Video- Sarah Palin @ The Tea Party of America Rally Indianola, Iowa September 3 2011

Video below:



Transcript of the entire speech can be found at SarahPAC.

Other Palin Iowa news shows that Sarah made an unscheduled stop to Storm Lake, Iowa and joined a half marathon that she placed second in.

.

Video- Sarah Palin's Iowa Passion

Video below:







Via The Hill.

Video- Sarah Palin's Remarks After Premiere Of 'Undefeated' In Iowa

7 plus minute video below of Sarah Palin's remarks after the premiere of the file "The Undefeated" in Pella, Iowa:



Palin also responds, via Facebook, to media lies about her reaction to the film.

.

Sarah Palin Heading To Iowa For Premiere Of 'The Undefeated'

Barack Obama and Sarah Palin will be in Iowa next week and on the same day.

Tuesday the pro-Palin film "The Undefeated" will premiere at the Pella Opera House at 5 p.m. central time, followed by a traditional Iowa cookout with Sarah and Todd Palin in attendance.

In accepting the invitation to attend the premiere, Sarah Palin stated, “We are very excited to visit historic Pella and its opera house and look forward to seeing the finished film for the first time with fellow Americans from the heartland.”

Responding to the Palin’s announcement that they will attend the Iowa premiere, Larry Peterson, Chairman of the Board of the Pella Opera House said, “We look forward to hosting Governor Palin and her husband, Todd, at our beloved opera house as we welcome them to our community.”

“We are incredibly excited about Governor Palin and her husband Todd’s attendance at a location that speaks to the basic core values of The Undefeated,” said Stephen K. Bannon, the writer and director of the film.

“We are delighted that Governor Palin and her husband Todd have accepted our invitation to join us at the Iowa premiere of what we believe is a truly moving and extraordinary film,” said Trevor Drinkwater, CEO of ARC Entertainment, the film’s worldwide distributor.

According to ABC News' The Note, Barack Obama will also be in Iowa on Tuesday and Michelle Bachmann is slated to be there Monday to launch her 2012 presidential bid.

.

VIDEO: Michele Bachmann In Iowa

Video below of Michele Bachmann speaking to conservatives in Iowa at Representative Steve King's conference.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The Politico headlines with "Michele Bachmann steals the show in Iowa", highlighting some of the meat and potato moments for those who do not have 24 minutes readily available to watch the whole clip.

She then started firing up the crowd, saying, ”Does anyone remember the trillion dollar stimulus bill? Did President Obama correctly diagnose the problem with job creation. ..what’s his level of credibility on job creation?"

The crowd replied, "No!"

"Not so much, that’s right!" Bachmann said. "Iowans are very intelligent people, despite being extremely good-looking and very well tempered."

After a few other similar exchanges with the crowd, Bachmann invoked the president's failed Final Four predictions and said, "Now he’s got us engaged in another third middle eastern war? Talk about March Madness, can anyone say Jimmy Carter"

She also made a joke about Chinese President Hu and the national debt, saying "So we know now that Hu is your daddy."

And she drew massive boos from the crowd when she mentioned New York Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner, who recently said he is looking into a waiver from the health care reform bill for New York City. She noted he said last year, as first reported by POLITICO, that "the bill and I are one."

"This is I believe the greatest power grab that I have ever seen," she said, comparing "this movie" to the fiscal crisis in Greece and adding, "It's not a pretty picture."

"The Constitution holds the answer. … We the people," she said. "We are the answer to the problem today in the United States because you need to be pushed back in charge of your own health care. ... The federal govt doesn’t have a clue how to create jobs. You do."

Read the rest over at The Politico.

It has also been reported recently that Michele Bachmann will be forming a presidential exploratory committee by June.

I'll give Bachmann this, she certainly knows how to fire up a crowd.

.

Redistricting Iowa

Iowa is one of those states that has lost a congressional seat as a result of the 2010 Census. It had five districts and now it will only have four. In practice, that means that two of the sitting Congressmen will have to run against each other. Right now, Iowa is represented by three Democrats and two Republicans. While both Republicans won handily, all three Democrats won by only from 2 to 5.07%. One way or another, the loss is going to have to cost one of the Democrats his seat unless the redistricting is gerrymandered to favor the Democrats. That is not going to happen because the Democrats only control the State Senate while the Republicans control the State House and the Governorship.

This means that if the Democrat Senate cannot work out a compromise with the Republicans in the House, this whole battle will wind up in court where anything can happen. The court will not care about keeping incumbent Congressmen in separate districts or being opposed to creating a district which has no incumbent in it at all. The Court will only be concerned about making the population in each of the four districts equal to one-fourth of the population of the state, which is 3,053,787. We speak from experience in having designed the first three redistricting plans for the State of Arizona many years ago and then testifying in federal court in behalf of the plans.

The criteria we used was compactness, keeping incumbents separated, equal population and allowing precincts that voted similarly to be clustered together to form districts so as to avoid gerrymandering. The court frowned on any criteria except equal population. Actually the federal courts today would allow the original gerrymander in Massachusetts where all the precincts voting for the Whigs were put into one district so that they would at least be represented by someone who would vote according to their wishes. Gerrymandering today means burning one party at the expense of the other one. You do this by creating districts that have 60% of precincts voting for the party you are helping and 40% of them voting for the other party so that you waste those votes and can create more districts for the favored party.

