Michelle Bachman Drops Presidential Bid

Michelle Bachman, who came in 6th in the Iowa caucuses, has ended her campaign.

Here are the final Iowa caucus tallys. Romney won by 8 votes over Santorum.

Update: Rick Perry is staying in -- he's counting on South Carolina.

< Now What? | Can the Government Force You to Unlock Your Computer? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    God to Michele... (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 12:33:26 PM EST
    "just kidding"

    God to Michele add... (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 12:47:01 PM EST
    "and ya damn well shoulda known I was goofing ever since I told ya to go work for the IRS...I mean c'mon lady, only Satan would say something like that!"

    Guess that acronym re Ms. Bachmann (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 01:18:24 PM EST
    doesn't translate to Iowa GOP caucus votes.  

    Just more evidence (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Towanda on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 01:37:16 PM EST
    of another reason to bump Iowa out of its first-up status, with its record on women in high office.

    I am disappointed only owing to Capt Howdy's point yesterday about the fun we have missed in not having Mr. Bachmann as First Lady.  Those links that the Capt provided were the best howlers yet, plus the line about how wondrous would be Mr. Bachmann's dancing at the inaugural balls.

    Don't worry ... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 01:55:20 PM EST
    Rick Perry will still be there to keep you amused.

    In his concession speech last night it looked like he forgot the word "military".


    Perry seemed to have a little trouble (none / 0) (#36)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 06:09:58 PM EST
    reading that letter from his soldier friend.  Perhaps, he had another bout of that New Hampshire live free or die potion.

    anyone else surprised (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by CST on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 03:24:03 PM EST
    that they are whittled down to a bunch of white guys again?

    I'm not.

    you know (none / 0) (#41)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 08:25:37 PM EST
    I totally get the part about women being held to a different standard and all.


    Bachman did not flame out because she was a woman.  she flamed out because she was a moron.  a dangerous  ignorant self righteous moron.
    I really hope she decides to go for the senate seat against Amy Klobuchar.  she would get totally creamed and perhaps she would be free of her for the foreseeable future.  at least as far as her possible internal influence on government is concerned.
    after the embarrassment she has caused her state I think a snowball in hell is far more likely that her election statewide.


    She has had her reasonable face on (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 08:56:30 AM EST
    recently and it makes me forget. But she is no crazier than Santorum. He has a similar list of moronic ideas and insanities. It makes me wonder what made the religious right dump her for him.

    Hmmmm, still thinking....


    plumbing (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 09:28:13 AM EST
    you wont find me defending her (none / 0) (#44)
    by CST on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 08:39:41 PM EST
    Just noting that the dangerous morons who also happen to be white guys are still there.  

    But I would be more than happy to never hear from her again.


    fair enough (none / 0) (#45)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 09:14:48 PM EST
    but you have to admit that as dizzy as Perry was, as looney as Paul was, as extreme as Newt was, none of them could hold a candle to her.

    maybe you have forgotten her greatest hits like the John Wayne thing, the Elvis thing, the Lexington and Concord thing, the vaccination thing and on and on and on and on.  actually I saw a couple of greatest hits mashups today and there was some I had forgotten.  chutzpah still being my personal favorite.  

    and then there is Marcus.


    hilarious (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 07:59:49 AM EST
    Daily Show Marcus Moment

    (comes about 4 minutes in)


    lol!~ (none / 0) (#49)
    by nycstray on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 09:50:34 PM EST
    and then there is Marcus.

    yes she fell of the radar pretty early (none / 0) (#59)
    by CST on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 09:06:46 AM EST
    for her bat$hit.

    Personally I kind of liked the founding fathers ending slavery thing.


    Theoretically you could ... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 01:20:41 PM EST
    lose all these early primaries, and still win.  Most of the delegate rich states are late in the game.

    But no one has ever been able to make that strategy work.

    And I don't see it happening with these third and fourth tier candidates.  It would be nice if it happened one day.  Because that's the only way this ridiculous stranglehold that Iowa and New Hampshire have on the process will end.

    The Republicans (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 01:28:53 PM EST
    Also have a weird formula where some states are proportional and some are winner take all.

