As The GOP Primary Race Goes Into Production, Here Are The Facts

Tyler Durden's picture

With two days left until the GOP primary circus is fully underway, here, courtesy of Reuters, are the key facts to keep in mind as all that endless talk finally shifts to action. From Reuters: "Voters kick off the 2012 nominating process to pick the Republican Party's challenger to Democratic President Barack Obama with the Iowa caucuses on Tuesday, followed by primaries in New Hampshire and South Carolina on Jan. 10 and Jan. 21. The three contests are some of the most watched events in the election process. Here are a few facts about them."



  • Iowa has been first in the nominating process since 1972 when Iowa Democrats changed the date to meet new rules intended to encourage participation. Jimmy Carter first drew attention to the caucuses in 1976 when he performed unexpectedly well and went on to take the White House.
  • The saying there are only "three tickets out of Iowa" comes from the fact that since 1972 almost no candidate has won their party nomination without coming in third place or better in Iowa. In 2008, Republican nominee John McCain took 4th.
  • On average only about 6 percent of eligible voters participate in the Iowa caucuses, which bring them together for hours to cast ballots after a surrogate or volunteer from each campaign is given a chance to try to sway their vote. In 2008, that jumped to 16.1 percent but was still much lower than the 53.6 percent who voted in the New Hampshire primaries of direct balloting, according to George Mason University's United States Elections Project.
  • The Hawkeye State has chosen Democratic candidates for the White House in five of the last six presidential elections, but political observers say independents could swing the vote. Registered Democrats number about 645,500 to 613,500 Republicans, and almost 718,000 voters were not with a party, according to December data from the Iowa secretary of state.
  • In an election focused on the economy, Iowa's 6 percent unemployment rate in October, compared to the national rate of 8.6 percent, is among the lowest in the country.
  • The state's Hispanic population almost doubled in the past decade to make up about 5 percent of Iowans. About 91 percent of the population was white in 2010, the last U.S. Census shows.


  • Before the Iowa caucuses grabbed national attention in the 1970s, the New Hampshire primary was the first test for presidential hopefuls. It is known for political upsets starting with Dwight Eisenhower's 1952 win over long-time Republican Senator Robert Taft before winning the presidency.
  • New Hampshire primary winners have had mixed success when it comes to getting their party's nomination. John McCain won the Republican primary in 2000 but eventually lost the bid to George W. Bush. In 2008 Hillary Clinton won the Democratic primary but the party nod went to Obama.
  • Performances in the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primaries have not been consistent. Since 1984, only two candidates have won both.
  • The "Live Free or Die" state is not as liberal as some of its New England neighbors. A study released in December by Third Way, a Washington think tank that promotes centrist policies, found the number of registered Democratic voters had fallen 14.6 percent while that of Republicans had declined 13.5 percent.
  • Richard Nixon, the Republican president from 1969 to 1973, holds the record for winning the most New Hampshire primaries: three.


  • The South Carolina Republican primary was set early in the primary calendar in 1980 by Ronald Reagan's campaign coordinator Lee Atwater to give Reagan a boost and southern conservatives more weight in the nominating process.
  • The race has since become known as a firewall for establishment frontrunners against insurgent candidates who perform surprisingly well in the earlier contests.
  • Since 1980, every winner of the South Carolina Republican presidential primary has gone on to win the party nomination.
  • The Palmetto State has gone for Republican candidates in 9 out of the last ten presidential elections.
  • Religion resonates with South Carolina voters. A little over 60 percent of South Carolina residents were identified as evangelical or mainline Protestant Christian, the Pew Forum's U.S. Religious Landscape Survey in 2008 found.
  • With 10.5 percent of its population unemployed, South Carolina has one of the nation's worst unemployment rates.
  • South Carolina is among the country's fastest growing states, fueled in part by a burgeoning Hispanic population. In 2010, 5.1 percent of state residents were Hispanic, up from 2.4 percent in 2000, according to the last U.S. Census. African-Americans made up about 28 percent of residents and whites, 66 percent.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
CrazyCooter's picture

Three RP interviews this morning ... you tubes are up over at DailyPaul ...



LawsofPhysics's picture

Come on Cooter, you have been around long enough to know that if voting mattered, it would be illegal. Just the same, I will vote for Paul, regardless of the bullshit party label.

CrazyCooter's picture

Did you watch all three interviews (~40 minutes total)?



