Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Iowa Caucuses LIVE

Iowa Caucuses LIVE

Welcome to Legal Insurrection’s Iowa Caucuse live event. We will stay live until the results are in.

You can comment in the Live Feed with any of the usual social media user i.d.’s such as Twitter, Facebook and Open ID (Google, Yahoo, etc.). Your Legal Insurrection log in will NOT work. Please log into the Live Feed to comment, otherwise your comments will be held until we can approve them, which will cause delay. Trolls will be blocked.

The Live Feed will incorporate some key Twitter feeds so you can see commentary from various news sources and pundits as we go, without having to flip channels or websites.

I’ll be posting some important links as we go, including results pages and news coverage.

Results pages:  Des Moine RegisterPolitico, Google.

Elsewhere:  Robert Stacy McCain from Santorum HQ in Iowa.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

[…] The Horses With The Dreamy Eyes – Iowa Caucus Night And The Future Of America Update: It’s on. Once again, it is Iowageddon. Iowageddon should produce results by 10:00 ET even as the Iowa caucuses start around 8:00. […]

I’ll be watching the Michigan game….one eye on the only site I trust for this sort of thing…

God help us.

Great interactive Google county map link!!!
http://www.google.com/elections/ed/us/results

Des Moines Register interactive “How Iowa Caucuses work”
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/interactive/article/20071219/NEWS09/71219068/INTERACTIVE-GRAPHIC-How-caucuses-work

..[both dem and republican]

Got these just now via Patterico’s Pontifications
http://patterico.com/2012/01/03/iowa-writ-large-caucus-open-thread/

I like how the polite Iowans just show up, put their candidate on a piece of paper, they add up the ballots, and everyone goes home.
Done.
Gotta get to bed early, cuz we have to milk the cows in the morning.

Everyone who likes Santorum should read NRO’s “Santorum’s Big Government Conservatism.” He never met an earmark that he didn’t like.

I keep on reading how Romney’s 23-25% proves that 75% disapprove of him.

By that logic, why the H3ll should I jump ship (from my non-Romney candidate) to support a candidate that 85% disapprove of?

    WarEagle82 in reply to bains. | January 3, 2012 at 10:01 pm

    Someone pointed out that in 2008 Romney got 25% of the votes at the Iowa Caucus. Th last 4 years really paid off for Romney in Iowa.

    Yeah, he is “inevitable”…

      retire05 in reply to WarEagle82. | January 3, 2012 at 10:10 pm

      War Eagle, what does it say about a guy who has been campaigning since January, 2007 and still can’t get above 25%?

        WarEagle82 in reply to retire05. | January 3, 2012 at 10:16 pm

        What do you expect from a “moderate?”

        The only thing in the middle of the road is roadkill!

        But the GOP establishment tells us he is “inevitable!”

        Romney would probably do better as a Democrat…

          Hope Change in reply to WarEagle82. | January 3, 2012 at 11:23 pm

          Hi WarEagle82, I think you are right. Romney would do better as a Democrat. I find it endlessly amazing that the Republican Establishment wants us to vote for Romney. Why? What are they smoking? I saw a comment recently and the person said, “What color is the sky in your universe?” I love that! That’s what I wonder about our friends at NRO, for example.

          BTW, I got your humor earlier and I thought it was funny, and I thought it was intended to be funny and not hurtful. Just sayin’. Peace!

          Also BTW, I didn’t know you have to milk pigs to get bacon, though. You should tell InstaPundit. He’s a fan of bacon. He says, “Bacon. Is there ANYTHING it can’t do?”

          My mother grew up on a dairy farm, so I know for sure you have to get up early in the morning, no matter what.

      Someone pointed out that in 2008 Romney got 25% of the votes at the Iowa Caucus. Th last 4 years really paid off for Romney in Iowa.

      Sorry, but that is such a silly argument. What were John McCain’s numbers in 2008 in Iowa? And how many top tier (Iowa-wise) candidates were there? How many this year?

      No, my point is that others saying that Romney only gets 25% of the caucus vote means that 75% hate him, is ridiculous. By that logic, 85% of the voters hate Newt!

