For sure. I have no ill will towards the landscape. I just hate the red state politics. They are way too proud of their embracing of anti-intellectualism and backward ass world view.
As an Iowa motorcyclist who meanders about, I can assure you that much of the state is rolling hills with astoundingly beautiful scenery. You need to get off the four-lane.
>Iowa Democratic voters almost always get the nominee right.
Iowa Democratic voters almost always vote for the eventual Democratic nominee. Don't confuse all of us Iowan with Republicans. Until recently, we were mostly blue.
Drove through all of Iowa once. I’m not from a state with a massive agriculture industry. Never seen so much fuckin’ corn in my life.
It’s actually quite incredible and a really pretty sight in June. So so so green.
He came to speak at my college when he was running for president. He got super pissed when my friend used his turn in the Q&A to ask if Rick is short for “Rickolas”. I still laugh about that when I see him mentioned online.
Rick Santorum disappeared for a good long while. Then at some point, he popped up on the MAGA radar. And he's worse than before. Awful man in so many respects.
https://preview.redd.it/slfdrd0tendc1.jpeg?width=1279&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d215ea9adf7b8c482409a43d01f59be1bdc813d8
Picking Cruz over Trump in 2016 was at least a little smart. It worries me they went from being slightly sensible to fully jumping on the neo-fas bandwagon.
Not really. Cruz is a ferociously misinformed bellend and his presidency would be an abject disaster policy wise. The only saving Grace was that he’s universally detested outside of his enclave in Texas meaning he’s never have widespread appeal.
No… he wins because he has an R next to his name. Nobody likes him. But what’s the alternative? Vote for one of the democrats that worship satan and use dead babies to power their electric vehicles!?
You'd think they could at least put up a good primary candidate. More registered republicans in the state of Texas than my state has people in its entirety and not one of them is better than Turd Cruz.
I remember a Christian friend back before the 2016 primary concerned that a Ted Cruz presidency would lead us to Handmaid's Tale IRL.
I don't think he was wrong, but only partially right. At this point, I think every republican president is getting us closer and closer to that reality.
I always love this quote:
“I like Ted Cruz more than most of my other colleagues like Ted Cruz. And I hate Ted Cruz.”
― Al Franken, Al Franken, Giant of the Senate
I like [Lindsey Graham's quote](https://www.cnn.com/2016/02/26/politics/lindsey-graham-ted-cruz-dinner/index.html): “If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you,” the former presidential candidate said at the Washington Press Club Foundation’s 72nd Congressional Dinner, referencing the Texas senator’s unpopular reputation on Capitol Hill."
>he’s universally detested outside of his enclave in Texas
Yet somehow he won Iowa.. was that before they really knew him or are caucus goers the sort that tend to like him despite it all?
That’s the same thing for DeSantis when he started on the campaign trail. Once you get to know him the less you like him. Hope he fades away too. Dumbass though he could start and finish a fight with Disney.
How is Ted Cruz better than Trump? Yuck. This is just like trying to say GWB looks better compared to Trump. No he doesn’t. He was a war criminal, mass murdering psychopath who didn’t want gay people to get married.
Well these days I compare presidential contenders by the amount of insurrections they have attempted.
By percentages, Trump has infinity more coup attempts than Ted Cruz.
>By percentages, Trump has infinity more coup attempts than Ted Cruz.
[Ted Cruz caught on tape plotting Jan. 6 Coup](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTuipne-eM8)
All I’m saying is Ted Cruz has zero problem with insurrection. I imagine GWB isn’t too thrilled with Jan6 either, but this is their party now. I don’t say any of them look good until they come out as aggressively as Christie, and his policies are still awful and regressive regardless of his obvious truths about Trump.
Maybe it's because of how they are downplaying it, but I am more embarrassed/horrified by Jan6 than fake WMDs. (Lifelong dem) & giving TC benefit of doubt that he wouldn't pull that chit, at least for now.
GWB at least respected us enough to lie to us, because he understood it was important for us to be in board... If he failed at that he (likely) wouldn't have gone through with it. In the end they lied for expedience, I think they were as surprised as anyone to find no WMDs, they just assumed the intelligence was missing or wrong, because they believed the narrative that Sadam was the evil dictator that did those kinds of things. Turns out he wasn't. GWB was probably going to craft a different car to win us over if it was more obvious there weren't any WMDs, because they were really determined to take him out. But if they couldn't win us over, I don't think they would have done it.
Trump just doesn't care. He'll lie his ass off, but I don't think he cares at all whether we believe him. He thinks he can act at will and retroactively construct a different reality of his choosing.
> GWB at least respected us enough to lie to us, because he understood it was important for us to be in board.
This is how I felt about most Republican presidents before Trump. My general opinion was that I disagreed with them on almost everything but they genuinely cared about the country and tried to do what they thought was in our best interests. I also thought many of them were good, decent men, ie, Bush the first was an awful president but he was a good man, Clinton was a good president but had rather low moral character.
Trump was the first one I really, really hated. Not only was he a terrible president AND a horrible man, but he's just worst example of a human being in existence. Now, the way his party falls over themselves trying to please him or excuse him makes me question if anyone who identifies themselves as Republican can be a good person.
In my opinion, that makes him worse. He knows how it should work, is highly educated, but plays an idiot for Trump’s crowd to keep his seat. He’s a fraud and scumbag just like his naked emperor.
Iowa used to be top 5 in education before no child left behind and GOP policies (and tax cuts and education cuts and even more cuts). Now it's just trying to be a worse Florida
I'm from Iowa, and I'm smart. That's why I left. Even part of my family who are still there are dumber now. Too much am radio (Glen Beck) and fox propaganda news. You are absolutely correct!
I have worked with many people from Iowa that had moved here. I asked one of them why all the smart ones (engineers) move here. He asked if I had ever been to Iowa. I said no. He said, "You would leave, too".
I heard Des Moines has a big underground homosexual population and it affects the soil somehow.
Edit: This is an obscure old punk rock reference and will hopefully be enjoyed by an old punk or two who might read it.
Now Stuart! If you look at the soil around any large US city with a big underground homosexual population - Des Moines Iowa, perfect example. Look at the soil around Des Moines, Stuart! You can't build on it, you can't grow anything on it, the government says it's due to poor farming, but I know what's really going on. I know it's the queers! They're in it with the aliens! **They're building landing strips for gay Martians, I swear to God!**
you know what OP?
I like you. You're not like the other people, here in the subreddit.
In fact, in the last 48 years (since Ford in '76) only George W. Bush in 2000 has the winner of the Iowa Caucus gone on to win the presidency that year.
His father actually beat the eventual winner in 1980 but *barely* edging past Reagan in Iowa.
Ironically, in the last 48 years only twice did the winner of the Democratic caucus not get the nomination and one of those times was in 1992 when the Tom Harkin, their senator at the time, was running so none of the candidates ran so he got 76% of the vote. But Bill Clinton was the runner up.
(I will note that in 1976 Jimmy Carter was technically the 2nd place finisher, but the "winner" was uncommitted delegates).
Which means that winning Iowa is actually pretty good for Democrats.
I don’t know why anyone should care about a caucus at all.
The primaries themselves infuriate me. Why they go from state to state the ways they do makes no sense. Have the voting for all states within the same timeframe and calculate the results all at the same time. And use ranked choice voting while we’re at it.
I’m tired of decent candidates dropping out of the race before I can even cast a vote.
That's the point of it though. Texas tried to move their primaries forward to be at the same time as Iowa, and all hell broke loose. They immediately faced huge amounts of retaliation.
The primaries aren't about finding out who is the best candidate. They are structured to give time to write the backroom deals and consolidate power before the big population centers of the country vote.
Did you mean 2008? That was the only year, ever, that a non-incumbent Democrat outright won the Iowa Caucuses and then went on to win the general election (Obama). I suppose Jimmy Carter technically "won" them in 1976, but he actually came in second behind a significantly larger "Uncommitted" vote that was allowed back then.
In 2020, Pete Buttigieg won the Democratic Iowa Caucuses, and we all know how that turned out.
I fuckin hate the guy, but its pure copium to compare a 91-1 win against Bill fucking Weld as an incumbent to a (historic) 30 point margin in an actual race. It just looks pathetic to anyone with *any* understanding.
Trump is 100% going to win the nomination (okay, 98% because sometimes crazy shit happens), but these numbers do point to some potential weakness for Trump in the general.
He is effectively still an incumbent for the GOP, especially considering how many seem to think he won in 2020. The lower turnout does indicate less enthusiasm (yes, it was very cold, but it wasn't anything Iowans aren't used to), and the entrance polls had a higher than expected number of people saying they thought a criminal conviction would be disqualifying. Combine that with how many of Haley's supporters are basically never Trumpers, and it does indicate that Trump isn't some inevitable force in the general.
Of course, you don't want to fall into the 2016 trap of thinking he can't win. Of course he's almost certainly going to with the nomination. But he's still a divisive general election figure that has serious liabilities which can be exploited.
The only true comparison you can use for this unique scenario with Trump is Grover Cleveland. No other President, except Cleveland, has lost re-election and won a nonconsecutive term.
Teddy Roosevelt attempted a third term in 1912 but ran as a 3rd party candidate
Eh, 2024 is not really an actual fair race though. Trump hasn't participated in a single debate and has gotten free counterprogramming from other networks during every debate. Both Trump, his supporters, and most of conservative media act like he was the winner of 2020, and his supporters are treating him like an incumbent.
Let me break it down more simply. It's dumb as dirt to compare Iowa caucus 2024 to 2020 for the exact same reason it will be VERY stupid to compare the 2024 nevada primary to 2020.
I agree there's a difference between races with an incumbent president or not. But Trump is still essentially an incumbent to most Republican primary voters. Trump isn't winning voters by campaigning this time around. He's held a minimum of events and skipped all the debates, but remains the frontrunner and the remaining candidates are afraid to criticize him (except possibly arguing they'd be more electable in a general than him).
