Stefan first reported the straw poll taken at the annual state GOP auction & dinner. David Postman chimed in, and the P-I's Strange Bedfellows blog followed suit.
The significant news is that Fred Thompson won. Postman wondered "how many people voted." I wondered how the poll was conducted. Ask and you shall receive.
The WSRP tells me about 1/3 of the attendees participated. A ballot was included with each program for the evening, a reminder was given during the evening's program to fill it out, and interested persons could turn them in while exiting the event at the end of the evening.
So, call it a little tepid water on the outcome. Roughly 190 of the approximately 570 attendees at a $100-a-plate dinner took part in the straw poll. Take the results for what they're worth.
The more interesting fact in the bigger picture is the enthusiasm of the event. The same WSRP e-mail update providing the original information on the straw poll also reported attendance at the event was double that of last year's event. I'm also told the money raised at the event not only doubled last year year's take, it set a record for all such annual WSRP dinner and auction events.
That energy matches what I've heard about Lincoln Day Dinners around the state, including my own experience at Snohomish County's.
The theme commonly heard in many circles these days days is some variation of "conservatives are disheartened." On the ground, that doesn't look to be the case.
Posted by Eric Earling at May 08, 2007 06:34 PM | Email ThisYour point that those surveyed were not a good sample of those whose votes we are trying to predict was a good one. But on this post... if this isn't a good sample of folks who are going to show up at precinct caucuses, what is? Be consistent, Eric.
Posted by: TB on May 8, 2007 07:06 PMBut it is still much too early to say what's gonna happen. The GOP primary voters don't know the real Fred yet. Just his conservative image he's got going. The voters are at a real disadvantage with him not entering the debate. He really hasn't told us where he stands on the issues, other than the platitudes that the other candidates can't get away with.
Posted by: Michelle on May 8, 2007 08:32 PMMoreover, your point seems to assume we actually have a caucus or primary that actually matters before the nomination is in all reality decided. At this point we don't, so it's all largely moot anyway.
If we took straw polls at county conventions across the state then that might be a good gauge for caucus attendees. I've been to such events and similar gatherings of the grassroots. They're a different crowd than those that show up at annual galas like where this straw poll occurred, as Michelle indicates at #3.
"Hey David Postman, notice how we don't double vote, or undervote, or chad vote ,etc "
Posted by: righton on May 8, 2007 08:56 PMFred Thompson 34 votes (39%),
Milt Romney 13 votes (15%),
Newt Gingrich 10 votes (11%),
Rudy Giuliani 10 votes (11%),
John McCain 10 votes (11%),
Tom Tancredo, 2 votes (2%),
Duncan Hunter, 2 votes (2%),
Mike Huckabee, 1 vote (1%),
Ron Paul, 1 vote (1%),
Tommy Thompson, 1 vote (1%),
Sam Brownback, 0 votes, (0%),
Jim Gilmore, 0 votes, (0%),
Chuck Hagel, 0 votes, (0%),
Other/Not Sure, 3 votes (4%),
We will continue to conduct monthly straw presidential Republican nomination polls and will post and track the results on the club web site. At our next club meeting on the 17th of May (guest is Michael Medved), we will again do the same poll. It will be interesting to track these polls on a monthly basis as the race for the Republican nomination continues. We have sold 222 of the 280 tickets available ($14 each), but if you would like to attend, contact me at DickMuri@aol.com
Posted by: DickMuri on May 8, 2007 10:28 PM* Granted, it was not the full sample of all attendees at the dinner, which would be more instructive. It was a self-selected sample of those who weren't distracted talking and eating and bidding, and / or who, for whatever reason, were more compelled to put a checkmark in a box and turn in their vote. Does this *materially* affect the vote percentages? I doubt it, but OK, it's something to note.
* Granted, the $100 entry fee could easily be considered to skew the results. But in which direction would we expect the skew? The "Big Three," Romney, Giuliani & McCain only took 36% of the vote between them, while someone who hasn't even declared yet took 50%. Given that the Big Three are:
1) a former social liberal whom some suspect of not having truly converted;
2) an avowed social liberal; and
3) a senator who has teamed up with Dems too many times to produce too many headline-grabbing bills which conservatives despise,
... and that the man who took half the vote is someone who is *perceived* to be (Michelle -- are you satisfied with that qualification? I don't want to get too badly sidetracked) the conservative alternative to the Big Three, one might suspect a conservative skew. But the well-to-do crowd (whom you would expect to be disproportionately represented at the WSRP auction) also tends to be the "moderate," "fiscal-only," "business" wing of the party, so you would expect Mitt & Rudy to split 70% of the vote between them. Instead, Mitt & Rudy split 31% -- a smackdown considering all the free media attention they've been getting. So if the skew of the WSRP auction tilts moderate, what are the percentages going to look like in living rooms in places like Enumclaw?
* I concede the point of WA's late primary. But I suspect grassroots in other states do not think so differently from those in ours.
So, to make a long story short (OK, sorry, too late) I think likely caucus attendees are searching for alternatives to the Big Moderate Three, and beginning to connect.
Posted by: TB on May 8, 2007 11:04 PMUntil then all this debating, posturing and polling (straw or otherwise) is pretty much intra and extra party political gotcha: a fun diversion to watch but ultimately insignificant.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on May 8, 2007 11:32 PMYes, I'm quite satisfied with the entire phrase, actually.
But the well-to-do crowd (whom you would expect to be disproportionately represented at the WSRP auction) also tends to be the "moderate," "fiscal-only," "business" wing of the party, so you would expect Mitt & Rudy to split 70% of the vote between them. Instead, Mitt & Rudy split 31% -- a smackdown considering all the free media attention they've been getting.
Well, perhaps some of those types have been reading about the other perception of Fred Thompson and figure that's the way to go:
http://www.gopprogress.com/story/2007/4/8/14444/49141
Posted by: Michelle on May 9, 2007 12:44 AM