It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

CNN Iowa Early Results

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Is anyone else watching CNN right now as they are showing the current Iowa caucus results? On the democratic side they show Hillary, Obama, and Edwards with fairly equal (close to 30%) amounts and even list Biden who has only 2%. However on the Republican side they show Huckabee, Thompson, Romney, and McCain and as of right now they equal up to 74% with a big 26% piece of their pie chart unlabeled. Now I understand not showing negligible results but according to this if below 2% is negligible then how in the world do neither Guliani or Ron Paul have more than that to get a label on the chart?




posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Ron Paul looks to be third in the votes total so far , the night is young. Check this site for updates every 5 minutes. www.msnbc.msn.com...



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Gee, I wonder where all those people that said RP had zero chance went to? I mean they were really outspoken about how it was all just spam from a few hardcore supporters. So how DO they explain a decent show even though RP never got a fair shake in all the debates?

Considering the way he was froze out of Iowa, this is big news. I won't rub it in, much, but you know who you are.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 09:08 PM
link   
I am so confused CNN, FOX and MSNBC and this site www.politico.com...
are all showing different #'s.
CNN started announcing the winners with just 40% on the republicans side but with 65% on democrats they said the race was too close to call.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 09:10 PM
link   
CNN is now reporting Obama is going to win with 37% of the vote. Hilary and Edwards got 30% each. Huchabee is going to win the Republican vote.

www.cnn.com...



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by NGC2736
Gee, I wonder where all those people that said RP had zero chance went to? I mean they were really outspoken about how it was all just spam from a few hardcore supporters. So how DO they explain a decent show even though RP never got a fair shake in all the debates?

Considering the way he was froze out of Iowa, this is big news. I won't rub it in, much, but you know who you are.


While Ron Paul has a considerable and intentse following, that following is not large enogh to give him a chance at knocking off one of the big players like Huckabee, McCain, or Guiliani.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


I would say he knocked down Guiliani, 10% to 3% is pretty good knock out if we are going to go with Iowa as our countries barometer.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 09:21 PM
link   
I do feel that Kucinich would be good for this country, it's a shame his campaign went flat.
I will be voting for Ron Paul come hell or high water, no matter how Iowa feels about it, lol

I am relieved Hillary and Rudy were knocked off their pedestals a bit.
I am surprised by Thompson's and Mccain's #'s, very surprised.
Mr. Paul did very well considering the lack of media attention.
And like I said I feel Kucinich didnt get a fair shake and It's a shame.
But I am overjoyed that Hillary did not get the majority

[edit on 3-1-2008 by SEEWHATUDO]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 09:23 PM
link   
"It ain't over till the fat lady sings."

A solid fourth place for RP, considering how he's been ignored, is a good showing. And if he did a number three spot, then break out the fireworks.

Remember, we're still most of a year away from the real deal. Two months ago nobody had heard of RP. Now he's got big donations from the small voters, and he's getting respectable numbers. (Respectable because he's the unloved underdog that the GOP doesn't want to have to claim.)

It just builds from here.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by SEEWHATUDO
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


I would say he knocked down Guiliani, 10% to 3% is pretty good knock out if we are going to go with Iowa as our countries barometer.


Iowa is not necessarily our country's barometer. Guiliani has been focussing on big states, so his poor showing in Iowa is neither a surprise nor a disaster for his campaign.

Also, Guiliani is not the only Republican heavyweight. Huckabee, Romney, and McCain also have more support in terms of shear numbers than Ron Paul.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Sorry, i'm slightly off topic here. Is there a site somewhere that explains how the US elections work? As an Aussie i'm a little confused about the process.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by NGC2736
 


I guess the big question when it comes to Ron Paul is whether his relatively strong showing in Iowa is the beginning of his rise, or whether he has reached his peak.

I know a lot of people love Ron Paul and among all the Republicans he has the most fervent following. Unfortunately, the sincere passions of a small group of people do not win elections. Money wins elections. The Republican heavyweights (Huckabee, Guiliani, et. al.) have money.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by NGC2736
Gee, I wonder where all those people that said RP had zero chance went to? I mean they were really outspoken about how it was all just spam from a few hardcore supporters. So how DO they explain a decent show even though RP never got a fair shake in all the debates?

Considering the way he was froze out of Iowa, this is big news. I won't rub it in, much, but you know who you are.


We're still here, we're just chuckling as we watch the 10% numbers roll in. If you didn't already know that the members of ATS are not anywhere near a cross-section of the American population you should certainly know it now.

This is a first for me in politics, but I really couldn't care less. I don't like any of the candidates. The one candidate whose ideas are similar to mine is a nutjob.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


Yes I was being slightly sarchastic with the Iowa being the barometer remark.