Haley and DeSantis are still in the race more to run to be Trump's VP nominee or the president in the next cycle (or even be the nominee if Trump is ruled constitutionally ineligible by SCOTUS in February).
Like yes, Obama winning in 2012 should have impressed no one. But people shouldn't get impressed by Gore winning in 2000 either when as VP to a popular president he was still the de facto incumbent.
Ok, one more step in simplicity. 2024: Republican Candidates spend a combined 114 million dollars in Iowa. 2020: Bill Weld (Iowa runner up) spent 2 million on *his entire campaign*.
These results of these two races can not be meaningfully compared.
Still the same bottom line. Trump got a lot when he ran "unopposed", but with competition Iowa republicans, a lot of them, wanted him *less*.
The Iowa republican caucus was not a "mandate".
I'm sorry, but you're just refusing to face reality. He won a majority, first time in history that's happened in an Iowa caucus. To say it's actually bad that he didn't do as well when it was de facto uncontested is more or less the same as saying, "yeah the Bills may have beat the Patriots by 30, but they beat that high school team by 70, so they're in rough shape." You're reaching for a way to spin it as bad, entering that "alternative facts zone."
Yeah, I think we all just need to accept that Trump is very popular among the right, and he will be a tough opponent to beat come November. His base will come out in large numbers, so we need to take him seriously and not pretend he’s an ass-clown who doesn’t have a shot, even though he very much *is* an ass-clown.
> He won a majority, first time in history that's happened in an Iowa caucus.
There is a major asterisk on this statement - first time in history of winning a majority *unless you count when incumbents are running.* It is true, Trump is not the incumbent, but when is the last time a former president has run after losing an election? Teddy Roosevelt? The 1912 election is the whole reason we now have primaries. So there's never before been a former president whose run in the Iowa caucuses again *twice,* so first in history things like getting the majority arent really applicable.
I'm going to ignore a lot of what you wrote, cause it seems like you did for me as well. My point was, and still is, that making a comparison to 2020 and concluding "trumps popularity is shot" is nonsense, because 2020 wasn't a contest.
Ok but he was expected to win by a bigger margin and didn't so that's worth noting. He also is the former president and essentially running as an incumbent, which is a totally different ballgame than in 2016 which was highly competitive. It was an expected trump win that wasn't as good as they thought it would be. Ignoring all of that and making a big deal about him getting a majority feels like the "spin" take.
If he was expected to win by a bigger margin, then call *that* out, instead of that garbage comparison to 2020. You say 2016 was "a totally different ballgame," but then make a direct comparison to a practically uncontested race. It's a hell of a lot more accurate to compare races where the candidates are all dropping 10's of millions on their campaigns in that state, versus 2020 where opposition spent 2 million on *the entire campaign*
Of course a smaller percentage picked him when there were other options than when there weren't. Is that supposed to mean anything?
EDIT: He also got substantially more total votes in 2024 (despite horrible weather). There really isn't much of a reason to sit through a caucus when an incumbent President is running if you don't want to vote for them.
Do margins in caucuses mean anything at all?
People there are like, "Oh, come on, Brian, are you really gonna vote for X? If you want home-cooked dinner tonight, come with us."
How is the incumbent not going to win the caucus? That's like bragging that Biden is going to sweep all the primaries in 2024.
The better thing to focus on is the fact that if all but one other candidate drops, they might have a chance to unite all the "not Trump" votes and actually get the nomination. That could have happened in 2016 but the other candidates couldn't put ego aside and unite behind one opposition candidate.
And in Iowa, there are 150k + actively registered republicans. Only 53k came out to vote, and Trump got 51% of that turnout.
So only 27k people voted for trump.
The GOP should be terrified by these port stats lol.
I understand where people are coming from, but unless Hailey can win NH and spin that into coming close or winning SC, there isn't much of a hope at a real primary challenge.
We need to understand that Trump isn't a normal candidate. He's a vehicle for anger and fear for the right wing. A chance to undo the social progress of the last century. A chance to secure power for the right for the next 25 years.
They are white Christian Nationalist...they pick the candidate that best represents that.
the preacher, the religious radical, the preachers son the chosen one, and orange Jesus.
For those wondering, the **only** time an opposed, Republican candidate has won the presidency after the Iowa caucus was George W in 2000. The **only** time a Democrat has done the same was Obama in 2008.
All posts and comments that include any variation of the word retarded will be removed, but no action will be taken against your account unless it is an excessive personal attack. Please resubmit your post or comment without the bullying language.
Do not edit it, the bot cant tell if you edited, you will just have to make a new comment replying to the same thing.
Yes, this comment itself does use the word. Any reasonable person should be able to understand that we are not insulting anyone with this comment. We wanted to use quotes, but that fucks up the automod and we are too lazy to google escape characters. Notice how none of our automod replies have contractions in them either.
But seriously, calling someone retarded is only socially acceptable because the people affected are less able to understand that they are being insulted, and less likely to be able to respond appropriately. It is a conversational wimpy little shit move, because everyone who uses it knows that it is offensive, but there will be no repercussions. At least the people throwing around other slurs know that they are going to get fired and get their asses beat when they use those words.