In practice gerrymandering creates long skinny districts that reach from the part of town that favors one party down into the part that favors the other party but not as deeply in one end as in the other favored end. Neutral redistricting will create districts that are more or less square or at least combine counties that have similar economic and social outlooks. Gerrymandering in Iowa is easy because we have two sets of pairs of incumbents that live quite close to each other. It is easy to dump these two pairs into the same district and then create an open district. It is possible to keep these two pairs separated but there still has to be one district that has two incumbents running against each other.

The Democrats in Iowa will want to have the two Republicans run against each other in hopes of getting three Democrats and only one Republican in 2012. The Republicans will want two of the Democrats to run against each other in hopes of beating the third one and winding up with three Republicans and one Democrat. The fair way to do things would be to have one of the Republicans run against one of the Democrats so that the Democrats and Republicans each get one district and the other two will be up for grabs. Given where the various incumbents live, there is only one way to do this although one can make some agjustments around the edges.

Right now, population data is only available down to the county level but it is still possible to create four districts of just about equal size without crossing any county lines. In the spirit of getting a discussion going we have created a proposed redistricting of Iowa into four districts that the Republicans and Democrats might be able to compromise on to avoid winding up in court where all bets are off.

The above map shows the districts we are suggesting that the Iowa legislature could compromise on at least as a starting point. The five towns shown are where the five incumbents live. The four districts break down with the following figures:

New Congressional Districts Figures

Incumbents	2010 Population	Deviation	% Deviation
Loebsack (D)	765,897	+2,450.25	+0.3209%
Braley (D) - Latham (R)	764,647	+1,200.25	+0.1572%
Boswell (D)	760,819	-2,627.75	-0.3442%
King (R)	762,424	-1,022.75	-0.1340%
Total/Average	3,053,787	+/-1,825.25	+/-0.2391%

Who Will Be President in 2013?

The obvious answer is that it depends upon what happens between now and then. A better question is which party will win the presidential election in 2012 because that is a lot easier to answer than which individual will win. The reason that is true is because as the 2000 presidential election reminded us, it is all about electoral votes. The electoral votes have changed since 2000 thanks to the 2010 census which transferred electoral votes from blue states to red states on the whole making it easier for a Republican to win.

First you need to forget just about everything you think you know about winning a presidential election because it is a whole new ballgame as a result of the change in electoral votes and therefore which states are battleground states. The answer to which party will control the White House comes down to a mere handful of states. You can forget about polling nationwide for which party will win the Presidency in 2012 because you only need to poll the new battleground states to know the answer.

Let's begin by looking at the revised electoral vote picture for the 2012 election:

Presidential Elections in a Nutshell

Party	State	2008 Margin	2004 Margin	2000 Margin	00-08 Margin	2012 Votes	Party Totals
D	District of Columbia	85.73%	79.84%	76.21%	80.59%	3	3
D	Massachusetts	25.81%	25.16%	27.30%	26.09%	11	14
D	Rhode Island	27.84%	20.75%	29.10%	25.90%	4	18
D	Hawaii	45.27%	8.75%	18.33%	24.12%	4	22
D	New York	26.69%	18.29%	24.98%	23.32%	30	52
D	Vermont	37.01%	20.14%	9.93%	22.36%	3	55
D	Maryland	25.45%	12.98%	16.39%	18.27%	10	65
D	Connecticut	22.37%	10.36%	17.47%	16.73%	7	72
D	Illinois	25.10%	10.34%	12.02%	15.82%	20	92
D	California	24.06%	9.94%	11.08%	15.27%	55	147
D	Delaware	24.99%	7.60%	13.06%	15.22%	3	150
D	Maine	17.33%	8.99%	5.12%	10.48%	4	154
D	New Jersey	15.57%	6.68%	15.81%	12.69%	14	168
D	Washington	17.17%	7.18%	5.58%	9.98%	12	180
D	Michigan	16.47%	3.42%	5.13%	8.34%	16	196
D	Oregon	16.35%	4.16%	0.44%	6.98%	7	203
D	Pennsylvania	10.32%	2.50%	4.17%	5.66%	20	223
D	Minnesota	10.24%	3.48%	2.41%	5.38%	9	232
D	Wisconsin	13.91%	0.38%	0.22%	4.84%	10	242
I	New Mexico	15.13%	0.79%	0.06%	4.80%	5	247
I	New Hampshire	9.61%	1.37%	1.27%	3.24%	4	251
I	Iowa	9.54%	0.67%	0.31%	3.06%	6	257
I	Nevada	12.50%	2.59%	3.54%	2.12%	6	263
I	Ohio	4.54%	2.10%	3.51%	0.36%	18	275
I	Colorado	8.95%	4.67%	8.36%	1.36%	9	257
I	Florida	2.81%	5.01%	0.01%	2.21%	28	248
I	Virginia	6.30%	8.20%	8.03%	3.31%	13	220
I	Missouri	0.14%	7.20%	3.34%	3.56%	11	207
I	North Carolina	0.33%	12.44%	5.53%	5.88%	15	196
R	Arizona	8.52%	10.47%	6.29%	8.43%	11	181
R	West Virginia	13.12%	12.86%	6.33%	10.77%	5	170
R	Tennessee	15.07%	14.27%	3.87%	11.07%	11	165
R	Georgia	5.21%	16.60%	11.69%	11.17%	16	154
R	Arkansas	19.86%	9.76%	5.45%	11.69%	6	138
R	Indiana	1.04%	20.68%	15.64%	11.76%	11	132
R	Louisiana	18.63%	14.50%	7.67%	13.60%	8	121
R	South Carolina	8.97%	17.08%	15.94%	14.00%	9	113
R	Montana	2.26%	20.51%	25.08%	15.95%	3	104
R	Mississippi	13.81%	19.69%	16.92%	16.60%	6	101
R	Kentucky	16.23%	19.86%	15.13%	17.07%	8	95
R	South Dakota	8.41%	21.47%	22.74%	17.54%	3	87
R	Texas	11.77%	22.87%	21.32%	18.65%	38	84
R	Alabama	21.58%	25.62%	14.91%	20.70%	9	46
R	Kansas	14.96%	25.38%	20.80%	20.83%	6	37
R	North Dakota	8.63%	27.36%	27.60%	21.20%	3	31
R	Nebraska	14.93%	33.22%	29.00%	25.72%	5	28
R	Alaska	21.53%	25.55%	30.95%	26.01%	3	23
R	Oklahoma	31.30%	31.14%	21.88%	28.11%	7	20
R	Idaho	25.43%	38.12%	39.53%	34.36%	4	13
R	Wyoming	32.24%	39.79%	40.06%	37.36%	3	9
R	Utah	28.17%	45.54%	40.49%	38.07%	6	6

