2012 New Hampshire Primary

Round 2 is now complete tonight with the New Hampshire Primary more or less a done deal. The winner wasn't exactly a huge surprise but the WTF moment came with who finished second: Ron Paul. I really have no words to express just how disappointing that is on so many levels. How scary would it be for Ron Paul to wind up as the VP nominee?

Not much really happened in between tonight and the Caucuses last week so on to the results. As of 11:00pm PST, with 95% of the precincts reporting:

Mitt Romney - 39% (95,666 votes, 7 delegates)
Ron Paul - 23% (55,451 votes, 3 delegates)
Jon Huntsman - 17% (40,903 votes. 2 delegate)
Newt Gingrich - 9% (22,920 votes)
Rick Santorum - 9% (22,685 votes)
Rick Perry - 1% (1,709 votes)

Delegate Totals to Date

Mitt Romney: 20 delegates.
Rick Santorum: 12 delegates.
Ron Paul: 3 delegates.
Jon Huntsman: 2 delegates.

Given tonight's results, and Perry's poor showing last week, I'm expecting him to be dropping out soon. If there's one good thing to come from Iowa and New Hampshire it's the fact that the field is immediately culled to a manageable level.

So now it's on to the next contest: The South Carolina Primary on January 21, 2012. If you want to know the schedule further out: http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-republican-primary-schedule/
"It is pointless to resist, my son." -- Darth Vader
"Resistance is futile." -- The Borg
"Mother's coming for me in the dragon ships. I don't like these itchy clothes, but I have to wear them or it frightens the fish." -- Thurindil

Well. I guess that's that then.

« 2012 Iowa Caucuses
SOPA Hysteria »

Posted on Jan 10, 2012 9:37 pm by Samson in: | 12 comment(s) [Closed]
Could even Ron Paul be worse than Joe Biden? In any event, thus far I think the likelihood is pretty small that Mitt Romney will not be the presidential candidate on the Republican ticket this year. Gratz to him, I suppose. Personally, I kind of like Rick Perry, but at least if he doesn't end up in the White House then we'll get to keep him here in Texas for awhile longer. Despite what you've had to say about his positions, he's done well in Texas for us over the years. On the flip side, given the choices we had last time around, Ron Paul was actually looking pretty good when Obama first ran, especially compared to the competition at the time. I just love that our presidential race so rarely doesn't come down to who's the lesser evil of the choices, don't you? When's the time going to finally be right to have a choice of someone who actually is "the right man for the job"? :(

Some silliness from the RNC re: Florida. What's wrong guys? Did Florida piss in your Corn Flakes? Exactly what purpose does it serve to punish the voters of Florida because of some petty dispute that shouldn't even matter? Ah, convention politics.

Actually, yes, Ron Paul would be orders of magnitude worse than Joe Biden. Joe Biden may be a bumbling idiot, but at least he's not a delusional isolationist bumbling idiot.

I guess it's Romney's time to shine, isn't it? I've already more or less called it for him, but if he wins South Carolina too, it's in the bag and the rest no longer matters. Which is another serious flaw in the system we have now. Three contests in January shouldn't be able to turn the remainder of the race into a mere formality.

Rick Perry would be generally much more acceptable if he hadn't put his foot in his mouth on immigration. One thing I find most Republicans I talk to don't want is a president with a disposition toward amnesty. Perry has that. Being in favor of in-state tuition discounts for illegal aliens is simply unacceptable. It's policy like that that could eventually turn Texas into another California. Surely we don't want that.

Florida is always such a fun state politically, seems every major election they've got some sort of new and improved drama to provide the rest of the country. ;)

We'll just have to agree to disagree on Ron Paul vs. Joe Biden, I think Biden's much worse even if I agree, overall, that Paul wouldn't exactly be a vast improvement at this point either.

Definitely agree about the flaws in the system, frankly I think the electoral college is just adding insult to injury as far as the system goes, but I certainly don't think the election should essentially be decided for us all by the first few states to get a crack at it.

