Nice try Senator. You lost South Carolina to Newt by more than the total of all votes in Iowa. Newt won SC by more than your vote total in all of NH. The 600 thousand votes from SC dwarf the tiny little turn outs in those other two states.
This is not a three way tie. Not even close.
Mmm...
A presidential election is actually 50 state elections, not one popular vote. Electoral college and all...
It seems a lot of Freepers failed to learn anything from one of Rick Perry's strongest points. Respect the Tenth Amendment! We Iowans have the right to choose candidates the way we want to choose them, not the way the Feds nor any other of Obama's 60* states want.
Iowa chooses to let our more motivated citizens choose for the rest. We're not alone in this. Other states choose otherwise, with a variety of differences such as being variously open or closed to party members. This is Constitutional diversity. You may not agree with our methods, but you may not disrespect our right to choose them!
I don't agree with NH and SC that letting Independents vote in party primaries is a good idea. (I wish my state would limit party switching to 30+ days before primaries and caucuses, but haven't been able to convince my fellow Iowans of that either.) I'd say, use the laboratory of the Tenth to stage an "Independent primary" if they wish, open only to those so registered; the Framers never envisioned political parties and would be delighted to see candidates arising without them. But I respect the right of NH and SC to allow those minds, too muddled to choose a party, to choose within one.
*Obama's famous quote was that he'd visited 57 states, staff wouldn't let him visit Alaska or Hawaii, and he still had one more to visit. Seeing that Obama's spending has proven how high he can count; he should be credited with a 60, not a 57, state claim.