TexasCHLforum.com

Before you guys get too carried away, this was a straw poll. The caucuses come later. The results of those could be dramatically different.

Here's the 2008 Iowa straw poll results:
Mitt Romney: 4,516 / 31.5%
Mike Huckabee: 2,587 / 18.1%
Sam Brownback: 2,192 / 15.3%
Tom Tancredo: 1,961 / 13.7%
Ron Paul: 1,305 / 9.1%
Tommy Thompson: 1,039 / 7.3%
Fred Thompson: 203 / 1.4%
Rudy Giuliani: 183 / 1.3%
Duncan Hunter: 174 / 1.2%
John McCain: 101 / 1.0%
John Cox: 41 / .1%

And here's the 2008 Iowa caucus results:
Mike Huckabee 40,841 34.4%
Mitt Romney 29,949 25.2
Fred D. Thompson 15,904 13.4
John McCain 15,559 13.1
Ron Paul 11,817 10.0
Rudolph W. Giuliani 4,097 3.5
Duncan Hunter 524 0.4
Tom Tancredo 5 0.0

You will note that the results of the caucus votes were dramatically different from the straw poll, that the eventual nominee was in fourth place and that Ron Paul's numbers hardly changed at all.

It's way too early to be making any sort of predictions, and the Iowa caucuses aren't much of an indicator of who the eventual nominee will be, much less the straw polls.

v-rog wrote:Let me see...Vote Obama and keep Mr Holder or potentially get a Bachmann (or) Perry type candidate...and enter another war and commit another 100K of troops- I guess Iran would be next

Yep, 4 more years of Obama with Mr. Holder is the better option. (IMHO)

That's pretty hilarious coming from someone who supports the President who didn't even bother to get Congress' approval before attacking Libya.

Its necessary when liberals do it. It is empire building and war mongering when conservatives do it.

Some of the replies in this thread add credence to the notion that if you don't pay taxes you don't get to vote!
Which, btw, I think is a great idea!
PERRY 2012!

texanron wrote:Some of the replies in this thread add credence to the notion that if you don't pay taxes you don't get to vote!
Which, btw, I think is a great idea!

So if you get a good enough job for you to make enough $ that you can retire, and you're clever enough to set things up so you don't pay any more taxes after you quit your job, you shouldn't be allowed to vote any more? That's a horrible idea. Smart clever people are the ones we want to vote!

Dave2 wrote:

texanron wrote:Some of the replies in this thread add credence to the notion that if you don't pay taxes you don't get to vote!
Which, btw, I think is a great idea!

So if you get a good enough job for you to make enough $ that you can retire, and you're clever enough to set things up so you don't pay any more taxes after you quit your job, you shouldn't be allowed to vote any more? That's a horrible idea. Smart clever people are the ones we want to vote!

Those smart clever people pay property taxes. They still get to vote.

Dave2 wrote:

texanron wrote:Some of the replies in this thread add credence to the notion that if you don't pay taxes you don't get to vote!
Which, btw, I think is a great idea!

So if you get a good enough job for you to make enough $ that you can retire, and you're clever enough to set things up so you don't pay any more taxes after you quit your job, you shouldn't be allowed to vote any more? That's a horrible idea. Smart clever people are the ones we want to vote!

Saying that no-taxes=no-vote is a slap in the face to our founders and the Constitution. EVERYONE has a RIGHT to vote, saying you can only vote if you pay taxes is a major step back and a big step toward aristocracy.

v-rog wrote:I feel a little out of place...Is it too soon to cast my vote for Obama?

Do you live in Iowa?

I think there's one key question. Do you think Obama's poltics are good for America? If the answer is yes, you want the real Obama not Obama-lite. If the answer is no, you want an anti-Obama, not Obama or even Obama-lite. Either way, there's no reason to prefer some pale imitation Obama-lite.

loadedliberal wrote:Saying that no-taxes=no-vote is a slap in the face to our founders and the Constitution.

You mean the founders who only allowed males who owned property to vote?

Barbi Q wrote:

loadedliberal wrote:Saying that no-taxes=no-vote is a slap in the face to our founders and the Constitution.

You mean the founders who only allowed males who owned property to vote?

Exactly. Before you start spouting about what the founders wanted, maybe you should learn what they did.

Bullwhip wrote:Reagan won big twice by playing up how conservative he was (maybe more than he really was). He got 44 states the first time and 49 states the second time, all while the media tore their hair out about how "right wing" he was.

Bingo! If the Republicans want to beat Obama, they need a candidate who is clearly different than Obama.

tacticool wrote:

Bullwhip wrote:Reagan won big twice by playing up how conservative he was (maybe more than he really was). He got 44 states the first time and 49 states the second time, all while the media tore their hair out about how "right wing" he was.

Bingo! If the Republicans want to beat Obama, they need a candidate who is clearly different than Obama.

Yep!! The idea that you have to pander to anyone, especially moderates is infuriating.

Clearly state your beliefs and goals, and why your ideas are superior to your opponents. How hard is this?!

Barbi Q wrote:

loadedliberal wrote:Saying that no-taxes=no-vote is a slap in the face to our founders and the Constitution.

You mean the founders who only allowed males who owned property to vote?

Is there a problem with this?

Not sure where to post this so I'll leave it here.


[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=3EY5Ofcxjs0[/youtube]