Skip to comments.Michele Bachmann: Never mind Iowa, Iím in it for the long haul
Posted on 01/03/2012 6:46:33 AM PST by SeekAndFind
One reason I've been eager and impatient for the Iowa caucuses is that I assumed at least a couple candidates would reconsider their presidential bids based on the results. But that looks to be increasingly improbable. Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are too viable to be discouraged by early upsets, Rick Santorum is poised to exceed expectations, Ron Paul has never been deterred by his unlikelihood to secure the nomination, Rick Perry considers Iowa to be the equivalent of the first mile of a marathon and Jon Huntsman says New Hampshire picks presidents. That leaves Michele Bachmann, who has clung to her August Ames Straw Poll victory as evidence that she has support in the Hawkeye State that isn’t reflected in the current polls. If that turns out to not be true — and she finishes, say, last or something — will she drop out? No way, she says. The Daily Caller’s Alex Pappas reports:
During an appearance on MNSBCs Morning Joe, Bachmann said her campaign has already bought our plane tickets. Were headed to South Carolina as soon as were done on Wednesday morning. Well be there. Were going the distance.
Bachmann won the Iowa Straw Poll in August, but suffered a fall hard as the campaign season went on. The most recent Des Moines Register poll shows her in last place, with 7 percent.
This isnt over, she said. Were not here for a post mortem. Were here because I intend to continue to launch our campaign out of Iowa. I think were going to do very well.
It’s hard to say just why Bachmann fell; as a candidate, she didn’t change from August to now. My best guess: Whereas her attacks on Tim Pawlenty resonated in some way at the time, her attacks on anybody and everybody but Mitt Romney ever since then have apparently begun to pall. They leave voters with the impression that she stands against liberalism even more than she stands for conservatism. Her congressional record of “no” votes just underlines that impression. If Gingrich’s conservative credibility has been undermined somewhat by his superabundance of ideas and refusal to defend himself, then Bachmann’s has been undermined by her lack of them and by her negativity toward her fellow competitors. In this GOP primary, voters — like Goldilocks — are really, really looking for just right … and not quite finding it.
good freaking grief, why wont Mrs “I am a serious candidate” who became retarded after having a HPV shot forced on her GIVE IT UP!
I have no idea. The Tea Party activist, Representative Bachmann was inspirational and a joy to hear. Today’s POTUS candidate Bachmann is . . . not.
Bachmann’s only way forward is as Romnry’s VP. So staying in the race and continuing to divide the conservative vote as a means to insuring a Romney nomination victory is her obvious strategy,
But no thanks, Michele, by staying in you are hurting the conservative cause as well as your political future.
Get out on Jan 4 and you will be doing us all a favor.
Bachmann is reminding me more and more of Congressman Bob Dornan, who ran against Dole in 1996. Dornan never got out of single digits, dropped out of the primaries and then LOST his congressional seat to Loretta Sanchez.
Is Bachmann going to take up driving truck after tonight?
I think all the current candidates should remain in the race right until the end of the primary season. Let's give everybody in the country a voice in choosing the nominee.
I think all the current candidates should remain in the race right until the end of the primary season. Let’s give everybody in the country a voice in choosing the nominee.
oh I don’t want her to give up now, but tomorrow after she comes in dead last in her home state. (after the votes have been cast)
I kind of agree with you. It irks me when people say my candidate should drop out. It really irks me.
From the way it looks now, Huntsman and Bachmann don’t seem to have a chance, but this race as been so volatile that who knows what will happen.
Plus, I, for one, am sick of Iowa. A little state with little caucuses should enjoy it’s moment of glory, don’t begrudge them, but should we pay THAT much attention to it.
It’s tempting to want the other conservative to drop out. As someone said on Fox today, if Romney gets 30% of the vote, it means 70% of the voters want someone else.
The problem is that 70% is divided among Newt, Perry, Santorum and Bachmann.
Everybody wishes the ‘other’ conservatives would drop out and support their candidate.