LawsofPhysics's picture

Don't really watch much idiot box.

CrazyCooter's picture

That is unfortunate.

What I think is happening is that the role of media to influence people is imploding. Social media is largely replacing the MSM with regards to influence opinion. ZH is a great example of this ... how many readers here source opinions and facts from ZH and its threads than from Bloomberg, MSNBC, etc. At the federal level, RP is kind of an index one can track for this sort of thing.

While many people get upset at how the MSM treats RP, and they are getting very combative with their coverage, I think it is actually counter productive now. That is to say, the MSM is looking increasingly discredited trying to spin RPs slow, stead rise and actually boosting RP in the process.

This is absolutely fascinating to watch.

EDIT: Wanted to add that this ABC article on the NDAA is a perfect example of what I mean:

Look at the comments. Virtually no one likes this. The rage is palpable. It remains to be seen how this plays out.



bank guy in Brussels's picture

Always worth repeating for the fake American elections:

"You know, comrades," says Stalin, "that I think in regard to this: I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this - who will count the votes, and how."
Joseph Stalin, quoted in 'Memoirs of Stalin's Former Secretary' (1992), by Boris Bazhanov

trav7777's picture

lol...watchin Cantor on 60 Minutes...triber with a nice GS wife.  Gee, what are the odds?

Then they follow up with the SAT-for-hire guy who scored lower than I did. 

Rhone_Ranger's picture

There will be no vote until the results are known!

mrgneiss's picture

OT as well but I think we should alter the acronym "MSM" to better reveal its true nature and add "corporate" to it, as in the corporate media or coporate mainstream media, obvious to us, but we need to wake up the sheeple........

Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez's picture

I like "establishment" media myself but corporate is fine too.  Celente calls them "presstitutes" which I think is pretty funny.  If it weren't for his family members watching his show Chris Matthews viewership would be less than "100"!

akak's picture

I always refer to the corporate-controlled media as .... "the corporate-controlled media".

Freddie's picture

TV is for morons who enable and enpower the oligarchs and your overlords.  If you switch on TV then you are enabling you serfdom.  Leep watching moron.

GMadScientist's picture

He said while listening to conservative talk radio...


CIABS's picture

freddie:  obviously it's possible to avoid television and still be a moron.

The Heart's picture

Thanks for that Cooter. Well said.

We no longer call it the msm rather, we call it the socialist propaganda machine. Let it be hence further known that THIS, is the new reference name for the former dinosaur lying ass dis-information cheap attacks yellow journalism msm.

my puppy for prez's picture

Chris Wallace was his usual smug-Tavistock-shill self....he brought up ridiculous lines of thought and could barely mask his disdain for the good doctor.  Thank God I only watch about 5 minutes of TV a week!  Anymore, and I would be bald...

weinerdog43's picture

And of that 5 minutes you watch Chris Wallace?  Dude, tampon commercials are more informative.

earleflorida's picture

thanks for the links, cooter

homme's picture

If there was ever a walking talking piece of shit on this planet, it's that goat-boinking Chris Wallace. I'll never forget nor forgive that mo-fo for asking Dr. Paul if he believed we should be taking our marching orders from Al Qaeda.. Thanks for the links.

Pegasus Muse's picture

A lot of truth in this story. "Old  Butch" is a cunning old bird. 
Old  Butch
John was in the fertilized egg business.

He had several hundred young layers (hens), called  'pullets,' and ten roosters to fertilize the eggs.

He kept records, and any rooster not performing went  into the soup pot and was replaced.

This  took a lot of time, so he bought some tiny bells and attached them to his roosters.

Each  bell had a different tone, so he could tell from a distance, which rooster was performing.

Now, he  could sit on the porch and fill out an efficiency  report by just listening to the bells.

John's favorite rooster, old Butch, was a very fine  specimen, but this morning he noticed old Butch's  bell hadn't rung at  all!

When he  went to investigate, he saw the other roosters were  busy chasing pullets, bells-a-ringing, but the pullets, hearing the roosters coming, would run for cover.

To John's amazement, old Butch had his bell in his  beak, so it couldn't ring.

He'd sneak up on a pullet, do his job and walk on to the next  one.

John was  so proud of old Butch, he entered him in the Saint Lawrence County Fair and he became an overnight sensation among the judges.

The result was the judges not only awarded old Butch the "No Bell Piece Prize," but they also awarded him the "Pulletsurprise" as  well.