    Bachman's team should have looked at history (none / 0) (#9)
    by Farmboy on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 02:06:34 PM EST
    In all the campaign seasons like this one, there is a roller coaster ride of GOP leaders in Iowa leading up to the caucus. One after another they go up and down, and the winner is the person in the last car. Four years ago Huckabee was that person, letting Thompson et al go first before he ramped up spending in late December.

    Had Bachman stayed low key until the last couple weeks she would have received the majority of votes last night. Instead she jumped in early, and grabbed one of the lead cars on the roller coaster. A few corn dog photos later, it was all over. She didn't realize it because the ride was still moving, but it was over.

    MMmmmmmmm...... (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 02:21:05 PM EST
    Corn dogs.  Yum!

    Yep, it was (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Farmboy on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 03:21:17 PM EST
    Marcus had one, too (none / 0) (#21)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 03:54:41 PM EST
    ... but he looks like he's a self-hating corn dog eater.

    That looks like William Shatner... (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 09:35:39 PM EST
    right after he shouted "ROOOOOON!"

    He looks like he's pulling... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by desertswine on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 10:07:03 PM EST
    a t-rd out of his nose.

    But... But... But... (none / 0) (#12)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 02:58:03 PM EST
    Isn't Iowa her home state ?

    From her speech after the results:

    In 2012 there will be another occupant in the White House, who knows, maybe even another Michelle in the White House.

    Here is the speech.

    She obviously had a well thought out statement preparred, over 7 mins.  I stopped after 3.

    It's odd for her to have such a detailed and thought out speech of defeat ready, then hint that she still might be in the White House.  It seemed to me she was going to stay in, then hours later she drops out.  The only logical conclusion, and I am not suggesting she is logical, is she is positioning herself for the VP nod.

    So it would seem we still might have Bachmann to kick around...

    Depends on how you want to define it. (none / 0) (#40)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 08:16:55 PM EST
    She was born in Iowa, but she lives in Minnesota.  Stillwater to be exact.  

    I was born and raised in Iowa, but I've lived the last quarter century in Colorado--so when I come "home", it is to Denver.  

    Also too, you really think Michele Bachmann made a well thought out speech?  Self-serving?  Yes.  Pandering?  Indeed.  Well thought out?  Ha!

    She got 8% of the craziest, batsh!t GOP voters, I fail to see how that positions her for a VP nod.


    Fortunately, 8% of only 4% (none / 0) (#47)
    by Towanda on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 09:38:01 PM EST
    of Iowans means that the number who are that  batsh*t crazy is minimal.

    Really, when more than 95% of the population of a state did not participate in caucuses yesterday, too much is being made of much too little.


    If 95% of the state didn't participate (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by nycstray on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 09:49:32 PM EST
    why the F*ck do we care about Iowa?

    For the same reason (none / 0) (#50)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 09:59:17 PM EST
    everyone will now get lathered up for a state less than half the size of Iowa. Because the other 99.9% soak it up like a ShamWow.

    Because campaigns dropped (none / 0) (#52)
    by Towanda on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 10:18:34 PM EST
    almost $20 million in ads alone there, and it's a slow nooz month, and . . . it's all a media creation.  Nobody cared about the Iowa caucuses for decades.

    Perry not out (none / 0) (#13)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 03:04:16 PM EST
    is good news for Romney.  which is why he might see some pressure to reconsider.  there is supposedly a wing nut conference in TX this weekend to talk about strategies and I would not be surprised if they are almost as interested in stopping Romney as they are in stopping Obama.

    I still dont think its over.  and I dont think it will be until Romney shows he can get wing nut votes.  he is still at 25% with republicans.  if he wins SC its over.  but thats a long way off.

    Here's (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 03:25:53 PM EST
    the thing. They will whine and whine about Romney until he wins the nomination and then they are all going to vote for him. The polls show that Romney actually doesn't lose that many tea party voters--only a few less than Bachmann would have gotten.  

    heres the other thing (none / 0) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 03:31:44 PM EST
    I dont believe that.  for one thing it doesnt make sense and for another I know a lot of these people.  people who hate Obama but who will never vote for Romney. never. I have heard more than a few times thing like 'I have not sat out an election in 40 years but ..."