I won't argue with you about Perry. He's far from the ideal candidate (who has been in our life spans? Even Reagan had flaws, and he was the best we'd seen in this country in decades at the time, let alone since), but his having just one political stance that's not approved by the current party line is hardly terrifying, even if it's on immigration amnesty. On the other hand, even here in Texas, I can assure you that the voting majority, from what I can tell, isn't happy with that position either, but we've yet to see anyone better than Perry take a run for the office in years.

If only the media hadn't run Herman Cain out of the race. :(

Anonymous [Anon] said:
Comment #5 Jan 11, 2012 7:38 pm
My question is: When Perry drops out, who gets his support? Romney be cause he looks like Perry anyway or whoever the most popular Not-Romney candidate left on the ticket?

I side with Samson on the Paul vs. Biden debate, but that is only because I don't of any nut jobs who would be will to "see to it" that President Obama "gets out of the way" for President Biden. But by contrast I would expect to see a rise in USSS applications to protect President Romney if Paul were VP.

Good question on the Perry thing. He didn't seem to pick up much of a boost when Bachmann bowed out, and he would have been the next most logical choice. I think his supporters will simply spread out amongst whoever is left.

Well, you know American media, they couldn't take a chance that someone who'd bow under a little excessive pressure from them could be allowed to run.. though why each year they only target some of the candidates is beyond me. :shrug:

As for who'll pick up Perry's votes if/when he drops out, I agree with Samson that his supporters will probably spread between the remaining candidates.

I watched a South Carolina Q&A session on Fox while I was holidaying (because the weather was shit and I had nothing else to do but I did have Foxtel). All the candidates had basically one point to make - regulations are killing the economy. Certainly, as far as the tax system goes, I understand that there are pronounced efficiency problems (or at least, thats what all the indexes of economic freedom seem to suggest, and its the same story in Australia). But otherwise, I didn't ever see them give a grain of evidence of regulations actually damaging the economy. Rick Santorum did try to justify his claim of regulations killing the manufacturing industry using some rather dubious, and more or less dishonest and opaque, statistics, which I don't feel like going through just now. And Newt, if I remember correctly, said that it was Obama's fault America's credit rating got downgraded. That's fairly debatable, but Standards and Poors did explicitly say that they cut the rating because the two parties couldn't come a compromise, which would in turn mean that both parties are equally responsible. But then again, I suppose its a lot to ask of for a politician to put it that way.

Also, Santorum stated that a nation that allows a woman thats been raped to have an abortion 'has its morals upside down'. I'll meet you in hell Rick.

I only caught a piece of that Q&A session myself and don't really remember much of what was said so I can't comment. It is however widely known that burdening yourself with needless regulations, red tape, and excessive taxes does only one thing - causes business to cease investing and to become defensive about their profit margins. Which, if you know the least bit about publicly traded companies, should be obvious as hell. They have laws on the books that make them seek maximum profit for their shareholders, and having to cut red tape gets in the way of that.

Santorum isn't doing himself any favors with statements like that. I still believe abortion to be murder, and you'll never convince me otherwise, but there are exceptions to everything that most people can live with. Rape would be one of them. The main problem is that the Planned Parenthood people constantly push that exception in ways that are just plain sick, and often don't make logical sense to apply elsewhere. The law is perfectly capable of drafting legislation that would allow for a rape exception, but you can't ever get them to see reason on that. Tends to happen when you're lobbying to save an industry based on a morally bankrupt practice.

All things considered, I didn't think it was a bad Q&A session, but actually fairly well paced and interesting. I just don't particularly agree with the candidates opinions.

Edited by prettyfly on Jan 16, 2012 4:27 am
Looks like Jon Huntsman is bailing out and endorsing Romney. The writing seems to be on the wall now.

prettyfly said:

I just don't particularly agree with the candidates opinions.

You find this unusual? I rarely hear things form politicians in this country that I can fully agree with, if it's even things I can fully comprehend without allowing for their bad habits of double speak. :lol:

<< prev 1 next >>
Comments Closed
Comments for this entry have been closed.

Forgot Password?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31