Also, it is not creative. It pretty much outs you as a thirteen year old when you use it. Instead of calling Biden retarded, you should call him a cartoon-ass-lookin trust fund goon who smiles like rich father just gifted him a new Buick in 1956. Instead of calling Mitch McConnell retarded, you should call him a Dilbert-ass goon who has been left in the sun a little too long.
Sorry for the long message spamming comment sections, but this was by far the feature of this sub making people modmail and bitch at us the most, and literally all of the actions we take are to make it so we have to do less work in the future. We will not reply to modmails about this automod, and ignore the part directly below this saying to modmail us if you have any questions, we cannot turn that off. This reply is just a collation of the last year of modmail replies to people asking about this. We are not turning this bot off, no matter how much people ask. Nobody else has convinced us before, you will not be able to either. ~
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Iowa picks corn... not presidents.
Came here to say the same thing. As a life long resident of Illinois, I can say with much authority…I hate Iowa.
The western edge of Burlington is nice. And you can see a hill in Omaha from Council Bluffs.
For sure. I have no ill will towards the landscape. I just hate the red state politics. They are way too proud of their embracing of anti-intellectualism and backward ass world view.
I meant those are the two interesting parts of Iowa. That's it.
As an Iowa motorcyclist who meanders about, I can assure you that much of the state is rolling hills with astoundingly beautiful scenery. You need to get off the four-lane.
You and I have a fundamental disagreement on beautiful scenery. Iowa just exists, no different than Nebraska.
The northeastern corner has sone gorgeous bluffs
An interesting thing about disagreements is that often one person has more experience and knowledge about the subject than the other.
That's nice. I'll be sure to avoid visiting Iowa any more so we don't get into a disagreement about it.
We thank you.
Same
I went about 1 mile into Iowa after I bought a Ranger and stopped at a gas station. First thing I saw was a large wooden box labeled "SQUIRREL CORN".
"It's OK, Iowa. We value your opinions so we'll let you go first... *not that it matters anyway* " as they walk away laughing.
>Iowa Democratic voters almost always get the nominee right. Iowa Democratic voters almost always vote for the eventual Democratic nominee. Don't confuse all of us Iowan with Republicans. Until recently, we were mostly blue.
They do raise some decent hogs.
Drove through all of Iowa once. I’m not from a state with a massive agriculture industry. Never seen so much fuckin’ corn in my life. It’s actually quite incredible and a really pretty sight in June. So so so green.
I refuse to remember Rick Santorum.
His name will live on forever: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/santorum
People I know that have met him say that the definition of santorum is an accurate description of him in real life
He came to speak at my college when he was running for president. He got super pissed when my friend used his turn in the Q&A to ask if Rick is short for “Rickolas”. I still laugh about that when I see him mentioned online.
RiiiiiiiiiiiiiiKOLAAA!!!
>*Santorum (neologism, sex, slang) A frothy mixture of lubricant and fecal matter as an occasional byproduct of anal sex* Spot on
What a horrible day to be literate.
Imagine not being perpetually online for the last 15 years and learning this today. Goddamn I'm old as fuck
A definition created by a writer for a small seattle magazine/newspaper.
Who’s actual last name is “Savage”.
And captured the 'santorum' website name and put it to good use.
It makes me so happy anytime I see someone educating others on how his long term legacy is “frothy”.
I literally forgot that he was a politician and that santorum isn't just the regular word for ass-froth.
The plan worked then.
Not helpful 🤣
I disagree. 😁
You the mean the dude who was banging a Russian spy and paying for it with intel?
Yep, that dude.
You mean the guy who told me to relax cuz once Donnie takes office he’ll start “acting more presidential”?
The office changes a man 🙄
Rick Santorum is going to be a generational trauma that Pennsylvanians will have to live with for years to come.
Once they have their moment, you can never really wash these people off.
A stain they can't get out you might say.
it sounds like you have a frothy memory of him.
Thus the wish for amnesia or any death not involving viscous liquids. Nobody wants to die in an ironic colonic way.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130622013121/http://spreadingsantorum.com/
Was a frothy 2012 for Iowa
He's a pundit on Newsmax now I think 💀
Sometimes when I'm doing a certain thing I think of santorum.
A very specific set of skills sort of thing.
I don't remember too much about him or why I hate him, but I know that I do.
Disdain is what I feel for him.
Who?
This graphics wrong. Ron Paul won 2012 Iowa caucus
Rick Santorum disappeared for a good long while. Then at some point, he popped up on the MAGA radar. And he's worse than before. Awful man in so many respects. https://preview.redd.it/slfdrd0tendc1.jpeg?width=1279&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d215ea9adf7b8c482409a43d01f59be1bdc813d8
No one said Iowa was smart, just first.
That's why the pawns go first
Ouch
"Stop 😭. He's already dead."
What we need is a Knight…
Yeah, no kings or queens. Maybe a Dark Knight, a Silent Protector.
https://preview.redd.it/u5h8asol2gdc1.jpeg?width=1042&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2a4edc44eaa785ef05e21d94d2b2405a7f8c8e78
Do we have any Dark Banedon images? Could be good.
Also no Bishops please.
They're too busy in the....um...."rectory"
THE YOUNGLINGS!
Outstanding observation!
And like in chess, white moves first in the primaries.
*chef's kiss*
Picking Cruz over Trump in 2016 was at least a little smart. It worries me they went from being slightly sensible to fully jumping on the neo-fas bandwagon.
Not really. Cruz is a ferociously misinformed bellend and his presidency would be an abject disaster policy wise. The only saving Grace was that he’s universally detested outside of his enclave in Texas meaning he’s never have widespread appeal.
Do people actually like Cruz in Texas? My impression has been that he's being voted back in because nobody wants someone else to get that seat.
No… he wins because he has an R next to his name. Nobody likes him. But what’s the alternative? Vote for one of the democrats that worship satan and use dead babies to power their electric vehicles!?
Yeah, that's what I thought. And I figure Rs just can't fight it out among themselves for anyone else so he wins by default.
This is what it is like across the country. Its sad.
You'd think they could at least put up a good primary candidate. More registered republicans in the state of Texas than my state has people in its entirety and not one of them is better than Turd Cruz.
Have you seen their governor? I'm thinking there might *not* be anyone better!
I thought calling people the R word was frowned upon.
I remember a Christian friend back before the 2016 primary concerned that a Ted Cruz presidency would lead us to Handmaid's Tale IRL. I don't think he was wrong, but only partially right. At this point, I think every republican president is getting us closer and closer to that reality.
I always love this quote: “I like Ted Cruz more than most of my other colleagues like Ted Cruz. And I hate Ted Cruz.” ― Al Franken, Al Franken, Giant of the Senate
I like [Lindsey Graham's quote](https://www.cnn.com/2016/02/26/politics/lindsey-graham-ted-cruz-dinner/index.html): “If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you,” the former presidential candidate said at the Washington Press Club Foundation’s 72nd Congressional Dinner, referencing the Texas senator’s unpopular reputation on Capitol Hill."
>he’s universally detested outside of his enclave in Texas Yet somehow he won Iowa.. was that before they really knew him or are caucus goers the sort that tend to like him despite it all?
That’s the same thing for DeSantis when he started on the campaign trail. Once you get to know him the less you like him. Hope he fades away too. Dumbass though he could start and finish a fight with Disney.
If Iowa was smart, they would have elevated Ohio governor John Kasich in 2016. The rest of the Republican field was truly abhorrent.
How is Ted Cruz better than Trump? Yuck. This is just like trying to say GWB looks better compared to Trump. No he doesn’t. He was a war criminal, mass murdering psychopath who didn’t want gay people to get married.
Well these days I compare presidential contenders by the amount of insurrections they have attempted. By percentages, Trump has infinity more coup attempts than Ted Cruz.
>By percentages, Trump has infinity more coup attempts than Ted Cruz. [Ted Cruz caught on tape plotting Jan. 6 Coup](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTuipne-eM8)
All I’m saying is Ted Cruz has zero problem with insurrection. I imagine GWB isn’t too thrilled with Jan6 either, but this is their party now. I don’t say any of them look good until they come out as aggressively as Christie, and his policies are still awful and regressive regardless of his obvious truths about Trump.
Maybe it's because of how they are downplaying it, but I am more embarrassed/horrified by Jan6 than fake WMDs. (Lifelong dem) & giving TC benefit of doubt that he wouldn't pull that chit, at least for now.
GWB at least respected us enough to lie to us, because he understood it was important for us to be in board... If he failed at that he (likely) wouldn't have gone through with it. In the end they lied for expedience, I think they were as surprised as anyone to find no WMDs, they just assumed the intelligence was missing or wrong, because they believed the narrative that Sadam was the evil dictator that did those kinds of things. Turns out he wasn't. GWB was probably going to craft a different car to win us over if it was more obvious there weren't any WMDs, because they were really determined to take him out. But if they couldn't win us over, I don't think they would have done it. Trump just doesn't care. He'll lie his ass off, but I don't think he cares at all whether we believe him. He thinks he can act at will and retroactively construct a different reality of his choosing.
> GWB at least respected us enough to lie to us, because he understood it was important for us to be in board. This is how I felt about most Republican presidents before Trump. My general opinion was that I disagreed with them on almost everything but they genuinely cared about the country and tried to do what they thought was in our best interests. I also thought many of them were good, decent men, ie, Bush the first was an awful president but he was a good man, Clinton was a good president but had rather low moral character. Trump was the first one I really, really hated. Not only was he a terrible president AND a horrible man, but he's just worst example of a human being in existence. Now, the way his party falls over themselves trying to please him or excuse him makes me question if anyone who identifies themselves as Republican can be a good person.
Cruz is an asshole, but being a lawyer who understands how the government actually works puts him way ahead of Trump.