    I said last night the smart right wingers know they are going to lose with Romney anyway.  partly because they know what I just said better than anyone.  so it seems to me they are going to start thinking why not at least lose with someone we dont despise.


    So, the question, perhaps is: (none / 0) (#22)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 03:58:26 PM EST
    when push comes to shove, do they not vote for Romney for fear that he can't be trusted to share their ideology, and risk the re-election of the sitting president they have been brainwashed into believing is some kind of socialist-government-loving-tax-and-spend-liberal (I swear I do not know how they can even believe that's who Obama is, but whatever)?

    In the end, I don't think they take that risk.

    Just as I don't think more than a few Dems who have been vocally angry with, disappointed in, opposed to, Obama - especially those in states that are not safely blue - will risk Obama losing to any GOP candidate, will be good little Dems, hold their noses and vote for him.

    Don't forget there is still the matter of choosing a GOP VP running mate; if Romney is the presumptive presidential nominee, and he chooses a darling of the Tea Party for the ticket, I think whatever reluctance GOP voters have about Romney will go up in smoke.


    not the people I know (none / 0) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 04:08:19 PM EST
    I know its anecdotal and all but the people I am talking to will not vote for Romney.  its religious mostly I believe although interestingly they do not seem willing to admit that and usually couch it in terms of his policies.  that I dont believe.

    did you hear the one about the right wing catholic and the two moderate Mormons who walk into a republican bar in New Hampshire and . . . .


    I think a lot of the professed (none / 0) (#23)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 04:06:50 PM EST
    'we must stop Obama at all costs' is just hot air. They know on some level he is far from the scary pinko they claim to believe he is.

    The same way many on the left don't think there is much difference between him and Romney.

    I think this might be the lowest turnout election in a long time.


    absolutely (none / 0) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 04:09:12 PM EST
    I get the feeling that many of the people I am talking about do not actually hate Obama all that much anymore but feel compelled to say they do because of peer pressure or whatever.

    Do you (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 04:07:15 PM EST
    really think that these people are going to let Obama win another term? I don't. And as far as "people I know" what I am hearing here from conservatives is that they'll vote for Romney in the GE but without any enthusiasm much like a lot of Obama voters but less so for Obama right now because of his record and the fact that Romney doesn't "scare" them like a Santorum nomination would. Lots of Obama '08 voters sitting home here in GA.

    yes I do (none / 0) (#27)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 04:09:35 PM EST
    see above.  Edger will like it.

    I think the Mormon (none / 0) (#28)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 04:15:06 PM EST
    thing has been seriously under estimated when it comes to the south.  he might get some of them northern evangelicals.  down here its gonna be a big problem.  honestly I think they would prefer a black man.

    The devil they know? (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 04:20:00 PM EST
    I think you are onto something.

    It is the party and not the religion (none / 0) (#39)
    by christinep on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 06:39:50 PM EST
    That is the issue with Democratic me...of course.  Listen, tho, to the engrossed fundamentalists...you will hear what Capt. howdy suggests.  Then, think about the demographic components in states such as North Carolina, Virginia, Wisconsin, Michigan, & Ohio...even.  Several years ago (per Rove's orchestration) there were busloads of said evangelicals in those states...a two  percent plus difference for Bush.  It may well make a difference--in & of itself--insofar as Romney is concerned.  It is one thing to be upset with your party's candidate because of policy; it is something much more intense to a percentage of electorate when the emotional religious matter is concerned.

    True. I tend to forget that since it matters (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 04:30:59 PM EST
    not a whit to me.

    or me (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 04:48:31 PM EST
    I just call um as I see um.  and some of these people are family so normal walls tend to get dropped a bit.

    I'm frankly (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 05:25:11 PM EST
    surprised that it's NOT a problem that I've heard w/r/t Romney. I was expecting his Mormonism to be something that I would hear a lot of people talking about but I have not. kind of a weird alliance between Mormons and evangelicals when it comes to voting. Perhaps the Romney thing might make that alliance a thing of the past.