        No, what is silly is trying to ignore the fact that after 4 years of campaigning Romney ends up with roughly the same percentage he did in 2008 (or maybe worse, depending on how things finally shake out).

        WarEagle82 in reply to bains. | January 3, 2012 at 10:34 pm

        Spoken like a true Romney drone.

        Romney can’t break 25% in Iowa or most other polls for that matter.

        People just don’t want to vote for Romney.

        You and Mitt may not like it but that should be fairly obvious at this point…

          Sorry, but I am Bachmann supporter. But I will have no qualms supporting Perry/Gingrich/Romney in the General – all have discouraging Big Government Conservative tendencies – all are worlds better than Obama.

          The point that I keep on making, and that your keep on missing, is the actual dynamics of both this and the 2008 Iowa Caucus. In both situations, there were 6+ candidates vieing for a portion of 100% of the straw poll. And you want to make a big deal out of the fact than none get over 33%?

          As I said before, you are mocking a candidate that can not surpass 75% disapproval (as you define it) whereas you would have me support someone who stands at an 85% disapproval level?

          WarEagle82 in reply to WarEagle82. | January 3, 2012 at 10:53 pm

          Actually, you keep confusing posts from different people. When you figure out who you are really arguing with and what points people have actually made, get back to me. Otherwise, goodnight to you…

          Sorry WarEagle82, I am just so stupid…

          Tell me who I should vote for…

          WarEagle82 in reply to WarEagle82. | January 3, 2012 at 11:38 pm

          I wasn’t going to say anything, but since you brought it up.

          Go back and figure out who said what and try to respond to the person who actually made the point you are arguing. It really makes a thread so much more coherent, not that that seems to matter to everyone posting here…

    retire05 in reply to bains. | January 3, 2012 at 10:09 pm

    bains, you shouldn’t. This is no way any indication who will finally wind up being the nominee. If Romney takes the 24% he currently has, whoopie, he winds up with 7 delegates, a long way from 1,143 required.

    People are putting waaaaaay too much importance on Iowa. Frankly, I am sick of these early states thinking they are so important. But then, I guess the news channels have to have something to talk about.

I’m not sure what is worse. Romney got 25% but Paul got 22%? What does this say about the GOP?

    retire05 in reply to WarEagle82. | January 3, 2012 at 11:04 pm

    No, WarEagle, what does it say ABOUT Iowa?

      WarEagle82 in reply to retire05. | January 3, 2012 at 11:07 pm

      Well, it might say something about both Iowa and the GOP. But the obvious conclusions about both are not likely to be flattering.

      How does a party split between such extremes find a suitable candidate and unite in only 10 months to defeat Obama…

        Hope Change in reply to WarEagle82. | January 3, 2012 at 11:36 pm

        WarEagle82, that is such an excellent point. How do we unite? I am hoping very much that people will take a look at Newt’s ideas. I would love to team up with other Americans and bring power back to the local communities, which is how America is meant to be. I watched the speech at the link tonight. It’s Newt at CPAC 2011, and Newt is really making sense about American energy policy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBPiKSg9jjo

          WarEagle82 in reply to Hope Change. | January 3, 2012 at 11:40 pm

          There are two things to keep in mind when Newt talks about conservative issues:

          1) NEWT DOESN’T REALLY MEAN IT, AND
          2) NEWT DOESN’T REALLY BELIEVE IT!

          Newt is the ultimate DC insider and has always supported bigger government when he isn’t sitting on the sofa with San Fran Nan.

          Hope Change in reply to Hope Change. | January 4, 2012 at 12:03 am

          I guess there’s no “reply” button for me to reply to WarEagle82, who is replying to my post, just below, so I’ll reply here —

          WarEagle82, I think Newt is a genuine conservative. But peace! You have your own opinion. I think we could unite around Newt’s proposals and we would all be better off. Just IMO.

          Also, I forgot that you said you had to READ to you pigs while you milk them, and that’s how you get bacon. I hope someone includes that key piece of information for InstaPundit. InstaPundit does appreciate bacon.

