Mitt Romney won today's Iowa straw poll.
Romney is an impressive candidate and may ultimately win the nomination, but the respective 2nd, 3rd and 4th place showings for Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback and Tom Tancredo suggests to me that the group which participated in this particular straw poll isn't particularly representative of Republican caucus/primary voters.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 11, 2007 08:40 PM | Email ThisAll 4 of the these candidates campaigned as a pro-life anti-illegal immigration conservative (whether or not that's the reality with all of them is a different story) and that they did so well as a result, shows that Iowa straw poll voters are representative of caucus/primary voters.
Posted by: Michelle on August 11, 2007 09:07 PMStill, the straw poll will serve two functions:
1. Romney continues to demonstrate organizational strength. He joins Thompson, Guliani and McCain as real contenders. (Yes, I think McCain is still alive.)
2. The battle to be the conservative alternative is down to two: Huckabee and Brownback.
Posted by: Chris Vance on August 11, 2007 09:43 PMStill, this thread will serve two functions:
1. Romney continues to demonstrate how little you can accomplish and still spend twenty million dollars.
2. The battle to be the conservative poster on this thread is down to two: Michelle and I.
Posted by: Doug Parris on August 11, 2007 09:53 PMGiuliani will win the nomination
He will face Hillary the Tax you to death Socialist
Let's take it from there!
Posted by: GS on August 11, 2007 09:58 PMDoug,
Why didn't Thompson or Tancredo win in Ames?
Posted by: Chris Vance on August 11, 2007 10:09 PMhttp://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/34000.html
Clinton, Giuliani out front in N.J.
Among Republicans polled, 61 percent said they would support Giuliani in the Feb. 5 primary. Arizona Sen. John McCain was a distant second, with 10 percent support. Former U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson was third, with 8 percent.
Posted by: John Bailo on August 11, 2007 10:17 PMIf someone comes up with a reasonable analysis of the cost per straw-vote for these candidates I'd like to see it. How much time and money has Romney spent in Iowa to get his 4400, or Huckabee his 2600? I heard Romney spent close to $1000 per vote while Huckabee didn't spend advertising dollars.
Where does that leave Romney? Well, in the last poll of likely caucus goers (U. of Iowa) he got 28% and Huckabee 2% with Rudy, Fred and McCain totaling 22% and undecideds 27%. Ames straw poll comes out where Romney spent big and of the approx. 46% left out there (the polling's undecided plus the support of Rudy, Fred and McCain left off the table), Romney only picked up 3 of the 46% to move to 31%. Tancredo picked up 9 of those points, Brownback 11 and Huckabee 16 of those points.
That tells me something, even with Romney's heavy spending his supporters, including Eric, have to be scratching their heads. How did Romney not pick up any significant amount of the votes that were available for picking up? Is his support tapped out? He could spend and spend and spend, but in the end has is polling numbers topped off?
My guess is there is a large percentage of Republican voters that just plain won't vote for him for one of various reasons. Just as there is a percentage that won't vote for any other specific candidate for their reasons, it just looks like of the 46% of the voters that were left on the table, Romney only picking up 3 of the 46, is a frightening scenario for someone who worked his tail off and is putting his candidacy on the line for success there.
Posted by: Doug on August 11, 2007 10:46 PMWho gets to decide who is and is not a real Republican? You?
The people in Ames seemed to consider Romney a real Republican.
Posted by: Chris Vance on August 11, 2007 10:46 PMI'm not trying to be a jerk, but at some point you've got to come to grips with reality.
Ron Paul, John Cox, Tom Tancredo, Tommy Thompson, Duncan Hunter have no chance, whatsoever of being the Republican nominee. They register at less than 2% in all of the early primaries/caucuses. Enlighten us all; how can you argue that any of the above have even a remote chance at capturing the nomination.
Posted by: Butch on August 11, 2007 10:50 PMBut, you know what?
I also want to WIN.
And this time around WINNING will most likely mean beating the Hillabeast.
The pragmatists who want to WIN will stand up and ask who can do that. The purists won't care because by gosh nothing is more important than their purity.
I seem to remember something about winning the battle but losing the war.
Futhermore, what defines the great big IT for the purist?
Abortion? How much can a President really affect that?
Ditto homosexuality.
Ditto most, if not all, cultural issues.
We need a candiate who can win.
We need one that can be a leader in tough times.
We need a leader that is firm in his core beliefs even if individually we may disagree with some of them.
