The real winners in Iowa are the candidates who beat expectations

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Mukkake Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 3, 2012 2:21 p.m.

    I think Jon Huntsman said it best:

    "They pick corn in Iowa, and pick presidents here in New Hampshire."

  • Furry1993 Clearfield, UT
    Jan. 3, 2012 11:22 a.m.

    If anyone thinks that ANY of the candidates "beat expectations", then they must have pretty low expectations. None of the people campaigning in Iowa is worth a second look for president.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    Jan. 3, 2012 11:21 a.m.

    The variety of state politics is what makes America great. We have a general election that is basically a standardized type of election. The various state processes doesn't mean one candidate is chosen from the start in Iowa. It does make it tougher for a candidate with the primaries closer together but it does give a longer period before the convention to game the system from the candidates and media and especially the one who holds the trump card, the President on that person's second election, potentially. That may not be so good for citizens as the President will have lobbyists, special sections of the electorate that have benefitted from the President's policies and don't want the bread line to give up. U.S. politics roll with the punches and usually comes back from the corner punch. We have longevity with our Constitution and the 50 state constitutions supporting our process, with slight and authorized variations. Everyone has a vote for so many offices in our government, whether local, state and national elections. Iowa is a start but the game continues in New Hampshire before the press can take a breath and moves to South Carolina so rapidly, breathe now

  • Yorkshire City, Ut
    Jan. 3, 2012 11:06 a.m.

    from article--"...they highlighted some of the reasons many Americans think the Iowa caucuses should be moved to the back bench."

    Count me as among those Americans.

  • David King Layton, UT
    Jan. 3, 2012 11:05 a.m.

    "Romney's hope tonight is to allow Paul and Santorum, neither considered a serious long-term contender, to split the anti-Romney vote, thereby further sidelining Gingrich, the only remaining real threat" -from the article

    If you pay attention, Mitt Romney rarely criticizes Ron Paul, and has often been complimentary of him in debates. When Sean Hannity gave him a chance to criticize him over the much exaggerated newsletter controversy, he declined. Why would he do that? He hasn't been afraid to criticize any of his other rivals, like Newt Gingrich or Rick Perry or even ones not doing so well in the polls.

    Mitt Romney understands that Ron Paul can and will win delegates, and if he wants to have any shot at being President, he will need the Ron Paul vote.

  • DSB Cedar Hills, UT
    Jan. 3, 2012 9:35 a.m.

    I think the Iowa caucus is an un-American quadrennial sham foisted upon both parties across the entire country. Voters in the latter primary states are basically disenfranchised every 4 years by a system that winnows the candidates and determines the nominee long before they get to vote.

    Why should Iowa and New Hampshire get to set the election tone for the entire country every Presidential election cycle? I get sick of hearing about how Iowans take their first-in-the-country role so seriously, as if the citizens of any state wouldn't also take it seriously. For crying out loud - Iowa caucus participants represent less than 4% of Iowa voters!

    I don't think any one state is a fair representation of the entire nation, so no single state should go first every time. It's well past time to set up a rotational system whereby every state, or region, gets equal opportunity to have first voice.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    Jan. 3, 2012 9:20 a.m.

    Iowa is a blessing for our nation. They are basic people showing the world that the United States of America has a variety of systems to get to the point of choosing a President of the United States of America. States have such an important part to play in our political system. It doesn't make any difference if a state is small or large in population, each state has an opportunity to impact on the popular vote and electoral vote processes. It does make candidates think hard about their strategy and tactics in playing out the 12 plus months in getting to the final day of election in November. It is not just a straight shot to victory and never has been. Public and private media and the social media impacts more each election due to the speed of light. People's perceptions are influenced by bombardment of good and bad publicity that is significant in the United States. The whole world can see and hear our process on device in their location and in their own language, if translated correctly. Politics can be like a roller-coaster ride and candidates go up and down but steady/sure is best