To: TBBT
Historically, winning Iowa is almost a sure sign that you are not going to win the nomination.
2 posted on
12/28/2011 1:58:03 PM PST by
E. Pluribus Unum
(FOREIGN AID: A transfer of money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
I am truly sick of the Iowa caucuses and analysis of the Iowa caucuses. A vote for whoever in the IC means in all likelihood absolutely nothing.
6 posted on
12/28/2011 2:06:38 PM PST by
Williams
(Honey Badger Don't Care)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
Especially when you split the conservative vote in SC!
Which is what Thompson did in ‘08 and what Santorum, Perry, and Bachmann are hoping to do with NEWT in ‘12.
Way to go, Repubs! Help the moderates: McCain, Romney, Dole, etc...A sure LOSS to the Dems every time.
7 posted on
12/28/2011 2:06:43 PM PST by
CainConservative
(Merry CHRISTmas and a Happy Newt/Marco 2012!!)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
Exactly. Iowa's relevance is vastly overrated. We could make a pretty good list of people who won in Iowa and
didn't win the nomination.
Try making a comparable list for Florida.
I consider Romney, Perry and Gingrich to all be "C" list candidates and consider arguing about the comparative merits of these three to be akin to arguing about which flavor of socialized medicine, amnesty and crony capitalism is most efficient.
23 posted on
12/28/2011 2:26:40 PM PST by
Vigilanteman
(Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson