The Candidates
Jon Martin brings us the results of the “combined question — where voters’ first and second choices were added together.”
Rudy Giuliani 34%
Mitt Romney 30%
Newt Gingrich 30%
Sam Brownback 24%
John McCain 20%
This seems to be a better representation of the depth of support that each candidate had at CPAC. What does everyone else think?
March 3rd, 2007 at 8:48 pm
It might work only if you weight the numbers where first place gets the most weight. However, by how much?
Who wants to rally behind the person who garners the most 2nd place votes?
March 3rd, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Yeah, let’s combine the first and second choices because in any election we get to vote twice! Wait… maybe I’m wrong.
March 3rd, 2007 at 8:52 pm
It’s funny to see all the denial. Why can’t people just admit Romney basically hit a grandslam this weekend with his speech and the poll? It’s not the end of everything. Let’s first say his speech wasn’t important, then the LATimes insiders poll and now the straw poll.
March 3rd, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Jason,
Isn’t “grandslam” a bit much? While I was extremely happy to see that McCain won the Spartanburg Straw Poll the other day, I understood that it was almost meaningless in terms of the outcome of the race. The same thing goes for the CPAC poll, it’s an impressive win for Romney but nothing more. I know the Romneyites are desperate for some good news, but let’s not go overboard here.
March 3rd, 2007 at 9:14 pm
A grandslam infers that you won every thing possible. He clearly had the best speech there by all accounts (pro and non pro Romney), wins over the bloggers there by giving what any considered a stellar interview, and wins the straw poll. I don’t see what he lost, so I confortable with a grandslam at CPAC.
March 3rd, 2007 at 9:15 pm
sorry about the poor editing.
March 3rd, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Agreed LJ. I’m clearly as big a supporter as Romney as you’ll find. But I think Romney’s aided more when we assess the impact of various events realistically. Romney delivered an extremely well received at a very important event. He’s also had a good week generally, with both McCain and Giuliani taking significant hits. But while this event probably assured that Romney’s recent struggles don’t cause him to drop into the second tier, but he’s still clearly trailing Giuliani. I don’t know what to think of McCain’s recent struggles, but I’m not ready to vault Romney past him just yet.
March 3rd, 2007 at 9:44 pm
I am just having fun with the grandslam thing. I need to remember everyone is taking things to heart right now, more so than in weeks past. As a contributor I should hold my self to higher standard, and I will. No more grandslam barbs. Here are my thoughts
Romney’s showing in the straw poll and the speech have an important meaning IMO:
1. His speech shows he can speak and win over skeptics. He clearly did that. I read several stories of former skeptics now leaning to him. KLO herself had grown skeptical to a certain degree, and she swung herself back. I would also add to this Erick from Redstate, Captains Quarters and Outside the Beltway. All of them were impressed on the record and off.
2. He got huge press out of this. I don’t know if it will translate into the polls, but it gives him momentum. Right now it’s on Drudge and WaPo.
3. Like it or not, McCain has had a crappy weekend. I know it’s not cool to say his campaign is over (and I don’t think it is) but several people (again Erick from RS and Dick Morris) have begun to talk that way. McCain is worse off today than he was last Saturday. There is something symbolic for conservatives to see him announce on Letterman and diss CPAC within a day of each other. McCain supporters may not like that or think it’s fair, but unfortunately it’s already out there.
4. CPAC will help Romney woo potential staffers, endorsements and bring in much needed cash. It definitely doesn’t hurt.
5. Romney’s campaign pledges to veto spending and fight McCain-Feingold are terrific promises which will win him votes, and the latter can’t help McCain.
6. Brownback and Huckabee, the anti-Romney candidates, will no doubt begin rethinking his campaign. He is making a run nearly totally on being the anti-Romney and this weekend he learned it doesn’t quite work with the base.
7. The biggest thing to learn from Giuliani’s speech, is he can quote Reagan, it doesn’t hurt, but in the end he won’t last long skating around social conservatives. Remember most of the straw poll votes were cast before he spoke I don’t think his and Romney’s speech’s really helped Giuliani’s numbers.
I think that’s about it.
March 3rd, 2007 at 11:03 pm
I’ve never quite figured out what compells a man like Sam Brownback to pursue the presidency. He’s a very nice guy to be sure, deeply religious, and generally conservative, but how much of a bubble does he have to be in to think he can win the primary, let alone the general election? Has he never heard that he’s not exactly “dynamic”? Or that, unfairly, most people outside the Republican Party view him as the embodiment of Theocrat? Maybe he wants to be VP? Who knows. But I don’t see very clearly what he offers to the race, besides a discredited compassionate conservatism.
