BS's Predictions For The Iowa Republican Caucus Outcome

As you know, the worthless MSM has been making sure you have little to no desire to vote for any of the republinuts running for President of the United States; literally bashing one after another as they acquire the `who gives a crap anyway' support from the most previously bashed. Or self imploded of course. Which has left us in the current state of FLUX as the media attempts to manipulate the outcome thru `venting of the candidates'.

The implied message, of course, is that NONE of these candidates are worthy of throwing the current bum in the White House out of power. That is until 2016 when it would be `obvious' that the Republinut is who to vote for that time. It really is shameful. But, predictable; indeed so predictable that BS will now provide you with the outcome of the Iowa Caucuses (plus or minus a percentage or two):
Romney 23%
Paul 22%
Gingrich 20%
Perry 12%
Bachmann 9%
Others/Field 14%

The story will be that Romney beat Gingrich and had even more organization to get out the vote than the diehard Paul supporters. They will point out Newt's horrible showing with women voters. It will be wondered if Perry's FOURTH place finish will mean he is dropping out - same for Bachman and the others. Blah Blah Blah....... They will NOT ask if the 16% of ELIGIBLE Iowans who had a chance to caucas voting is a good percentage or not - or if that system works in any manner in weeding out candidates for President. And, of course, even the caucus goers get to elect only a percentage of those at the convention,  as many spots are held for delegates selected by insider politicians.
-----------------------
But, the result could turn out like the below numbers with just that swing in my guess on the plus or minus side of things - so let's say it comes out like this:
Paul - 24%
Newt - 22%
Romney 21%
Bachmann 11%
Perry 10%
OTHERS - 12%

That would be a totally different read by the MSM. REPUBLICANS have NO LEADER would be the shout. Paul would barely be mentioned as his total was do to `diehard core' voters. He would be seen as having NO chance at the nomination........ Romney and Gingrich and the MSM would declare it a TWO man race and `let the others decide when it is best for them to step out'. Bachman would somehow describe her finish as a `top tier' finish, and the true `conservative voice' remaining with a chance. Perry will decide its really not for him and drop out just before the NH primary. Yes, that is a BS prediction.
-----------------------------
However, IF somehow Gingrich wins in Iowa - the MSM will say it all depends on him carrying his momentum into NH (where they know he has no chance) so that when he doesn't do well there - they can declare no front runner exists.
----------------------------
Bet you wish the weather was this predictable, right?
================
THE LATEST BOOK OF EACH MAN

Will Big Media Usage Of `Twenty-Ten' Diminish `Two Thousand Twelve' Fever?

Immediately after Christmas I noticed it. Suddenly, many of the talking heads in the national media began calling 2010 - two thousand ten --------- twenty ten. Indeed, despite having heard the same year mentioned nearly countless times as two thousand ten by the SAME talking heads on TV -- here they were using a completely different usage than they did the previous days, weeks, months, and even years. And, being always suspicious of the main stream media (MSM), I wondered what was up.

Now, while it is true that 20-10 uses one less syllable than 2,010 - it wouldn't if it was pronounce twenty hundred ten. Indeed, could THAT be IT?

Could it be that the media has changed it for speed? OR, could it be - for conspiracy oriented folks - be a way to diminish the potential influence of `two thousand twelve' mentality taking hold in the nation or world --- especially, if the powers that be are unable to re-gain a real world economy after taking it to the edge of financial breakdown less than 18 months ago?

Indeed, if the economy doesn't improve in a direct line - if there is a double dip or worse -- dissatisfaction with the world power structure is not likely to improve from its low status today with the common folk. So, IF 2,012 represented to the power structure - a worrisome element about how things could be in the future - and one that the power structure of governments didn't want to support the perception of -- then, why NOT make the talking heads begin to use 20-10 INSTEAD of using the same words they had been using for nearly a decade 2,010.

The question now is will the sheeple-peons who listen to the MSM also adapt their language speaking patterns appropriately. Will you be a 20-10'er or a 2,010'er?

Or, could it be that 20-10 really IS better and that we as a society just hadn't thought this minor linguistic issue before we needed to? Or, is ALL this - this post - nothing more than a good idea for a post - and be nothing more than thick Barf Stew?

Go to my front page and page down for my last 7 posts - lots to explore. http://barfstew.blogspot.com -- thanks for visiting today.