Hells bells those that can't find the PERFECT candidate to meet every single one of their requirements need to pony up to the bar and join the race.
That said MY purist candidate is still Newt followed by a very impressive but very unlikely Mike Huckabee.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on August 11, 2007 11:17 PMHe's lying, of course.
read: Romney and face.
read: Romney and lies.
It's "losing the battle, but winning the war."
I don't know about purists (those who haven't found a candidate "pure" enough), but I can speak for me. There are two "Big IT"'s for me, and I support a candidate who is right on both of those. Right to Life (it was the founders' "big IT" too) and sovereignty/immigration/national security issues. If we can as a party, pull together for a candidate who stands for those, we can WIN.
Hang it up if we can't. I'd love to win the battle AND the war.
Posted by: Michelle on August 11, 2007 11:32 PMMake that three. Ahem.
Posted by: ERNurse on August 11, 2007 11:50 PMWe who are about to be trumped salute thee!
Posted by: Doug Parris on August 12, 2007 12:06 AMAs it is right now, we don't need a lemming that looks like us to lead us over a cliff, we need a black furry one with a white stripe down it's back to help us fight off the wolves. However, if world events change for the better in the next few months, then we can get that lemming that we agree with and put up a good fight.
Posted by: Doug on August 12, 2007 12:17 AMIf, however our fellow GOP-ers do not choose either of those, none of us can simply pout, have a tantrum or just "hang it up" because that would guarantee a win for the forces of darkness, aka the Hillabeast.
We cannot easily or soon come back from that particular darkness BUT we can most definitely move forward with our less than perfect candidate.
Hope for the best, prepare for the worst... and pray, pray for mercy on this country.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on August 12, 2007 12:53 AMWhen those folks are gone, we can all concentrate a bit more on the likely new entries, the ones we already have issues with and compare them against the forces of darkness.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on August 12, 2007 01:01 AMThere is a reason for that and it is the control of the Repbulican Party by leftist saboteurs who put forward disingenuous liberal candidates and assured them all the money. Any conservative who ran was cheated, slandered and called "non-viable."
As was predictable, the whole State moved, inexorably, leftward, there being no counterbalance to the media and Democrats. Republicans ran as "me too, but cheaper" leaving unchallenged the philosophical assumptions of liberalism. Dems embraced the Environmental Communism of the Growth Management Act. We helped. They asserted spending as the measure of concern. A Republican majority raised Taxes. They proposed destroying public education with HB1209. We complied. They proposed forcing private pharmacies to dispense abortifacients. Luke Esser agreed. Democrats prospered, essentially (that is to say on principle) unopposed, and real Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh conservatives gradually, over about a decade, withdrew from State politics, recognizing futility when they saw it.
I saw the broken remnants of a great conservative movement scattered across the state, rusting in the sunset.
Now we can't win anything and the architects of our demise advise us "get more money!" But how? No one believes in us. "Work harder!" But everyone is burnt out digging deeper and deeper pits of futility that cannot possibly succeed.
Now they suggest the same strategy for the nation.
"Move left and win!" they tell us.
"Give up your 'purity' and win!"
"Lower your standards and win!"
Follow the Washington State model!
"But how? No one believes in us."
No one believed in conservatives prior to Reagan, either. It just takes one articulate conservative leader to change things.
Things are just starting to get interesting.
Ken
Dallas
Not likely, but it would be too funny if Edwards won the Democrat primary.
Posted by: Andy on August 12, 2007 07:05 AMWhat kind of choice would that be?
Might as well stay home.
Posted by: Independent Voter on August 12, 2007 08:43 AMWhat kind of choice would that be?
Answer: An easy one for the 5-8% of undecideds who determine the outcome of every election.
Are you saying you'd choose Hillary?
If not that then they should continue speaking on issues generally speaking and seek to continue to increase the general knowledge regarding conservative principles.
But I also agree with Doug to an extent: We ought not sell our souls for the purpose of pragmatism. Yes, we need to win, but we need to win with the right person too. It is quite possibly too late to introduce someone with a chance of winning this election (and that includes Fred Thompson, the horses have already left the gates and he is still parading around the paddocks), but we can work to develop a candidate who will be the right one for next time. I don't really want any of these people being president for eight years, four will be quite enough (Except perhaps Huckabee, but he has a slim enough chance), and so we need a plan:
First, educate people and increase the general awareness of conservative principles and their superiority to liberal ideas.