The first thing to notice is that if the states vote the way they did on average between 2000 and 2008, the Republicans win 275 to 263 electoral votes as shown in the last column. To see if that is likely we need to look at any trends between 2000 and 2008 to see if the state is showing a steady trend of moving from one party to the other one in the purple or contested states. It would appear that among the states that are shown as Republican that Colorado is drifting towards the Democrats which would throw the election to the Democrats 272 to 266. To make up for this loss, the Republicans would have to carry one of the next four purple states: Nevada, Iowa, New Hampshire or New Mexico. Since all but New Hampshire is trending to the Democrats, the Republicans would need to carry New Hampshire to make up for losing Colorado.

The next consideration is that undoubtedly the Democrat candidate will be President Obama and he made deep inroads into the Republican states so we must ask if he can repeat this feat. Therefore we need to look at the states he won that he might not be able to carry in 2012. If he won by better than a 5% margin then those states are a real problem for the Republicans. Virginia and Colorado were lost by more than that. As you look at what states might make up for Virginia, you will see that all of the states that are blue in the last column were lost by a greater margin than Virginia so if Obama carries Virginia in 2012, he wins re-election. If he carries Colorado which he won by 8.95%, he must lose New Hampshire which he carried by 9.61% or Iowa which he carried by 9.54%. Virginia, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire will decide the election because the Republicans must carry either Colorado or either Iowa or New Hampshire in addition to Virginia.

It goes without saying that the Republican candidate must also carry the other four states they lost by less than 5%. Thus polling those eight states will tell you who will win in 2012. The Republicans must be ahead in five of them and ahead in either Colorado, Iowa or New Hampshire. So what do we know about the Republican chances in those eight states? Here is what the 2010 House races told us in those eight states plus the next four just to make sure we are not missing any bets:

State	2008 Margin	2010 House Margin	Average Margin
North Carolina	0.33%	14.44%	7.06%
Indiana	1.04%	28.20%	13.58%
Florida	2.81%	30.45%	13.82%
Ohio	4.54%	19.30%	7.38%
Virginia	6.30%	19.45%	6.58%
Colorado	8.95%	8.00%	0.48%
Iowa	9.54%	18.86%	4.66%
New Hampshire	9.61%	12.90%	1.65%
Minnesota	10.24%	2.65%	6.45%
Pennsylvania	10.32%	6.14%	2.09%
Nevada	12.50%	9.84%	2.66%
Wisconsin	13.91%	17.07%	3.16%
New Mexico	15.13%	2.50%	8.82%

If the voters repeat what they did in the 2010 House races, Obama is toast. Even if they wind up half way between what they did in 2008 and 2010, the Republicans win because they carry Iowa, New Hampshire and Wisconsin which more than makes up for losing Colorado. If you want to know which party will control the White House in 2013, poll Colorado. If a generic Republican candidate is ahead of Obama, the Republicans will win 2012. If Obama is ahead in Colorado, poll Iowa and New Hampshire. If the generic Republican is ahead in either state, the Republicans will win but if the generic Republican is behind in both states, Obama will win. For an even cheaper answer, just poll Wisconsin. If the generic Republican is ahead, Obama is all through. Yes, it really is that simple.