I’d probably vote for him in the general election, although I think he’s a complete lightweight on defense issues, including opposing the surge, and fiscal policy. But at least he’s not avowedly liberal (more like accidentally so) like Huckabee. But I tend to agree with you Jason. Brownback might be starting to come to grips with these failings. Huckabee, for such a charismatic guy, is doing an absolutely abysmal job creating press, building organizations, and probably raising money. I’d become somewhat worried about him after seeing jim in the Daily Show, Meet the Press, and The Stephen Colbert show. Luckily, he doesn’t seem to have the slightest idea what he’s doing. Hopefully they stay in long enough that they divide the “No Rudy McRomney” vote, and then those jokers come to their senses and support Romney.
March 3rd, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Another thing that strikes me as extremely significant about these results is, Romney’s the only candidate who got significant support (20% or more) from all three branches of conservative tent. Giuliani and McCain flopped badly (8% a piece) among those who primarily care about cultural values. Mitt did virtually identically in all three (21 in economic, 22 in traditional values, 21 in national security). This is the same stuff we’ve seen in things like the GOP Bloggers poll. No particular segment of the Republican Party’s coalition finds him unnacceptable (though certainly certain members within those factions do). For all DaveG’s and Kavon’s fierces insistences that social issues don’t matter, we’re unquestionably better off as a party when everyone within our tent can find something to like in our candidate. There’s also another possibility for the fact that Romney consistently puts up these almost “Rorsharchian” numbers. He’s such a fantastic political talent, and so seemingly serious, that he doesn’t have a natural consistency nor a natural opposition group. We’ve seen results that suggest this before, in things like the Rasmussen polls (where equal percentages of people said he was moderate and conservative) and those state polls, where his support among independents matches his support among Republicans in the primary. These are the types of signs that Romney can, and will, win a general election matchup against someone like Hillary, who enjoys nothing so near to broad appeal.
March 4th, 2007 at 2:55 am
Jason,
Citing Dick Morris is unreliable for predictions. The man is the John C Dvorak of the political world (computer columnist Dvorak never thought the mouse would catch on and thinks Apple will switch to Windows for their computers). Dick Morris is nothing more than a political weathervane that still manages to point in the wrong direction.
March 4th, 2007 at 8:46 am
BarkTwiggs
Like I said in my 3rd point, I don’t think McCain is over, but he isn’t getting any better. I also think having a couple prominent voices saying that you are over doesn’t really help.
And I know about Dick Morris, I can’t stand the guy. I have no idea why he gets the air time he does on fox. But his artice was picked up my a lot of news services and that isn’t a good thing when you are trying to woo doners and campaign staff.
March 4th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
I’d like to see someone take all the first choices and count them once, and then all the second choices and count them .5…
March 4th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
I just did what i mentioned earlier:
Romney 26
Giuliani 25
Gingrich 22
Brownback 19
McCain 16
1st Choice = 1
2nd Choice = .5
March 4th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
How about we take the actual results (Romney 358, Rudy 290) and subtract the 200 students that Mitt bused in from across America to vote for him? That would bring the total to Rudy 290, Mitt 158
?
March 4th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
Jason: Whomever the candidate ends up to be (on our side) you should be thankful for Dick Morris - - he will stop at nothing to show Hillary’s true colors. No one else is as good at that!
March 5th, 2007 at 2:14 am
KT says
Without all of Romney’s “magical organization” he would not have won…
So doesn’t that show his electability? Surely to win the Presidency you have to have a good organisation in place?
Furthermore, what on earth is the point of combining first and second choices? (other than to have Rudy in front, of course, which given he’s the frontrunner is hardly a surprise). On the Dem side Vilsack was known as “everybodys second favourite candidate” - didn’t get him far…
March 5th, 2007 at 11:09 am
JayPe,
I am speaking of the quality of the vote. Does the fact that romney loaded the place with his own supporters speak for anything???
March 5th, 2007 at 11:10 am
FURTHERMORE…Rudy had none there (implanted or otherwise) because he was a last minute invite. I think that shows his (Rudy’s) true strength.
Go ahead…start whining people
March 5th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
KT, has a point. Rudy really did come out the winner at CPAC - because Romney was trying REALLY hard to get the CPAC people on his side. Rudy didn’t bring his whole campaign circus, and almost beat Romney anyway!
March 5th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
KT,
Nobody’s taking the CPAC poll as a measure of Romney’s public support. But asking how Romney does without his organizational advantage is a bit like asking how GWB would have done in 2000 without his fundraising. You may have a good point, but an irrelevant one given the realities of the race.
March 5th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
murphy,
I understand…thanks for putting that in professional terms for me. I completely understand my irrelevance on this BLOG. (hehe just kidding)
March 5th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Yes, KT, in the big scheme of things it would be a stretch to call any of us extremely relevant on the race. I was certainly refering to the relevance of the particular post you brought up, not the relevance of you.