Clearly old Butch was a politician in the making. Who else but a politician could figure out how to win two of  the most coveted awards on our planet by being the best at sneaking up on the unsuspecting populace and  screwing them when they weren't paying attention.

Vote carefully this fall, the bells are not always audible.


Treason Season's picture
Foreign Troops On American Soil  ! Incredible Ron Paul TV Ad!
buyingsterling's picture



AC_Doctor's picture

The facts are that no candidate with the exception of Ron Paul can manage the upcoming collapse.  Obambi has the internet kill switch, FEMA camps, SOPA, and NDAA to turn America into a police state.

trav7777's picture

how's RP gonna manage it, by going to the "gold standard"?  LOL...won't make a bit of difference

PrDtR's picture

By removing un-necessary laws and NOT LOCKING US UP!

john39's picture

and for all anyone knows, that is exactly the what the central bank owners want anyway.  good luck with the politicians, its all a show.

wisefool's picture

Yup. The central banks would love to be able to have some solid footing again, even with a barbaic relic acting as first order control loop. (They would not keep it around if it did not have a purpose)

Their problem is that these jokes for politicians screw up or nullify any decent intention the central banks might have. Which is fun and games 'till the river gets this high.

ozziindaus's picture

That's one of the few policies I can't agree with RP on. Gold standard will really make serfs out of us since so few people actually own it (1%, maybe 2%). Talk about controlling the money supply.


wisefool's picture

He is not going to advocate an official gold standard. He is not going to get rid of taxation. He is going to advocate sound money and simplified taxation.

john39's picture

obummer said he was going to end all the wars and close gitmo.  full disclosure, i didn't vote for either clown in the last go around, but the point is, its all rhetoric until they are sworn in...  until then, who the hell knows.

wisefool's picture

Oh heck yeah. And Obama said raising the debt ceiling is "Collosal Failure in Leadership" when Bush did it.

I think we gotta take our chances with Ron Paul. As contributors have been saying recently "The can really is getting to big to kick"

john39's picture

I agree that on the surface of things, Ron Paul seems very solid, and has some really great proposals.  His positions have been consistent for a long time.  But, I also can't help but feel the chess pieces moving around the board, silently and without most being aware.  Something is off here, just can't quite put my finger on it yet.

dwdollar's picture

Ron Paul is just a relief valve to vent the frustration of those who should be starting militias and preparing for rebellion. Alas, even Ron Paul supporters are too stupid to realize the elections are rigged. We don't have a failure of leadership. We have a failure of the people to understand who needs to lead and who needs to be shot.

my puppy for prez's picture

I'm NOT "too stupid to realize elections are rigged".  But the alternative is really not a viable option right now.  We suffer under a much uglier, stronger, more equipped, and more brutal "standing army" than did our predecessors.  

Besides....most bloody revolutions don't end well.  We aren't talking about fighting off a foreign army....we would be fighting those that are "encamped within our gates"....our very own government.'s picture

Supporting Ron Paul and preparing for the worst are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, when supporting Ron Paul one meets many like minded people who will be an asset to one's social circle should the lights go out.

Cathartes Aura's picture

I will put a finger on this:

Ron Paul, the conservative congressman from Texas known for his small-government beliefs rooted in Libertarianism, told an audience Monday in Iowa that government should dictate what happens in the womb of pregnant women.

"Life comes from our creator, not our government," Politico reported Paul as saying. "Liberty comes from our creator, not from government. Therefore, the purpose, if there is to be a purpose, for government is to protect life and liberty."

I'm sure you can guess which finger. . .

flattrader's picture

Yes.  He's ALL for smaller government...just small enough to get under your bedroom door.

>>>"Liberty comes from our creator, not from government. Therefore, the purpose, if there is to be a purpose, for government is to protect life and liberty."<<<

He very much subcribes to the BS of Christian Reconstructionists.

So much for being a Libertarian.


Cathartes Aura's picture

see, this is my main complaint with all this Paul-family cheerleading - he's a career Republican, his son is an elected Republican, and they BOTH stand on the side of the Christian Right-Wing of that party - their stance on the Liberty of Females to make decisions about their own body, without interference, is NOT supported by any of the Libertarian party platforms I could find.

and, I will add, these incremental "bills" are ALWAYS a foot in the door to lost sovereignty, people need to pay attention if they decide to vote. 