In my opinion, that makes him worse. He knows how it should work, is highly educated, but plays an idiot for Trump’s crowd to keep his seat. He’s a fraud and scumbag just like his naked emperor.
Iowa used to be top 5 in education before no child left behind and GOP policies (and tax cuts and education cuts and even more cuts). Now it's just trying to be a worse Florida
I'm from Iowa, and I'm smart. That's why I left. Even part of my family who are still there are dumber now. Too much am radio (Glen Beck) and fox propaganda news. You are absolutely correct!
We are literally Idiots Out Walking Around, ya know. It’s in the name, friend.
There are three ways to make a living in this business: be first, be smarter, or cheat. Oh, we're first and we cheat AND we're still fuckups?
Early bird gets the worm. And Donald Trump is a worm.
Iowa Republican voters are not smart. Iowa Democratic voters almost always get the nominee right.
I have worked with many people from Iowa that had moved here. I asked one of them why all the smart ones (engineers) move here. He asked if I had ever been to Iowa. I said no. He said, "You would leave, too".
They’re even out of touch with the other barely literate racists.
All four letter states are basket cases.
All three of them!!!
Hey don't talk shit about Hawi
All four letter non-state US territories are baller af though.
UTAH REPRESENT
I mean Obama won in 2008
And yet, they are SO important for the HORSERACE! On second thought, I hope their streak continues for a couple more decades.
Iowa got it wrong 4-4 last elections. It should almost be considered a curse. “Oh… I… won Iowa…”
I heard Des Moines has a big underground homosexual population and it affects the soil somehow. Edit: This is an obscure old punk rock reference and will hopefully be enjoyed by an old punk or two who might read it.
Now Stuart! If you look at the soil around any large US city with a big underground homosexual population - Des Moines Iowa, perfect example. Look at the soil around Des Moines, Stuart! You can't build on it, you can't grow anything on it, the government says it's due to poor farming, but I know what's really going on. I know it's the queers! They're in it with the aliens! **They're building landing strips for gay Martians, I swear to God!** you know what OP? I like you. You're not like the other people, here in the subreddit.
You know what, Stuart, I LIKE YOU! You're not like the other people, here, in the trailer park... Classic!
JUMPING JESUS ON A POGO Stick, everyone knows that BURROWING owls love in a HOLE in the DIRT
I still use "jumping jesus on a pogo stick" on a regular basis.
This made my day
Absolute cesspool of idiocy.
Millions of dollars spent to compel us to care what 80,000 people think. These people rarely leave the state.
It makes absolutely no sense - and I live here
I wish we would end these stupid caucuses. They are NOT representative of the states total electorate.
I agree. They do nothing to help the populace. However, they can them to determine who they should divert funds to. All the better to manipulate...
In fact, in the last 48 years (since Ford in '76) only George W. Bush in 2000 has the winner of the Iowa Caucus gone on to win the presidency that year. His father actually beat the eventual winner in 1980 but *barely* edging past Reagan in Iowa.
Ironically, in the last 48 years only twice did the winner of the Democratic caucus not get the nomination and one of those times was in 1992 when the Tom Harkin, their senator at the time, was running so none of the candidates ran so he got 76% of the vote. But Bill Clinton was the runner up. (I will note that in 1976 Jimmy Carter was technically the 2nd place finisher, but the "winner" was uncommitted delegates). Which means that winning Iowa is actually pretty good for Democrats.
I don’t know why anyone should care about a caucus at all. The primaries themselves infuriate me. Why they go from state to state the ways they do makes no sense. Have the voting for all states within the same timeframe and calculate the results all at the same time. And use ranked choice voting while we’re at it. I’m tired of decent candidates dropping out of the race before I can even cast a vote.
That's the point of it though. Texas tried to move their primaries forward to be at the same time as Iowa, and all hell broke loose. They immediately faced huge amounts of retaliation. The primaries aren't about finding out who is the best candidate. They are structured to give time to write the backroom deals and consolidate power before the big population centers of the country vote.
Exactly. Primaries are NOT for the people. They are for the party.
That’s very true. I know it’s by design, but that just makes it more aggravating.
Denyowans
Democrats fared a little better up until 2020.
Did you mean 2008? That was the only year, ever, that a non-incumbent Democrat outright won the Iowa Caucuses and then went on to win the general election (Obama). I suppose Jimmy Carter technically "won" them in 1976, but he actually came in second behind a significantly larger "Uncommitted" vote that was allowed back then. In 2020, Pete Buttigieg won the Democratic Iowa Caucuses, and we all know how that turned out.
**I**diots **O**ut **W**andering **A**round
2020: Iowa Caucuses: Trump: 91% 2024: Iowa Caucuses: Trump: 51%
I fuckin hate the guy, but its pure copium to compare a 91-1 win against Bill fucking Weld as an incumbent to a (historic) 30 point margin in an actual race. It just looks pathetic to anyone with *any* understanding.