Second, become VERY vocal about what is and isn't acceptable at all levels of government. This includes bloat, bureaucracy, politics, legislation, regulations, etc... Everything the government currently dabbles in we need to scrutinize and start talking about, LOUDLY.
Third, we need to develop people on the state and national level who are of the caliber necessary to present in the next presidential cycle. Due to the early nature of this cycle, the next could be even earlier, we may have two and one-half years before names start being thrown around seriously.
That's my plan... What's yours?
Posted by: Matthew on August 12, 2007 02:41 PMMatthew,
If we go with your theory that none of the candidates other than "Huckabee and up" can win and pick one of those besides Huckabee, and he goes on to win the general, what makes you think it will be so easy to defeat a Republican incumbent in 4 years with a more acceptable candidate developed at the state level?
I guess stranger things have happened, but the chances for our party backing a challenger to our own incumbent are pretty slim. Even when grassroots Republicans are fed up with their Republican office holders, the GOP Establishment protects its incumbents at all costs. IE: Lincoln Chafee, Arlen Specter. What I'm saying is, this is the year we can start from scratch. Many of us are tired of supporting the lesser of two evils, especially when there's a good alternative.
Posted by: Michelle on August 12, 2007 06:59 PMFirst of all why are Ron Paul supporters whackos? Because of our beleif in the actually following the constitution and conservative princples?
Anyways ignoring the rude comment, It is hardly the end of the road, but the begining! He has shown that with less than a weeks time spent in Iowa and a fraction of the money he was able to get nearly 10% of the vote which is about 5-10 times what he gets in those flawed 'scientific polls'. When looking at votes per dollar spent in Iowa Dr Paul got the most bang for his buck and with more money rolling in everyday, he has shown he most definitly has a chance at winning the primary!
Sorry to disappoint you but you are only going to see lots more of us Ron Paul Whackos!
Posted by: Travis Pahl on August 12, 2007 07:51 PMFred Thompson must get in the race and show he can live up to people's hopes. If he does not meet expectations, I expect his support to shift to Huckabee. I also expect a significant portion of the undecideds to shift to Huckabee as they actually start paying attention. I think Huckabee's performance in Iowa shows that he is a better candidate than Romney (despite money). The only reason Huckabee has not done better raising funds is that he seems like such a long shot.
I will be watching Huckabee and Fred closely...
Posted by: Dan on August 13, 2007 05:51 AMDoug Parris, since the only other conservative posting on SP refuses to answer this question, if your 'guy' or 'gal' whoever they may be is not nominated, are you voting for the Republican nominee? Simple question.
Your answer or non-answer will speak volumes.
Posted by: swatter on August 13, 2007 07:03 AM I think you misunderstand what the 11th
commandment actually is.I won't go it just
now, suffice to say its not as you described.
As to whether I'm voting for whoever the
Republican candidate ends being. Let me answer
it this way. I have certain standards to which
I live my life.I will not compromise them for
anyone.If that means in particular races that
I don't vote at all. Then so be it.
Work like heck to get your guy nominated, but if you lose, support the nominee. If you can't do that, bye-bye and lose all credibility.
I notice Doug Parris hasn't answered yet.
Posted by: swatter on August 13, 2007 02:42 PMTake your most important issue (the very reason you consider politics to be an important enterprise), and suppose the Republican nominee has the identical position to Hillary but uses "conservative" language to sell it to Republicans. Would you vote for that Republican nominee?
Your answer or non-answer will speak volumes.
Posted by: Michelle on August 13, 2007 08:24 PMHillary has no scruples, has no position and would do everything to destroy this country, both militarily and economically. But, your premise to me was just that.
Because there is a better than good chance she will get elected, and like a person with a terminal illness, I am getting my affairs in order.
I don't think any of the others in this cycle are anything like that.
Than why not support one that won't alienate a large portion of the base?
I was unaware that I was dodging a question.
But the question posed, shorn of its trappings, is a basic question of political philosophy:
"If a Democrat wins the Republican Nomination, will I vote for him?"
Squatter makes it clear that he would vote for such a person and that he thinks that is the only morally correct answer, but, of course, he would much prefer to word it differently.
He asserts, without argument but with great passion, that any member of the current Republican field is better than Hillary Clinton.
He is so passionate about this unsupported assumption that he pronounces two curses on anyone who disagrees with him:
Curse one: If we disagree with Swatter we can no longer consider ourselves "a Reaganite or a conservative,"
Curse two: If we do not act on his (un-articulated) assumption (by voting for "anything that is not Hillary") we will somehow be banished ("bye-bye") AND regarded as fools ("lose all credibility").
