own bill… and it’ll stick because it’s true.

        … and on and on it’ll go through out the summer and fall until come November the Republican base will be so disaffected that most won’t bother to show up to vote, Obama will easily win re-election, Democrats will retain control of the Senate and probably regain the house because of low turn out.

        Despite whatever opportunity that exists for Republicans today Romney’s nomination is exactly what Obama’s campaign is hoping and praying for because it gives him the clearest path to victory by sucking the wind out of the Republican base.

        In order to take advantage of any opportunities that exist today Republicans must be motivated to turn out on election day and the nomination of Mitt Romney will destroy any possibility of that happening just John McCain’s nomination did in 2008, just as Bob Dole’s did, just as it does every time a RINO gets the nomination.

    2. Paul

      been through many elections since I cast my first vote in 1978 and find the “anybody but X” rational for someone to be a failure. Didn’t work for Dole, didn’t work for McCain and at best you might end up with a GWB who you have to hold your nose and vote for and then spend time deciding whether to defend policies you don’t support whole heartidly or maintain your principals.

      As a conservative it’s the policies of the political left find threatening and inadequate so it just doesn’t matter to me if bad policy is implemented by a Republican or a Democrat, it’s still bad policy and everyone suffers as a result.

      The citizens of Massachusetts who lost their second amendment right when Romney sign his gun control legislation didn’t benefit in the least from the fact that it was a Republican signing it rather than a Democrat and neither will we when he does it again as President.

      That’s just one example and in a Romney Obama race I simply don’t have a dog in that fight, just two dogs with a voracious appetite for my money and liberties.

    2. Mr. T.

      I’m sick of this, too. Every local station where I live kept repeating the “lackluster field” line and also kept emphasizing the “low turnout” nonsense.

      It’s going to be an uphill battle this year, folks.

  11. Giddyindy

    What the media purposely ignored in this story is that this isn’t about the Democrats or the Republicans. This is about Independents and Obama does not have them this time around. Dems and their parrots are ordered to ignore this and hope it will go away. Sorry, Dems, aint happenin’.

    1. Giddyindy

      The caucas was for Republicans and to call this an Obama “win” is laughable.. The Independents are the ones the administration is not “winning” and they know they are scrooged.

      Kinda reminds me of the Dems parroting just prior to the Novemeber 2010 elections…..

  13. joel

    Haven’t read all the posts but if there’s going to be a knock down, drag out fight in the Republican party now’s the time to have it. Let Newt bring up all the “dirt” about Mitt. Now’s the time to get it out there. That leaves nothing for the dems to release at the last moment. If Bush’s DUI would have been brought out during the primary fight it would have been old news by the time the dems released it.

  14. ObamaLIES

    Keith, I think your statement, “What the Obama operation fails to get, but which I get from my readers and other sources, is the depth and passion of the unhappiness with his presidency.” is spot on. I wonder if any of Obama’s “team” and staff read these blogs. If they did, they would see the palpable hatred directed toward Obama and his policies. I use the strong term “hatred” because that’s what I see. If his people do see this, they are somehow dismissing it. Obama has ignored the American majority his whole presidency – he refuses to acknowledge that the “majority” DO NOT WANT Obamacare. Obama, Reid, Pelosi and the other staunch Liberals chose to ignore us, which makes us that much more resolved to get them and him out. I don’t understand their ignorance. Is it denial? Is it just flipping us the bird? What is it about them that they refuse to acknowledge that we don’t want their “agenda”? Almost three quarters of American voters have told Obama they do NOT like the direction America is headed and he ignores us.

    Lastly, can you or someone please give me an explanation why impeachment has not been embraced, even as a symbolic gesture just to let Americans know that there are politicans that hear us? I have written my congressman many times asking why and he won’t give me an answer. All I want is a good reason(s) why Obama won’t be impeached. I call the Republican leadership milquetoasts, spineless and cowards. They are letting us down. We The People have no representation in government. We are frustrated and angry and no one will help us until they want to get reelected. The contemptable way politicians and this president treat America and the American taxpayer is despicable. And, it seems there’s nothing we can do about it. We are helpless.

    Thank you.

    1. Giddyindy

      This my take on your question you have posed regarding lack of teeth by our representatives: We are no longer represented. It goes like this, they are in a poaition of power and wealth. If they are not wealthy now they have the promise to become so if they “tow the line”. So they go along. At the end of the week they pick up their paycheck and then they have lunch to pickup their cash for influence. Then they fly home and take the missus out to their favorite steakhouse and relax until the coming week. In the end their nest and that of their family is feathered for years to come. They may not always like the nagging feeling in their gut about sometimes not doing “what is right by the American people” but it is a feeling they can live with, easily.

      Cynical you say? My brother was a successful campaign manager for Congressman ( won every campaign he managed) and today he is a successful attorney in with his own firm Washington DC. It’s ugly but it is our reality today. The system is set up for our “representatives” to profit and they use it to the utmost.

      1. ObamaLIES

        So, in essense, what you are saying is that the very elected officials we put in to office to help us are actually against us and against American’s best interests? The picture you paint is indeed ugly. How they sleep at night is beyond me. Although, I can see that a divided America is a much more easily influenced, a more malleable America. The more divided we are, the easier it is to get away with all the crap. Obama does not fool me. He is nothing more than a cheap con artist. But, thanks for your reply! I still want Obama impeached.

Comments are closed.