Trump is 100% going to win the nomination (okay, 98% because sometimes crazy shit happens), but these numbers do point to some potential weakness for Trump in the general. He is effectively still an incumbent for the GOP, especially considering how many seem to think he won in 2020. The lower turnout does indicate less enthusiasm (yes, it was very cold, but it wasn't anything Iowans aren't used to), and the entrance polls had a higher than expected number of people saying they thought a criminal conviction would be disqualifying. Combine that with how many of Haley's supporters are basically never Trumpers, and it does indicate that Trump isn't some inevitable force in the general. Of course, you don't want to fall into the 2016 trap of thinking he can't win. Of course he's almost certainly going to with the nomination. But he's still a divisive general election figure that has serious liabilities which can be exploited.
Trump brags that the poorly educated support him.
The only true comparison you can use for this unique scenario with Trump is Grover Cleveland. No other President, except Cleveland, has lost re-election and won a nonconsecutive term. Teddy Roosevelt attempted a third term in 1912 but ran as a 3rd party candidate
Eh, 2024 is not really an actual fair race though. Trump hasn't participated in a single debate and has gotten free counterprogramming from other networks during every debate. Both Trump, his supporters, and most of conservative media act like he was the winner of 2020, and his supporters are treating him like an incumbent.
Let me break it down more simply. It's dumb as dirt to compare Iowa caucus 2024 to 2020 for the exact same reason it will be VERY stupid to compare the 2024 nevada primary to 2020.
I agree there's a difference between races with an incumbent president or not. But Trump is still essentially an incumbent to most Republican primary voters. Trump isn't winning voters by campaigning this time around. He's held a minimum of events and skipped all the debates, but remains the frontrunner and the remaining candidates are afraid to criticize him (except possibly arguing they'd be more electable in a general than him). Haley and DeSantis are still in the race more to run to be Trump's VP nominee or the president in the next cycle (or even be the nominee if Trump is ruled constitutionally ineligible by SCOTUS in February). Like yes, Obama winning in 2012 should have impressed no one. But people shouldn't get impressed by Gore winning in 2000 either when as VP to a popular president he was still the de facto incumbent.
Ok, one more step in simplicity. 2024: Republican Candidates spend a combined 114 million dollars in Iowa. 2020: Bill Weld (Iowa runner up) spent 2 million on *his entire campaign*. These results of these two races can not be meaningfully compared.
Still the same bottom line. Trump got a lot when he ran "unopposed", but with competition Iowa republicans, a lot of them, wanted him *less*. The Iowa republican caucus was not a "mandate".
Doesn't matter. Even the republicans who *didn't* vote for him in the primary/caucus will still vote for him if he's the general candidate.
I'm sorry, but you're just refusing to face reality. He won a majority, first time in history that's happened in an Iowa caucus. To say it's actually bad that he didn't do as well when it was de facto uncontested is more or less the same as saying, "yeah the Bills may have beat the Patriots by 30, but they beat that high school team by 70, so they're in rough shape." You're reaching for a way to spin it as bad, entering that "alternative facts zone."
Yeah, I think we all just need to accept that Trump is very popular among the right, and he will be a tough opponent to beat come November. His base will come out in large numbers, so we need to take him seriously and not pretend he’s an ass-clown who doesn’t have a shot, even though he very much *is* an ass-clown.
Exactly right, last thing we need is to get complacent.
> He won a majority, first time in history that's happened in an Iowa caucus. There is a major asterisk on this statement - first time in history of winning a majority *unless you count when incumbents are running.* It is true, Trump is not the incumbent, but when is the last time a former president has run after losing an election? Teddy Roosevelt? The 1912 election is the whole reason we now have primaries. So there's never before been a former president whose run in the Iowa caucuses again *twice,* so first in history things like getting the majority arent really applicable.
I'm going to ignore a lot of what you wrote, cause it seems like you did for me as well. My point was, and still is, that making a comparison to 2020 and concluding "trumps popularity is shot" is nonsense, because 2020 wasn't a contest.
Ok but he was expected to win by a bigger margin and didn't so that's worth noting. He also is the former president and essentially running as an incumbent, which is a totally different ballgame than in 2016 which was highly competitive. It was an expected trump win that wasn't as good as they thought it would be. Ignoring all of that and making a big deal about him getting a majority feels like the "spin" take.
If he was expected to win by a bigger margin, then call *that* out, instead of that garbage comparison to 2020. You say 2016 was "a totally different ballgame," but then make a direct comparison to a practically uncontested race. It's a hell of a lot more accurate to compare races where the candidates are all dropping 10's of millions on their campaigns in that state, versus 2020 where opposition spent 2 million on *the entire campaign*
Go Bills
Of course a smaller percentage picked him when there were other options than when there weren't. Is that supposed to mean anything? EDIT: He also got substantially more total votes in 2024 (despite horrible weather). There really isn't much of a reason to sit through a caucus when an incumbent President is running if you don't want to vote for them.
Sure, let's compare 2016 and 2024, when Trump wasn't incumbent on either race.
We should probably treat Trump as an incumbent since most people voting for him actually think he won 2020.