There is so much here to correct. Forgive me if I just pick a few items.
The first thing I should mention is that Squeaker... or squatter... or whatever the current stage name is, is pronouncing curses on real people while he remains a Dufflepud. Michelle and Phil and I are all identifiable, real people who take responsibility for what we say.
"Squatter," by contrast, does not reveal his identity so that he can throw mud from his hiding place, without consequences, like a roadside sniper. That is fine if all you want to do is discuss ideas and philosophy, but Swatter wants to make this personal without any liability to himself should he be shown to be a fool or a liar. He can dish it out but he can't take it. That is the behavior of an intellectual terrorist and a coward. He wants to question the behavior of real people while he, himself hides in the shadows.
He has no right to ask such questions of adults unless and until he is willing to come out from behind his momma and face the same music as those he questions.
Nevertheless, I will take his challenge, though he has not earned the right to make it, despite being continually dissuaded, by my peeps, from lowering myself to contend with Dufflepuds. Swabber is so wrong on this one, there is virtually no liability to speak of.
There are worse Democrats than Hillary Clinton. To put the Swatter question into philosophical perspective, the way he has posed it, we must assume that one of them (someone worse than Hillary) is the Republican nominee. We'll call him, oh, how about... "Twisted A. Sister."
Why do we have to assume the worst? Because Swatter is asking if we would support a candidate based solely on his having won the Republican nomination, no other criteria. He wants to color the question with the implication, ENTIRELY UNPROVED, that Mr. Sister, based solely on the name "Republican," is better than any Democrat, but he will not allow us to make ANY demands on Mr. Sister at all.
We cannot ask where Twisted stands on illegal immigration, taxes, the war or even the basic right not to be murdered. Swatter knows that we care about the basic standards of civilization, but wants us to forget all that in deference to only one qualification: the word "Republican." So it is only fair that we hypothesize circumstances that are as bad as would be possible to accurately weigh that philosophical proposition on its merits alone.
If he wants to defend a real, as opposed to hypothetical, candidate as superior to Hillary, he may do so, but that is an entirely separate matter - not the question he actually asked.
Suppose, then, this Mister Sister has succeeded in building a career in the Republican Party by a combination of dishonesty, astute strategic choices and (of course) a natural advantage in dealing with the media. Suppose his path was facilitated in one of the most liberal places imaginable like, say, Massachusetts or New York City (hard to imagine, I know) where Trotsky might have been considered "conservative" by comparison. Suppose that Mr. Sister was brilliant to begin with and blessed with a silver tongue, the ability to dance, like Clinton, among issues, convincing the "some of the people" that you can fool "all of the time" and all of the people that you can fool some of the time that he was on their side, and in that moment (the brief one in which he commanded their attention) that he shared their most fundamental beliefs, and with such a charisma that they deeply wanted to believe him.
Further, let us suppose that it could be, literally, proved that he was a liar. That Mr. Twisted Sister had, innumerable times, taken both sides of an issue or even just a conservative one with his mouth, but that his POLICY in his career as the head of his ultra-liberal State or City, while slightly to the right of the Communists who had preceded and succeeded him, was consistently diabolical, in direct opposition to the postitions he appeared to champion in his multi-million dollar Presidential campaign, the campaign that, coupled with a seriously divided conservative field, succeeded in winning the nomination.
Suppose we knew all these things for a fact. We knew that on policy he was worse than Hillary. But, of course, we didn't have the 150 million dollars or so it would take to run a national campaign to let people know in the primary and any message that was inadequately funded was regarded as insignificant.
Would we vote for a "Republican" in name only?
Well, obviously, that would be stupid.
Someone worse than Hillary would not only screw up the country for at least four years, he would also ruin the ability of the country to recover, to change direction when they saw what he was, because he would simultaneously ruin the Republican Party while the Democrats would be catching up with Mr. Sister, making sure they were as evil as he next time around. (All this has previously happened here in Washington State, 1964-1977.)
We have, at least three "Twisted Sisters" vying for the 2008 Republican Nomination for President. If one of them is elected, the nation may never recover. If nominated, I will not vote for them and neither will a huge plurality of our top conservative leaders (who will not be as open about this as I am, particularly in discussion with a Dufflepud).
They understand that a Democrat does more damage in office if he is also the head of the Republican Party.