I realize Rudy didnt campaign in Iowa because he moved on to the bigger states, I believe he also knew he did'nt have a chance in Iowa.
With that said, Ron Paul did very well considering his lack of main stream attention and Rudy had massive main stream attention and came up VERY short.
Mr. Paul campaigned locally but did not have the backing of CNN and FOX,
Rudy not only had the backing his name is WELL known and the self proclaimed Mayor of America.
Him not campaigning locally should have only affected his #'s by a few percentage points.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by dingleberry77
 


Here in the US, it would actually work better if we put them all in an arena with lions, like the early Christians. Armed with swords and rhetoric, the last one standing could claim victory for his or her party. Of course, because I love a good spectacle, I think the lions should be starved for a week before the event.

Let me see if I can answer your question, as I understand it. How do we pick our political candidates?

First, you have to understand that we're a greedy minded sort, at the best of times. To be even seriously considered for political office, a person needs to know how to tap funds to the tune of Millions of Dollars. This proves that a potential candidate is able to be bought, or at least rented.

Next, the candidate-to-be must have the support of powerful key figures from Big Business, particularly the Main Stream Media. It also helps to enlist some Hollywood types, as many of our more slack jawed citizens cannot recognize people who often keep their clothes on.

Next one enters a primary. This is supposed to be for the purpose of seeing how these people would vote when it comes down to the wire. But because of media manipulation and the constant backstabbing within each party, all we learn is how MSM can spin their own golden boy best.

I would go into later stages of explaining the electoral college, but the discussion of reading chicken entrails turns my stomach. And the interim party nominations need no real explanation if you have ever been forced at gunpoint to watch the show Big Brother.

Are you not now much happier to live in Oz?



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by dingleberry77
 


The presidential election happens in two stages. First there is a primary, then there is a general election. We are now just starting the primaries.

During the primaries, voters chose which candidate will represent their political party in the general election. One need not be any sort of party elite to vote in the primaries. Any U.S. citizen can join any of the political parties and vote in the primary election.

In most primaries, the voters simply vote for their candidate by secret ballot. In Iowa, there is a caucus format. The caucus format is complicated and involves voters congregating in town hall like meetings and deciding amongst eachother whom they are going to vote for.

The primaries occurr over a span of a few months. The first primaries are in Iowa and New Hampshire. Other states will have their primaries later. The primaries culminate in the national conventions of the parties.

The more votes a candidate gets during the primaries, the more delegates that candidate will get to send to the national conventions. The delgates at the national conventions ultimately chose the presidential candidate of each party.

The general election happens after the primaries. The general election in the U.S. generally consists of a Republican Candidate running against a Democratic candidate. Other people can run for president besides the Republican or Democratic candidate, but these people are not likely to be successful.

The general election is not a direct popular vote. The candidate that gets the most votes does not necessarily win, although the candidate that gets the most votes usually wins.

In the general election, each state gets a certain number of electoral votes based on its population. The winning candidate in each state gets all of that state's electoral votes. The candidate that wins a majority of the electoral votes wins the presidency. There have been a few times in history when the candidate with the most electoral votes did not win the overall popular vote.

In the 2000 election, more people voted for Al Gore than George W. Bush. Bush won Florida by a few hundred votes. (Of course there are people around here that believe Bush did not really win Florida but that is another story.) Even though Bush won Florida by the slimmest of margins, he got every single one of Florida's votes. Florida is also one of the most populous states and therefore had a lot of votes. This enabled Bush to beat Gore, even though Bush lost to Gore in the overall popular vote.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by SEEWHATUDO
 


You are right in that Guiliani would have a great deal of difficulty in Iowa. Guiliani's appeal lies largely with Blue state America and with moderates. He does not go over well with very conservative voters and rural voters. If Guiliani is going to be successful it will be because he will attract moderates and will get more Conservative voters to vote for him because they will feel he is electable.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


Thanks for that mate, makes more sense now.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by dingleberry77
 


What? you found my explanation too cryptic? Too cynical? Too honest.

This why we Americans rejoice in our elections, because we know that it shows just how little we care to handle the refuse of society. Why else would voter turnout be so low?

We want better, but despair of finding it. It's like flushing the toilet (loo), we see what floats on top.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by NGC2736
 


Mate, i loved your explanation. Totally loved it. Very well written and had me rolling around the ground in laughter. Although, as cryptic and tongue in cheek it was you are probably totally right.

It's just that the other explanation was a little more what i was looking for.

Same fun and games happen in good old OZ. I personally think our last government rolled over and played dead because the know about the global economic storm that's about to happen. But that's another thread.

To get back on topic i must say that the US elections are intriguing. It seems like a very well acted circus at times. Although i wouldn't expect anything else from the masters of film making.




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join