    I'm also surprised at the number of supposedly smart people that think that Obama is a "socialist" and "the anti-Christ". Perhaps this is why I don't hear about the Mormon thing if they think Obama is the "anti-Christ". Being a Mormon is small potatoes in the scheme of things when you're dealing with the "anti-Christ".


    Hmmm ... (none / 0) (#38)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 06:38:41 PM EST
    I'm also surprised at the number of supposedly smart people that think that Obama is a "socialist" and "the anti-Christ".

    I might actually support Obama if he was either these or both.


    Not in my neighborhood (none / 0) (#34)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 06:04:19 PM EST
    And Georgia is irrelevant anyway.  In the states in play, issues like even greater austerity and the unions and the supreme court and the wars will make a difference.

    Your (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 06:08:40 PM EST
    post exemplifies why Obama is in trouble: "even more austerity". So people should vote for Obama since he's for austerity but just less of it?

    I know Obama is not going to carry Ga but he probably won't even the point spread he had in '08. Obama's problem is going to be in states that were close in '08 like VA and NC. IN is already gone.


    That's the thing: the swing states (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Towanda on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 06:20:18 PM EST
    tend to be ignored in these pro-Obama analyses that tell us that, well, he can count on Illinois!

    He's not looking good in some states that were not close in 2008, either, and are back to being swing states -- states like Wisconsin, with a third of the voters now self-identifying as independents.

    Now, that's one that he probably still can carry, all things being equal, but they are not.  Since 2008, the GOP legislature has put in place some of the most restrictive voter suppression laws (and Holder is doing nothing about it there).  And the predictions from pollsters will continue to miss such variables; count on it.  That means that we can count on predictions less than ever.


    it was a pretty cool split screen today (none / 0) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 03:34:57 PM EST
    with the old faux conservative waving his cane and screaming at Obama to get off his lawn and on the other side Obama making a recess appoint to the consumer protection agency.  in the face of the republicans who have been keeping the senate in fake "not recess" to prevent him from doing just that.  they hand wringing about that over the next few days is going to be fun.  I have been watching fox.  with popcorn.

    Yes, that was pretty cool (none / 0) (#33)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 05:31:41 PM EST
    And, pardon me, but didn't G. W. Bush make a number of "recess appointments"?  The main one that leaps to mind is that total lunatic John Bolton as "Permanent Representative to the United Nations."  The same John Bolton who was a strong critic of the United Nations.  Somehow, I don't remember the Republicans howling over that recess appointment.  I guess the rules are different if "their guy" does it.  Pass the popcorn.  I hope that their heads explode.   ;-)

    well (none / 0) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 08:27:07 PM EST
    they are POed because they went to keeping the senate in fake "not recess" to prevent him from doing what Bush did.  didnt work.

    oops (none / 0) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 08:28:20 PM EST
    the went to all the trouble of keeping the senate in fake "not recess"

    just heard a very interesting (none / 0) (#55)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 08:46:50 AM EST
    conversation with Pete Williams on this.  according to him, as I understand it, the only one with standing to bring a lawsuit to challenge this is someone who is "aggrieved" by some ruling this guy makes in his job and says its not valid because this guy is not legally in the job.

    the only one who can bring a suit is some loan shark??  fabulous.

    also Luke Nepwalker said that the repubs are reeeeeeally POed and are going to make a big fight about the tax extension and unemployment benefits to get back at him.


    Giving (none / 0) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 08:53:19 AM EST
    Obama yet another chance to cave into their demands I guess.

    yep (none / 0) (#60)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 09:26:01 AM EST
    just like last time.  

    Hahahahaha (none / 0) (#58)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 09:00:38 AM EST
    Yes, as opposed to NOT fighting the tax extension and unemployment benefits.

    Maybe Obama is finally starting to get it?


    the rumor was (none / 0) (#61)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 09:27:33 AM EST
    that they would not fight it this time.  that getting their a$$es handed to them taught them a lesson.  I am reminded of that scene in the Wrath of Kahn where Kirk taunts him into entering the Mutara Nebula.