That's what the headlines should be reading if there was any interest in reporting political realities.
As has been mentioned, Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney barely scraped together 31.5 percent of the paltry 14,000 votes cast during Saturday's Iowa Straw Poll. With him being the only one of the "Big Four" candidates who bothered to participate in the contest the fact that almost as many folks selected Mike Huckabee (18 percent) and Sam Brownback (15 percent) is damning.
Rudy Guiliani and John McCain - for obvious reasons - skipped the poll along with Fred Thompson who "hasn't officially declared his candidacy".
Some of the news reports are falsely portraying this as evidence that Romney is gaining street cred with conservatives in the party. Quite the contrary. The poll participants broke overwhelmingly away from the Massachusetts politician.
Basically what was told to Romney is given the choice between him and a group of political nobodies by a two-to-one margin, the poll participants said "We like these guys who don't have a rat's-ass-chance of winning over you and your money, pretty boy."
This is despite the deep network of support the campaign has tried to build in Iowa.
Romney has been notable for having some of the best supporters that money can buy. Saturday's straw poll was no different with the Massachusetts governor reportedly paying the $35 entrance fee for followers to take part.
Despite having no competition he wasn't even able to get one-third of the vote. For this straw poll to have been any sort of victory Romney needed to pull around half; especially when he's punching with palookas who are polling in the low single digits.
Like all politicians, Romney will have his handlers spin the results as a victory. That's what all office seekers do. It must be pretty disappointing that more followers nationally aren't flocking to his banner despite his fund-raising ability and polished on-stage presence.
Mike Huckabee, in his audition for Vice President is quite obviously playing up the red ribbon he won at the fair and is hoping that it will jump-start his campaign. But when you get to play bass guitar with Elvis Presley any result is a winner.
Even more sad is the glum tale of Tommy Thompson. He received seven percent and came in sixth. The former Wisconsin governor said he would base whether to continue his presidential campaign on how he fared in Ames. That's kind of like Captain and Tennille deciding what color to paint their "Muskrat Love" comeback tour bus based on how much fan mail they receive at Universal Records.
That Thompson was betting on the results of a political anachronism shows what a waste of oxygen his campaign has been.
Why any attention is paid to this corn-fed dog-and-pony show is ridiculous. Historically the results of the Iowa Straw Poll have always been a joke. This is the poll that had Pat Robertson winning with 33 percent of the vote in 1987 and gave Phil Gramm as much support as Bob Dole in 1995. To be sure Steve Forbes got 20 percent of the vote here once. But that was in 1999!
However, of course, there is more to the story than that he has won: his relatively weak opponents, the absurd time and money he's spent, the meaningless of the entire exercise ...
I do think however that you are not giving him enough credit. He still picked up a big part of the vote. You say a two-to-one margin isn't very good, but Bush got only 31 percent in 2000. McCain had not announced and came in almost last. Steve Forbes came in second, followed by Libby Dole.
So you could also say, Basically what was told to Bush in 2000 is given the choice between him and a group of political nobodies by a two-to-one margin, the poll participants said "We like these guys who don't have a rat's-ass-chance of winning over you and your money, pretty boy." Yet Bush went on to win the nomination and two terms in the White House.
I am not saying this makes Romney the front-runner. I am just saying Bush faced opposition about as weak in 2000, and got the same percentage, so your claim that 31 percent against weak competition means Romney "lost" doesn't make any sense to me.
Posted by: pudge on August 12, 2007 06:32 PMI agreed with every word until the last paragraph. You got something against fly-over country, the heart of America?
Here is my favorite observation of yours:
The poll participants broke overwhelmingly away from the Massachusetts politician....
Basically what was told to Romney is given the choice between him and a group of political nobodies by a two-to-one margin, the poll participants said "We like these guys who don't have a rat's-ass-chance of winning over you and your money, pretty boy."
Exactly! That's what most Republicans who are paying as close attention are saying, and btw, don't feel the others are "political nobodies," but know that you do.
What really should take place now is a debate on national TV between the top 4 (maybe 5) of this straw poll. That would give the voters a better handle on where they really stand. In most of the debates, all of them but Romney have been basically ignored. In the last debate, it took 20 minutes into it, before Tancredo (who placed 4th in the straw poll, very closely behind 2nd and 3rd) got his first question and he had to interupt George Step-on-all-of-us to get it. We should stop letting the media decide for us who the front-runners are and seriously take a look at what the others have to say.
Posted by: Michelle on August 12, 2007 07:18 PMThe last meaningful polling data in Iowa from the U of I, had Romney with 28% of the vote from probably caucus goers. The other big three combined for 22% and undecideds 27%. Since the other big three had only about 3% of the straw vote, the real battle of the Ames straw vote was who was going to get the 27% undecideds and 19% that wasn't voting for the other big three. Romney ended up with 31% of the straw vote, meaning he only took 3 of the 46 points that the real battle was over at the straw vote.
Huckabee, Brownback and Tancredo were the ones who took the lion's share of the undecideds and the other big three's share. It is clear that Romney and his millions spent will have little to no affect on a vast majority of conservative republicans. His people know that for all practical purpose, Romney failed at the Ames Straw Poll. Only the most amazing spin on his part could turn this into more votes in other states.
Huckabee is in a position now that if everything breaks his way (which would include limiting the next debate to 5 or 6 candidates) he could start getting the interest of the Republicans. Money won't flow in, but it looks like Romney is going to need his millions from his own pocket book if he is going to have a chance to pass up Rudy and Fred Thompson in Florida or the Super Tuesday states.
Posted by: Doug on August 12, 2007 07:33 PMI hope (and think) that those among us will do that. And in the meantime, let's have apple pie, say hi to mom, and...how about them M's!
Posted by: Tom on August 12, 2007 07:40 PMThe question posed: "Will media preference and big money always dominate the Republican Party?"
Stefan belittled the poll, as have most "mainstream" types... based on its results. That's telling. It is precisely the tack taken by the "Gore actually won!" crowd. They dispute the actual election based on a process that was designed to only predict the election... by informally questioning a small sampling of people, no less. It would be like finding life on Mars and ignoring it simply because we didn't previously think it would be there.
That self-fulfilling "viability" prophesy has become a fine art.
The Media tells us who is "viable" and when an actual vote tells us something different, well, the vote must be in error!
The fact that Romney, McCain and Giuliani are candidates who, if the truth about them is learned, will be unacceptable to, at minimum 30% of the voters who voted for George Bush is like a blaring warning siren going off...
In a deaf ward. (no pun intended)
We are being told that all three of these Moderate/Left candidates are the "viable" ones by a small faction of our Party that would rather lose than support a conservative. They recognize a life-and-death struggle when they see one.
All the RINOs know that their careers are in jeopardy when conservatives win and act accordingly. The rise of principled conservatism is the death of what makes them tick.
They hate us.
They are the most unethical faction in American Politics. The worst Democrats are at least doing what their base wants, but the RINO Republicans are traitors who only succeed by lies, deceiving their own supporters.
The success of the Republican Party depends on conservatives gaining control of Party leadership and then giving control of the process to the grassroots. If a single Presidential candidate could do what Ronald Reagan did, think of what a whole Party standing on those principles could accomplish!
We need to end all open primaries and assure that it is the core of our Party (the ones who do enough homework to know that Romney is a tin man and Giuliani is a Democrat) that get to decide who we run for the world's most important office.
We need to find out who on the Washington Republican State Committee voted to open 51% of our Presidential Nominating votes for the Democrats to decide and get them out of office.
Permanently.