Posted on 10/23/2015 7:25:17 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
57% of Iowans who vote in this caucus self-identify as Evangelicals way way above true GOP rank and file numbers. Anyone who things Carson will be the nominee is fooling himself.
Wow, I betcha those pollsters have never spent so much time in church...
Trump did the pollsters a favor by legitimizing them, by citing the polls over-and-over again.
The media paid pollsters used Trump to push out Cruz.
Now comes the anti Trump pollster push.
And Trump and his supporters can't complain about it.
oh....GOOD ONE
Really? We can't complain about rigged polls? Then we can't complain about the whole tainted process, right? We just have to shut-up and take it like a man?
Personally, I can and will complain and loudly.
You really miss my point.
I wouldn’t worry needlessly over 2 polls. One by the Des Moines’ Register which Trump refuses to let into his rallies.
Iowa has always been an outlier primary (caucus). I’ll have to see it to believe it but even if Trump did lose Iowa he is leading in every national and almost every state poll. Carson trailing way behind.
Ben Carson is a as far as I can tell a good and decent man who is in no way, shape or form prepared to be President of the United States. It appears the GOPe have glommed onto Carson as their latest desperate ploy to bring down Trump.
We still have over 3 months til the Iowa Caucus and Trump has supposedly the strongest ground team of any campaign working to win.
this could very well be the first prong of the united elite’s vow to take down trump in a coordinated effort. some bowling green outfit posted their first poll of the cycle a few days ago with carson leading.
there might be some nasty direct mail stuff under the radar the way there was about callista gingrich.
trump will prevail don’t doubt it.
Presidents Rick Santorum (’12) and Mike Huckabee (’08) can attest that winning the primary in IA is very important to a successful presidential run.
It can’t be much of a surprise that evangelicals would prefer Carson to Trump. Carson being SDA will likely influence many, though.
Given the challenges of polling in these times, all of them need to be taken with a large grain of salt. IIRC this’d last poll relief on phone polling which is greatly problematic.
I did not know this, but I’m not surprised. Thanks.
Right. Trump stays the course he takes Iowa along with most of the states. He’s not sweating this stuff.
For example, only around 29,000 who caucused for Santorum winning Iowa’s vote count.
Trump at his rally in Burlington, IA, two days ago, got 10% or 3,000 of 29k in a not very populated area of Iowa.
“united elite’s vow “
Trump is not part of that!?
Funny how we look at a billionaire New Yorker as not part of the “elite”!
They are all politicians wanting their piece of the pie.
Trust none of them.
It IS a curious thing.
Except Cruz and Carson split votes. But, no matter how he got there, Ben is about to feel the wrath of the press and GOPe against any front runner not named Bush or Rubio.
Exactamundo!
For all those that find the Iowa Caucus
procedures as arcane as the initiation rites of The Mystic Knights of the Sea, I offer the link to a 2012 article.
http://m.theweek.com/articles/479139/idiosyncratic-iowa-caucus-rules-guide
excerpt:
The ‘Idiosyncratic’ Iowa Caucus Rules: A Guide
On Tuesday night, Iowa Republicans will gather at 1,774 locations around the state to kick off the 2012 presidential election, through an “idiosyncratic” caucus process with origins at least as old as the United States. Unlike more straightforward primary elections, the voters who brave the cold Iowa winter to spend a weekday evening politicking won’t award any delegates to the winning candidates. Adding to the unusual nature of the caucuses, each of Iowa’s 1,774 precincts gets to set its own rules. Still, despite the quirks and arcane rules, “Iowans stand by their caucuses,” says Elizabeth Hartfield at ABC News. Here, a guide to the proud, strange Hawkeye State electoral tradition:
How do the caucuses work?
Caucus participants gather at their local precinct meeting place — usually a school, library, church, or other public space, but sometimes a private home — by 7 p.m. Then, after reciting the Pledge of Allegiance and electing a caucus chairman and secretary, the caucusgoers listen to a brief endorsement speech by a surrogate from any campaign that sends a representative. Then Iowans vote: Republicans note their preference by secret ballot, usually a blank slip of paper. The votes are counted in public, read aloud, then phoned in to the state GOP, which tallies the statewide results and releases them.
Who can participate?
Any registered Republican who lives in the precinct and will be 18 by Election Day. But since state law allows voters to switch registration at the caucuses themselves, the event is effectively open to all interested voters. Turnout isn’t usually very large, though. In 2008, about 120,000 people cast ballots in the Iowa GOP caucuses — roughly 21 percent of active registered Republicans — while 227,000 Democrats caucused to decide that year’s heated battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Political analysts expect a slight uptick on the GOP side this year....go to link for more.
Apt observation.
More insight to Carson’s love of gas0hol and the gas0holic whore voters of Iowa who need our $’s to support gas0hol.
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
Sorry, doing a lot of that lately. Guess I feel surrounded by the enemy so lash out too quickly. Anyway, sorry.
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.