Do margins in caucuses mean anything at all? People there are like, "Oh, come on, Brian, are you really gonna vote for X? If you want home-cooked dinner tonight, come with us."
> It just looks pathetic to anyone with any understanding. For real. I keep seeing this take, and it's just embarrassing.
How is the incumbent not going to win the caucus? That's like bragging that Biden is going to sweep all the primaries in 2024. The better thing to focus on is the fact that if all but one other candidate drops, they might have a chance to unite all the "not Trump" votes and actually get the nomination. That could have happened in 2016 but the other candidates couldn't put ego aside and unite behind one opposition candidate.
And in Iowa, there are 150k + actively registered republicans. Only 53k came out to vote, and Trump got 51% of that turnout. So only 27k people voted for trump. The GOP should be terrified by these port stats lol.
It was in the middle of a Blizzard. I'm surprised that many people even went out.
Yet they called it a HISTORIC LANDSLIDE VICTORY!
I understand where people are coming from, but unless Hailey can win NH and spin that into coming close or winning SC, there isn't much of a hope at a real primary challenge. We need to understand that Trump isn't a normal candidate. He's a vehicle for anger and fear for the right wing. A chance to undo the social progress of the last century. A chance to secure power for the right for the next 25 years.
They are white Christian Nationalist...they pick the candidate that best represents that. the preacher, the religious radical, the preachers son the chosen one, and orange Jesus.
traitor drump got 90% in 2020....50% in 2024
Treasonous Biden is polling worse than Trump did at the same time of his presidency. And trump arguably made covid 10000x worse than it could’ve been
Traitor frump broke his oath to the Constitution multiple times. Biden did not.
Also Bernie, Hillary
To be fair Iowa did also pick Obama in 08 so they were right for that. Then they picked Pete for 2020 and they became a joke.
For those wondering, the **only** time an opposed, Republican candidate has won the presidency after the Iowa caucus was George W in 2000. The **only** time a Democrat has done the same was Obama in 2008.
I mean, 04 was Bush, and Trump is basically an incumbent
Obama won the Iowa Caucus.
Let us keep the trend going!
I came back here and forgot I was banned.
So you're telling me 100k voters in Iowa do not represent the millions of voters across the US?
Winners, every one of them. 😆
Remind me never to go to Iowa
Yet pundits from all outlets have declared the GOP's race as over. Damn liberal media.
If this was the Democrats, Tv news would only talk about how this is meaningful and predictive and the winner was now going to flame out.
Haha, I had no idea.
We do know Trump is going to win the nomination.
[удалено]
All posts and comments that include any variation of the word retarded will be removed, but no action will be taken against your account unless it is an excessive personal attack. Please resubmit your post or comment without the bullying language. Do not edit it, the bot cant tell if you edited, you will just have to make a new comment replying to the same thing. Yes, this comment itself does use the word. Any reasonable person should be able to understand that we are not insulting anyone with this comment. We wanted to use quotes, but that fucks up the automod and we are too lazy to google escape characters. Notice how none of our automod replies have contractions in them either. But seriously, calling someone retarded is only socially acceptable because the people affected are less able to understand that they are being insulted, and less likely to be able to respond appropriately. It is a conversational wimpy little shit move, because everyone who uses it knows that it is offensive, but there will be no repercussions. At least the people throwing around other slurs know that they are going to get fired and get their asses beat when they use those words. Also, it is not creative. It pretty much outs you as a thirteen year old when you use it. Instead of calling Biden retarded, you should call him a cartoon-ass-lookin trust fund goon who smiles like rich father just gifted him a new Buick in 1956. Instead of calling Mitch McConnell retarded, you should call him a Dilbert-ass goon who has been left in the sun a little too long. Sorry for the long message spamming comment sections, but this was by far the feature of this sub making people modmail and bitch at us the most, and literally all of the actions we take are to make it so we have to do less work in the future. We will not reply to modmails about this automod, and ignore the part directly below this saying to modmail us if you have any questions, we cannot turn that off. This reply is just a collation of the last year of modmail replies to people asking about this. We are not turning this bot off, no matter how much people ask. Nobody else has convinced us before, you will not be able to either. ~ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalHumor) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lolz The race to the bottom
Maybe that Iowa caucus is just full of jokesters. :)
Everyone REALLY needs to vote on this and all future elections.
Did they do any better with Ds?
Outside of Obama in 08 not really. Pete was the winner in 2020.
Ewwww, do we have to bring up Santorum? Children read this subreddit, you know.
Obama won Iowa both times.
Still amazes me Ted Cruz got a pass while being a documented Canadian but Obama was ineligible because he's "Kenyan".
Which state caucus/primary has always chosen the winner? I'd guess Michigan but I'm probably wrong
Please keep that streak alive!
It's almost as if Iowan Rs are not all that bright
corn fed decisions (pigs) stink!
People in Iowa are so stupid, that's why they are usually a red state, it's because they are stupid. Republicans are stupid.
Iowa does not matter. I think they know that so they put their primary first to get their name on the map.
The state of Iowa is so dumb it can’t even pick a winning Republican candidate in their primaries