Posted on 10/22/2015 11:56:42 AM PDT by Mariner
No comparison. Paul’s following were cultish. Trump gathers every significant demographic group in the nation.
Your inference ability is feeble. But enjoy showing others just how inference impaired you are. It helps to inform others of the shallow imbecility of Trump Trolls.
It’s euphoria for the news media.
A sample of a few titles LoL.
- “Finally: A Poll Donald Trump Didn’t Win”
- “Donald Trump is a totally overrated loser — and the latest Iowa poll proves it”
- “Oh my: Carson leads Trump by eight in Iowa in new Quinnipiac poll”
- “Ben Carson knocks Donald Trump from top spot in Iowa”
Even if Carson beats Trump in Iowa it wouldn’t be by much, and Carson would lose about 23 out of the next 25 states to Trump.
And I wouldn’t put much stock in Iowa since Ron Paul who came in third won 22 of the 28 delegates at the convention. The other six went to Romney who came in 2nd.
I was just going off this poll. Are there others that show him in the lead there?
Quote: “Ben Carson is the Establishments last ditch effort to stop Trump.”
If first you don’t Fiorina, Carson, Carson again.
If Trump loses Iowa, it is very good news for Trump.
McCain & Romney both lost Iowa and went on to win nomination.
NBC/WSJ has Trump leading Carson 24:19
Gravis Mktg has Trump leading Carson 19:14
Quinnipiac has Carson leading Trump 28:20
Take your pick.
My sister and brother-in-law were all set to vote for Hillary. Then Trump appeared on the scene, and they are now for Trump, mainly due to his stance on deporting illegals.
Bush-43.
Neither McCain or Romney campaigned much in Iowa, and it didn’t hurt.
On the other hand, Giuliani and Jeb ignored Iowa, and that didn’t work out so well.
Yes there are several, in fact almost all polls in Iowa show Trump in the lead.
Santorum proved that Iowa can be won without much money.
But it did not help him win nomination. Iowa is not a real primary, with 5% population voting in caucuses.
The strong evangelical vote is why Huckabee won in 2008, so there is a pattern present in the state's voting.
Whoever carries the evangelicals will win in Iowa. So it is believable that he may be ahead as of today. It is also true he has been running millions of dollars of ads in Iowa and Trump has not run one ad.
When Trump starts running ads (he seems to be in no hurry to do so), will he lap the field? Who knows?
Polling for caucus goers is the most risky polls because to do so means the voter gives up a whole evening to listen to speeches and then asked to go in a corner and stay there until someone comes by to count their vote. What if the parents come home and the kids are sick? It's likely they won't make the caucus that night.
No one knows who will show up, which is why Santorum was in 4th place and walked away the winner. Perhaps if the vote was a standard election, Santorum would have come in fourth, but his supporters showed up and the others not as much. We shall see.
More insight to Carson’s love of gas0hol and the gasoholic whore voters of Iowa who need our $’s to support their gas0hol $ addiction.
Ethanol fuel from corn faulted as ‘unsustainable subsidized food burning’ in analysis by Cornell scientist.
Neither increases in government subsidies to corn-based ethanol fuel nor hikes in the price of petroleum can overcome what one Cornell University agricultural scientist calls a fundamental input-yield problem: It takes more energy to make ethanol from grain than the combustion of ethanol produces.
At a time when ethanol-gasoline mixtures (gasohol) are touted as the American answer to fossil fuel shortages by corn producers, food processors and some lawmakers, Cornell’s David Pimentel takes a longer range view.
“Abusing our precious croplands to grow corn for an energy-inefficient process that yields low-grade automobile fuel amounts to unsustainable, subsidized food burning,” says the Cornell professor in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Pimentel, who chaired a U.S. Department of Energy panel that investigated the energetics, economics and environmental aspects of ethanol production several years ago, subsequently conducted a detailed analysis of the corn-to-car fuel process. His findings will be published in September, 2001 in the forthcoming Encyclopedia of Physical Sciences and Technology .
Among his findings are:
An acre of U.S. corn yields about 7,110 pounds of corn for processing into 328 gallons of ethanol. But planting, growing and harvesting that much corn requires about 140 gallons of fossil fuels and costs $347 per acre, according to Pimentel’s analysis.
Thus, even before corn is converted to ethanol, the feedstock costs $1.05 per gallon of ethanol.
The energy economics get worse at the processing plants, where the grain is crushed and fermented. As many as three distillation steps are needed to separate the 8 percent ethanol from the 92 percent water. Additional treatment and energy are required to produce the 99.8 percent pure ethanol for mixing with gasoline. o Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion to ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make 1 gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTU. “Put another way,” Pimentel says, “about 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in ethanol. Every time you make 1 gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTU.”
Ethanol from corn costs about $1.74 per gallon to produce, compared with about 95 cents to produce a gallon of gasoline. “That helps explain why fossil fuels — not ethanol — are used to produce ethanol,” Pimentel says. “The growers and processors can’t afford to burn ethanol to make ethanol. U.S. drivers couldn’t afford it, either, if it weren’t for government subsidies to artificially lower the price.”
Most economic analyses of corn-to-ethanol production overlook the costs of environmental damages, which Pimentel says should add another 23 cents per gallon. “Corn production in the U.S. erodes soil about 12 times faster than the soil can be reformed, and irrigating corn mines groundwater 25 percent faster than the natural recharge rate of ground water. The environmental system in which corn is being produced is being rapidly degraded. Corn should not be considered a renewable resource for ethanol energy production, especially when human food is being converted into ethanol.”
The approximately $1 billion a year in current federal and state subsidies (mainly to large corporations) for ethanol production are not the only costs to consumers, the Cornell scientist observes. Subsidized corn results in higher prices for meat, milk and eggs because about 70 percent of corn grain is fed to livestock and poultry in the United States Increasing ethanol production would further inflate corn prices, Pimentel says, noting: “In addition to paying tax dollars for ethanol subsidies, consumers would be paying significantly higher food prices in the marketplace.”
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2001/08/ethanol-corn-faulted-energy-waster-scientist-says
Carson may be getting some of the gas0h0l whore $’s sent his way:
http://www.autoblog.com/2015/05/14/ben-carson-in-favor-of-scrapping-big-oil-subsidies-in-favor-of-e/
The 2016 presidential election is putting Iowa in the news a lot recently because a strong showing in the state’s early primary can give a big boost to campaigns. The location also gives us a chance to learn the candidates’ positions on the Renewable Fuel Standard and ethanol subsidies because the Hawkeye State is a major farming region, especially of corn. Republican hopeful Dr. Ben Carson recently made his feelings known as a definite supporter of the crop-based fuel.
“I don’t particularly like the idea of government subsidies for anything because it interferes with the natural free market,” Carson said to the Des Moines Register.
“’Therefore, I would probably be in favor of taking that $4 billion a year we spend on oil subsidies and using that in new fueling stations’ for 30-percent ethanol blends.” Carson predicted that under his plan gasoline would be 50 cents to 80 cents less expensive per gallon.
Carson could face serious pushback outside of Iowa, if he’s serious about offering a 30-percent ethanol blend. States like Hawaii and Oregon have been trying to pass laws to get rid of their 10-percent mix mandates, and Florida has already done so.
The national debate over increasing the nationwide blend limit from E10, or 10 percent ethanol, to E15, is also already contentious. As Hotair notes, Dr. Carson’s statement also seems contradictory. If he’s against government subsidies, then moving $4 billion from one place to another doesn’t really change anything.
Among the candidates in Iowa, Dr. Carson is hardly the only ethanol supporter, though. Hillary Clinton already signaled her support for the fuel and several Republican hopefuls did, as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.