(though I believe the very nature of "voting" allows for ignoring facts, compromising principals, all to get your guy a "win")

fnord88's picture

I agree his position on abortion is not one I support. But when the choice is between candidates who advocate killing hundreds of thusands of innocent people in stupid wars, or one who forbids women who choose to have sex from having an abortion, it's really a no brainer. Most people are not " ignoring facts, compromising princicples" etc, most people realize no candiate represents their views perfectly, so they vote for the one who is closest. Pure libertarianism is anarcho-capitalism, or anarchy with property rights. No candidate comes even close, so you seem to be suggesting the most moral thing to do is not vote, which is stupid and a form of fundamentalism. "My way or the highway" type bullshit. If you have ever been in a relationship, you should realise compromise is smarter than ideological purity. 

Cathartes Aura's picture

hmmm. . .

one who forbids women who choose to have sex from having an abortion

I sense a bit of, shall we say, fervour in your choice of words. .  a woman who chooses to have sex deserves to be denied an abortion p'haps?  because this pregnancy, unless of the immaculate varietal, involved a sperm donor, no?  who chose to have sex too?  with ZERO governmental constitutional amendments - or even mention!  fancy that.

as to your "not voting is stupid and a form of fundamentalism" - spare me.  NOT voting, and spending the resultant brain space & time on more life affirming tasks leading to greater self-sufficiency in being is a far more disciplined way to exist.

you deal with your compromises, and your inevitable government voter "disappointments" - I'll take care of myself thanks.



fnord88's picture

No fervour. I am simply pointing out a fact: Civilians in other countries do not choose to be bombed. Pregnant women choose to have sex. In your world, civilians and unborn children die. In my neither do.

And if you choose not vote, then your bitching about politicians is just bitching. Why waste your time commenting when you could be doing all that life affirming stuff. 

buyingsterling's picture

Paul is a constitutionalist. He would leave abortion and all social issues up to the states. He would not put it this crudely, but: If the bulk of the states see fit to ban it, or to amend the national constitution to prohibit this odious practice of killing in the service of pleasure, that is their business.

If you're a naturalist, abortion should be even more odious to you that it is to religious people, who believe there's a foundation for rights above the whims of Teddy Kennedy, Ruth Ginsberg and Barack Obama. For naturalists, killing members of the species before we can gauge their ability to contribute to the long term survival of the species should be considered pure madness.

The flip side of someone maybe telling you that you can't kill any more unborn kids because you got your rocks off is this: Some states may revel in it, and all manner of other liberty and life affirming fun. They don't see abortion forever closing off all choices for a life that is already underway and will result in one of us if we can keep it from being carved up. They see it as a single grand choice, affirming freedom, which carries no other consequence for anyone else. California can put an aborted fetus in the mouth of the bear on their state flag, if they want, and have the bear corn-holing a tranny. It's called freedom. RP12.

fnord88's picture

Can the bear be smoking a joint?

i-dog's picture


  "the long term survival of the species "

Are you serious? There are seven fucking billion of us!! We're not going to run out of homo sapiens anytime soon.....

200 years ago there were just 1 billion breeders spread around the planet. Now, we have 7 times the population and already passed peak oil, destroyed most of the forests, and the fresh water tables around the world have fallen up to 40 metres in the last 40 years.

It's time for religious nutters of all stripes to stop breeding like rabbits/locusts in the hope of outnumbering those who believe in using a different name for the same fucking god!!

buyingsterling's picture

the point isn't raw numbers, it's the far right side of the bell curve.

And if you think Americans are or are not having babies because of muslim fedundity, you're detached. One kid is hard enough, you have 2, 3, 4 etc. because you love it, not because Muslims are breeding.'s picture

200 years ago there were just 1 billion breeders spread around the planet. Now, we have 7 times the population and already passed peak oil, destroyed most of the forests, and the fresh water tables around the world have fallen up to 40 metres in the last 40 years.


Two hundred years ago Malthus made virtually the same argument and was proven to be very, very wrong.

i-dog's picture

... and, no doubt, in 200 more years - when 50 billion half-starved and thirsty humans are still fighting each other for resources and aggressively insisting that their neighbours should use the same name for the shared imaginary god as they do (and worship him/her/it on the same day of the week!) - I will be proven "very wrong" too. Fortunately, I won't be here to listen to the "I told you so".