I wonder who they would actually support if they dropped out?
Romney can't win unless THREE serious conservatives are also running to split the conservative vote (I don't count Paul as a conservative)
Once Bachmann and Santorum drop out, Romney is doomed. Until they drop out... Romney is going to look like a front runner because of his proximity to the top spot.
My choices in order of preference:
I would vote for any of those 4 over Paul and/or Romney, which I would never vote for in the primaries or the general.
This will hopefully be a very different GOP primary process than what we have seen in the past (when state primaries were winner-take-all). Instead of having the nominee decided before Super Tuesday (rendering all subsequent primaries a waste of time), we might actually have a chance to have a nominee who is not chosen by the establishment.
Samadams76, you are obviously "out of the mainstream" because what you say makes too much sense.
So many Freepers can't wait to pounce on a Michelle Bachmann thread and tell the rest of us how imperfect she is (like a Sarah Palin thread).
"Ohh, ooh, there's one - let me get in there and trash Michelle, she is so much less than any other candidate - all the others are shining stars, but that Michelle, she should just hang her head and resign her seat in the House...."
That’s looking at it purely from a “horse-race” perspective. I would much prefer if everyone but Perry dropped out so he would get all the non-Romney vote as well. However, I want the people would vote in March to have a full slate of choices just like Iowa does.
I would like that too... IF Mitt Romney wasn’t in the race. There is nothing I would like more than for Mitt and Paul to drop out tomorrow, and the remaining candidates duke it out till the last primary.
But that’s not going to happen. And if they all stay in, the conservative vote is going to remain split enough to allow the libeal Mitt to win the nomination.
I would have preferred that certain candidates not run at all - Mitt Romney, especially. Then we would have been more likely to get a better mix of candidates into the race.
But it seems clear that Bachmann should drop out post Iowa. Why anyone would expect her to admit that before the vote is beyond me.
Then there's Tim Pawlenty, who dropped out after a straw poll, a cautionary tale for generations of candidates to come.
The GOP should field a conservative candidate who has appeal for libertarians and moderates. Having a prominent libertarian and moderate in the race sucking up oxygen is not a terribly good condition for producing a good nominee.
Bachmann has always been a joke. A typical lawyer, she lies through her teeth just about every time she opens her mouth. Everything she said about Gingrich was a baldfaced
lie and when he called her on it and asked why she was fabricating his record she looks at him in a trace and didn’t say a word. She looked like her head was getting ready to spin around on her shoulders. I think she has mental issues. A few years earlier she introduced Gingrich at a fundraising event in Minn and said he was the greatest conservative in the history of the world. Unless she has an unlimited cash flow she’ll have to get out after NH. She barely registers in SC, which Newt is going to win going away.
What I propose is a series of three "national" primaries occurring in say February, April and June. Now when I say national, I'm really talking about 50 separate state primaries (or caucuses if a state so chooses) held on the same day - three times.
I think this would add a lot of excitement to the process and get more people involved.
The first primary should be more of a weeding out process. Basically have it where you need a certain percentage of the vote (say 10%) to move on to the second primary. This primary shall have no delegates awarded.
The second primary (held around April) will award 50% of the available delegates on a proportional basis. This way, it will not be possible for a nominee to be selected but we will have a clear idea by now who the top tier of candidates are.
The third and final primary should be held in June. This primary would award the remaining 50% of the delegates on a proportional basis. If a candidate has amassed over 50% of the TOTAL delegates, he/she will go to the convention as the nominee. If no candidate has 50% of the total, then we will determine the nominee at the convention and candidates with smaller delegate totals will be in the position to release their delegates to the candidate they feel will best represent the party.
I believe this process will result in a much better quality nominee.
Let it be so!
I agree whole heartly. Iowa and New Hampshire have way to much influence and do not speak for the whole country. This whole process is so upside down. thanks for your thoughtful post. Denco
It seems that for some folks, the political process, and the adulation of average folks on the stump, seems to be some kind of addiction.