          Hope Change in reply to Hope Change. | January 4, 2012 at 12:04 am

          Ooooh. I see now how this reply button thing works!

          WarEagle82 in reply to Hope Change. | January 4, 2012 at 12:08 am

          You are free to your opinion. I have formed my opinion of Newt based on nearly 18 years of empirical observation of Newt.

          He talks a great conservative game. He doesn’t doesn’t execute a great conservative game. History is on my side…

As a mathematician I love looking at the numbers. Here are the vote totals for each candidate from the 2008 GOP Iowa caucuses (with the percent of the total vote for each candidate in parenthesis):

Huckabee – 40,945 (35%)
Romney – 30,021 (25%)
Thompson – 15,960 (13%)
McCain – 15,536 (13%)
Paul – 11,841 (10%)
Giuliani – 4,099 (4%)
Hunter – 506 (0%)

Source: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#IA

With 88% reporting, here are tonight’s latest vote totals for Romney and Paul, the only two candidates who competed in both 2008 and 2012:

Romney – 26,589 (25%)
Paul – 22,850 (22%)

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2012/iowa-caucus-jan-3/

Two things stand out. The first is that Ron Paul has doubled his vote total from 2008 (for the record: I do not support Paul). The second is that Romney is almost exactly where he was four years ago, – or maybe worse.

Romney as Mr. Inevitability? Maybe not.

    WarEagle82 in reply to rec_lutheran. | January 3, 2012 at 11:13 pm

    You are not supposed to point out facts. Especially if one candidate took 35% of the vote in a large field. Somebody is going to be very upset with you…

    Canusee in reply to rec_lutheran. | January 4, 2012 at 12:54 am

    Nice facts! I think Romney is kidding himself about his electability against Obama and the GOP OFRINOs (Old Fart Rinos)are trying to convince us they are serious about Romney being the chosen one.

Shorter Gingrich: We’re all gonna die unless you elect me.

Classy. Way to stay positive and forward-looking.

According to the NYTimes current polling, if everyone who voted for Buddy Roemer voted for Romney, it would tip the election. Same with Herman Cain. Cain isn’t even running!

    WarEagle82 in reply to AMWJ. | January 3, 2012 at 11:35 pm

    The NYT is absolutely worthless. I won’t ever wrap fish in it because it smells so bad!

    I miss Cain. I wish he were still in the race…

      They’re using the same numbers as Fox, if you’d rather hold by a conservative news outlet.

      When will Cain endorse? Most people who left him because of his scandals might still care whom he endorses. I also miss him.

I’m about ready to cry hearing that Perry may be dropping out. I’m starting to feel that same sick feeling I experienced in 2008 as a Giuliani supporter. Sigh. I sure can pick ’em.

Okay, I’m over it now. If Perry drops out, I’ll throw myself 100% behind Gingrich. Unless, of course, he drops out as well…but I don’t think he will. Yet.

If Gingrich drops out I won’t actively support anyone.

    Canusee in reply to angela. | January 4, 2012 at 12:57 am

    Silly for Perry to drop out since things change every day. Just a week ago Santorum’s numbers were close to what Perry’s are tonight. I would like to see Perry and Santorum give Mitt and Newt a run for their money and make them work harder at selling themselves to us.

      janitor in reply to Canusee. | January 4, 2012 at 7:45 am

      Santorum is not electable until and unless he drops the emphasis on family values social policy, and presents himself as recognizing that economics and foreign policy are the appropriate functions of the federal government. Perry has it right (it’s a states’ rights issue). And Gingrich is the conservative leader on the two aspects of appropriate federal focus. Santorum effectively said as much himself in one of the debates.

Listened to Santorum’s rally/thank you speech. I admit I have a lot to learn about him but as for a speeches go, it was enjoyable to listen to. He was careful not to claim victory when he spoke, although when he started he was leading and when he finished Roamy was leading. Naturally the news and blogosphere will be saying the guy jumped the gun and gave his “victory” speech prematurely!? I will have to find the video and watch again, but I don’t think he claimed it a win… This was the first I ever listened to him; think I will learn more about this Santorum.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend