BIGGEST WINNER IN IOWA: BARACK OBAMA

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 8:17 AM GMT
    DES MOINES, Iowa -- The final Iowa results may be in but we already know one big winner: President Barack Obama.

    The dismal, nasty campaign here was not good for the Republican Party or the country. There was precious little debate on anything other than who literally was Holier than Thou; the dollars spent on attack ads were, vote for vote, enormous. One GOP top finisher is unpopular with the base; another is too far out of the mainstream to be nominated, let alone elected; the third lost his last Senate race, in Pennsylvania, by 17 points, and is far to the right of the country on social issues.

    All of which is good news for a president with a 40+ percent job approval rating and a desperate need for a weak opponent next November.

    Projections put the GOP turnout at about 118,000 votes, roughly the same as 2008, a year in which the Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama race drew twice as many participants. In other words, the turnout was not the kind of show of interest and enthusiasm that would presage a Republican surge next fall.

    Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney once again proved that he is a tough sell among the base GOP vote; as of this writing, he is projected to win roughly the anemic 25 percent or so that he won four years ago when he was drubbed in Iowa by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. Yes, Romney did not have as big an operation here this time as he did in 2008, but he made a major commitment at the end, and his campaign exuded confidence.

    Romney appears to be getting almost exactly what he got the time before -- and in many cases he was probably getting the very same voters. That wasn't enough to light a fire last time; it's hard to see how it lights a fire this time. The conventional wisdom is that, by besting former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry -- his two wealthiest and most charismatic opponents -- Romney did what he needed to do.

    But it's hard to argue that Romney sparked any excitement or growing appeal.

    Paul, with a superb and focused organization and angry message of antagonism to all Powers That Be, is not considered a mainstream candidate outside of his own libertarian ranks. He did show surprising strength among evangelicals here, winning what the entrance polls said was 20 percent of their vote. A candidate who favors the gold standard, a withdrawal of all American military forces from the world -- and whose old newsletters contain racist, homophobic and just plain weird ideas -- cannot get the Republican nomination, let alone win the presidency.

    But Paul and his forces can, under the new system of the GOP, amass enough delegates to go to Tampa this summer and cause havoc at the GOP convention.

    As for Santorum, he emerged as the champion of the "values voters," and does have a good record as a solid conservative on most non-cultural issues. He also hails from a blue state that the Republicans would love to win, Pennsylvania, where he won two state-wide Senate races. He did so even though he is from Pittsburgh, which is a hard place from which to get elected state-wide.

    But in his third and last race Santorum lost by 17 points, and he is, at best, an earnest campaigner. At worst, he can come off as uninspiring and petty.

    He is, nevertheless, a fighter, and a dogged man who will -- jet-propelled by Iowa -- fight Romney until his last breath.

    No wonder Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Democratic National Committee chairwoman, was smiling in the press room as the results came in.

    By: Howard Fineman
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/03/barack-obama-iowa-caucus-2012_n_1182458.html

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 8:49 AM GMT
    A. Typical liberal spin from the Huffington Post.

    B. Your message attributes author but not site. You should include link to source.

    C. Unless you have explicit permission, you are in violation of following copyright per the following from Huffington Post. Unless you comply, I will report this to Admin.

    4. Your Use of Our Content is Restricted:
        (a) Unless expressly permitted, you may not copy, reproduce, distribute, publish, enter into a database, display, perform, modify, create derivative works from, transmit or in any way exploit any part of our site or any content thereon, except as permitted under the last sentence of this Section 4(a) and except that you may make one print copy that is limited to occasional articles of personal interest only. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing (but subject to the last sentence of this Section 4(a)), you may not distribute any part of this site or any content thereon over any network, including, without limitation, a local area network, or sell or offer it for sale. In addition, these files may not be used to construct any kind of database. Just as we from time to time excerpt materials from other sources in order to support the various commentaries and writings contained herein, we respect the right of others to make “fair use” of the materials contained on our site; accordingly, you may from time to time excerpt and use materials set forth on this site consistent with the principles of “fair use”.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 8:51 AM GMT
    HAHA! Someone's pissed this morning...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 8:51 AM GMT
    the GOP candidate field is so thin that each one in turn (apart from Bachmann... meh) is getting their little turn in the spotlight. And all of them have been resounding failures.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 9:22 AM GMT
    catfish5 saidHAHA! Someone's pissed this morning...

    I guess based on the principle that if you don't like the news, censor it. How very Right Wing of someone here. But which risks backfiring, when the same tactic is used against RJ right-wingers who also post snippets from news sites, almost all of which have copyright infringement warnings like the HuffPost.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 9:53 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    catfish5 saidHAHA! Someone's pissed this morning...

    I guess based on the principle that if you don't like the news, censor it. How very Right Wing of someone here. But which risks backfiring, when the same tactic is used against RJ right-wingers who also post snippets from news sites, almost all of which have copyright infringement warnings like the HuffPost.


    Hypocrisy at its finest. But what can you expect after an evening choking on a bitter bitter chicken dinner....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 9:56 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    catfish5 saidHAHA! Someone's pissed this morning...

    I guess based on the principle that if you don't like the news, censor it. How very Right Wing of someone here. But which risks backfiring, when the same tactic is used against RJ right-wingers who also post snippets from news sites, almost all of which have copyright infringement warnings like the HuffPost.


    see 17 USC § 107. Perfectly legal under the Fair Use doctrine
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 9:57 AM GMT
    "Just as we from time to time excerpt materials from other sources in order to support the various commentaries and writings contained herein, we respect the right of others to make “fair use” of the materials contained on our site; accordingly, you may from time to time excerpt and use materials set forth on this site consistent with the principles of “fair use”.
    "
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Jan 04, 2012 10:08 AM GMT
    catfish5 said
    Art_Deco said
    catfish5 saidHAHA! Someone's pissed this morning...

    I guess based on the principle that if you don't like the news, censor it. How very Right Wing of someone here. But which risks backfiring, when the same tactic is used against RJ right-wingers who also post snippets from news sites, almost all of which have copyright infringement warnings like the HuffPost.


    Hypocrisy at its finest. But what can you expect after an evening choking on a bitter bitter chicken dinner....




    don't forget the Humble Pie for dessert icon_exclaim.gif




    icon_lol.gif




  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 10:13 AM GMT
    rnch said
    catfish5 said
    Art_Deco said
    catfish5 saidHAHA! Someone's pissed this morning...

    I guess based on the principle that if you don't like the news, censor it. How very Right Wing of someone here. But which risks backfiring, when the same tactic is used against RJ right-wingers who also post snippets from news sites, almost all of which have copyright infringement warnings like the HuffPost.


    Hypocrisy at its finest. But what can you expect after an evening choking on a bitter bitter chicken dinner....


    don't forget the Humble Pie for dessert icon_exclaim.gif

    icon_lol.gif



    You think?

    http://law.onecle.com/uscode/17/107.html


    Sec. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
    Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
    (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
    (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
    (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
    (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
    The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jan 04, 2012 11:54 AM GMT
    For all the Hoop .... 24 hour News coverage
    projections out the ying-yang icon_biggrin.gif

    There certainly wasn't a lot of ...La

    I don't even know who won ... Who was the booby prize presented to?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 12:24 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    Art_Deco said
    catfish5 saidHAHA! Someone's pissed this morning...

    I guess based on the principle that if you don't like the news, censor it. How very Right Wing of someone here. But which risks backfiring, when the same tactic is used against RJ right-wingers who also post snippets from news sites, almost all of which have copyright infringement warnings like the HuffPost.


    see 17 USC § 107. Perfectly legal under the Fair Use doctrine

    He did not use excerpts but copied the entire article.

    ------------------

    Will also note the following:

    In the past I copied entire articles, although I always noted the source and provided a link, unlike the OP who only includes the author. My rationale at the time was it was ok because the audience for these political threads is probably relatively small and that by providing the source and link, I was encouraging people to go to the actual site, and was therefore generating traffic for the site.

    It was pointed out in another thread that my practice still violated the copyright. I looked at the title, the notice from the WSJ site, in question, and decided it was clear that copying an entire article here was a copyright violation, but that excepts would be ok under Fair Use. I checked with an attorney who agreed, and another poster who had commented also agreed. I did not go back to all the dead threads, but immediately changed my practice. I also note that my message is "Excerpts" or "Excerpts only" and also use ellipses, " ... " , to indicated omitted material. (I also almost always do that when quoting another member, btw.)

    Also note that violating copyright could also create difficulties for the site.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 12:36 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    catfish5 saidHAHA! Someone's pissed this morning...

    I guess based on the principle that if you don't like the news, censor it. How very Right Wing of someone here. But which risks backfiring, when the same tactic is used against RJ right-wingers who also post snippets from news sites, almost all of which have copyright infringement warnings like the HuffPost.

    It is opinion not news. You apparently do not understand the law or the notice at the Huffington Post web site. As far as the news, I am quite satisfied. I can only guess at what your threads would be like next November. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 1:15 PM GMT
    socalfitness said

    Also note that violating copyright could also create difficulties for the site.
    Whining like a little girl does too.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 1:23 PM GMT
    So the front runner spent 6 years and millions in Iowa only to beat the candidate who spent the least by 8 votes (and got less votes than 2008icon_cool.gif. WOW!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 1:25 PM GMT
    And the conservaposse is more worried about copyright infringements LMFAO
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 2:40 PM GMT
    catfish5 saidAnd the conservaposse is more worried about copyright infringements LMFAO



    there is an old adage: "no news is good news," and conservatives love things that are old.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 2:48 PM GMT
    Give it time, debates in the final round will change everything.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 2:57 PM GMT
    catfish5 saidAnd the conservaposse is more worried about copyright infringements LMFAO



    Catfish, just an FYI. freedomisntfree and socal were disagreeing with each other. The conservaposse stuff wears thin.

    -Doug
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Jan 04, 2012 3:07 PM GMT
    I actually think last night's results were pretty revealing.

    1) Mitt Romney remains the only constant that has been in the GOP race from the get-go

    2) Newt Gingrich doesn't play well in the heartland of America.

    3) Ron Paul shows surprising resilience in the heartland of America.

    3) The first and very much needed separating of The Men from The Boys (and girl) will now take place --- expect Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry to drop out of the race within hours, if not days.

    4) Reenforcing the idea that the idea that IOWA is the one to kick off any major election with some sort of convoluted caucus method need to be seriously re-evaluated.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 3:48 PM GMT
    I want to see the Republicans continue to apostate themselves in public. I want to see the Republicans in a deadlocked plurality all the way to their convention. Disorganized, divided, and "herp a derp".
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Jan 04, 2012 4:11 PM GMT
    GAMRican saidI want to see the Republicans continue to apostate themselves in public. I want to see the Republicans in a deadlocked plurality all the way to their convention. Disorganized, divided, and "herp a derp".



    You all have such short memory. Have you forgotten the knock down drag out in the early stages of the 2008 race between Hillary Clinton--Obama--John Edwards???? You all act as if this in-fighting in the GOP is something unusual. This IS what takes place in the primaries as candidates are vetted by the media and each other, and the cream rises to the top.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 4:13 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    GAMRican saidI want to see the Republicans continue to apostate themselves in public. I want to see the Republicans in a deadlocked plurality all the way to their convention. Disorganized, divided, and "herp a derp".



    You all have such short memory. Have you forgotten the knock down drag out in the early stages of the 2008 race between Hillary Clinton--Obama--John Edwards???? You all act as if this in-fighting in the GOP is something unusual. This IS what takes place in the primaries as candidates are vetted by the media and each other, and the cream rises to the top.


    How was voter turnout for GOP vs 2008 for dems? Passion for the GOP candidates is lacking. Thats the difference
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Jan 04, 2012 4:27 PM GMT
    catfish5 said

    How was voter turnout for GOP vs 2008 for dems? Passion for the GOP candidates is lacking. Thats the difference



    Again, your ignorance about such things is laughable. Historically, voter turnout for the Republican Iowa caucuses are about half of the turnout in a Democratic year. Secondly, the eventual results in the Iowa caucuses have about a 50/50 success rate of a winner going on to be President. At best, the Iowa caucuses are a barely reliable arbiter of things to come, but even that is a stretch. Some past winners in Iowa who never won the Presidency in that year...


    Democrats

    January 19, 2004 – John Kerry (38%)

    January 24, 2000 – Al Gore (63%)

    February 10, 1992 – Tom Harkin (76%)

    February 8, 1988 – Dick Gephardt (31%)

    February 20, 1984 – Walter Mondale (49%)

    Republicans

    2008 – Mike Huckabee (34%)

    1996 – Bob Dole (26%)

    1988 – Bob Dole (37%)

    1980 – George H. W. Bush (32%)

    1976 – Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 04, 2012 4:33 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    freedomisntfree said
    Art_Deco said
    catfish5 saidHAHA! Someone's pissed this morning...

    I guess based on the principle that if you don't like the news, censor it. How very Right Wing of someone here. But which risks backfiring, when the same tactic is used against RJ right-wingers who also post snippets from news sites, almost all of which have copyright infringement warnings like the HuffPost.


    see 17 USC § 107. Perfectly legal under the Fair Use doctrine

    He did not use excerpts but copied the entire article.

    ------------------

    Will also note the following:

    In the past I copied entire articles, although I always noted the source and provided a link, unlike the OP who only includes the author. My rationale at the time was it was ok because the audience for these political threads is probably relatively small and that by providing the source and link, I was encouraging people to go to the actual site, and was therefore generating traffic for the site.

    It was pointed out in another thread that my practice still violated the copyright. I looked at the title, the notice from the WSJ site, in question, and decided it was clear that copying an entire article here was a copyright violation, but that excepts would be ok under Fair Use. I checked with an attorney who agreed, and another poster who had commented also agreed. I did not go back to all the dead threads, but immediately changed my practice. I also note that my message is "Excerpts" or "Excerpts only" and also use ellipses, " ... " , to indicated omitted material. (I also almost always do that when quoting another member, btw.)

    Also note that violating copyright could also create difficulties for the site.


    Best not to post the entire article, but our use is certainly within “Fair Use” and no one could remotely dispute “for discussion purposes” as that’s the understatement of the year when we're talking about RJ. Always need to provide attribution to the original source. That’s real important to an online publisher because inbound links hugely affect SEO. I can't say that I've seen many times where a post is a violation of 17 USC 107a. Just make sure that the link to the original source is there for SEO purposes.