October 21, 2007
This is why you win straw polls
You don’t try to win straw polls as proof of your national success among a group of voters. You don’t try to win straw polls as proof of momentum. You don’t try to win straw polls as solid proof of your chances at victory.
You DO try to win straw polls to gain free press to accomplish all three of the above. In other words: straw polls are a means to an end and not the end itself.
Want proof? While blog readers wallow in the odd configuration and minutia of the FRC straw poll, the rest of the country sees this:
MSNBC:
CNN:
DRUDGEREPORT:
ABCNEWS:
FOXNEWS:
CBSNEWS:
NYTIMES:
http://race42008.com/2007/10/21/this-is-why-you-win-straw-polls/trackback/
October 21st, 2007 at 7:36 am
[...] post by Justin Hart and software by Elliott [...]
October 21st, 2007 at 8:46 am
While no one can take away Huck’s excellent showing, as I pointed out elsewhere, it really shouldn’t be a huge surprise. A Baptist minister wowing a crowd of Values Voters is not exactly the upset of the century. I think that a Northeastern Mormon getting extremely positive reaction is an equally big story, especially for all those who bought in to the “he can’t get the support of the Evangelicals because he’s a Mormon” meme.
Oh, and for all those trying to disparage Mitt’s overall win, little differences like the onsite polls being closed after Romney’s speech Friday night while they were open after Huck’s on Saturday matter more than just a little. Again, I’m not trying to take away from Huck’s showing. He blew most of the candidates out of the water. But neither should any minimize Romney’s accomplishment. The fact that voters (who were at the conference as well) chose to vote online, shouldn’t give some lesser weight to their vote, either.
October 21st, 2007 at 9:02 am
Exactly—And furthermore, EVERY candidate had the SAME opportunity to rally their supporters to cast a vote for their “guy� in the race. Both Romney and Paul were, to different measures, able to do just that. Why, with his vast numbers of supporters, wasn’t the supposed “frontrunner�, Giuliani able to do better than he did?
In this political climate, the next presidential election will be won or lost on organization. It will be won by get-out-the-vote efforts that will require district by district analysis and street by street, house by house execution. These GOTV efforts will mean votes just as Romney’s GOTV efforts did in this straw poll. Would anybody criticize a vote cast for a conservative candidate because it was cast due to GOTV efforts in a general election? No. Congratulations on your victory, Mitt.
October 21st, 2007 at 9:30 am
Again, Romney did not get the approval or nod from evangelicals, he got it from whoever wanted to
pay to vote. They could have all been Northeastern Mormons. The online poll was a sham. Again, if
you want to use the online poll, then add them together and HUCKABEE STILL WINS.
October 21st, 2007 at 9:35 am
Thanks for the perspective Justin.
Those are some positive headlines (a hard thing for any GOP top tier candidate to get from the MSM).
Also, I think it’s “sour grapes” that people have continuously commplained about Mitt “buying” straw polls. Everyone knows the rules for these straw polls and can go for a win. In fact, to not “compete” just lend credence to a knowledge that many know THEY CAN’T win these straw polls (e.g. Rudy and McCain at Ames SP). Also, Mitt’s dough didn’t help him one bit in this FRC straw poll (no busing in of people or buying people’s tickets, etc . . . ). That is newsworthy, eh? . . . “Romney wins straw poll without buses”
October 21st, 2007 at 9:38 am
James,
You’re missing the point. And the folks who rallied for the online votes was the organization “Evangelicals for Mitt”. Mitt’s own campaign didn’t do it.
Huckabee did win, but not anything enough to propel him to be the national nominee.
With the closed polls after Romney’s speech and the open ones after Huckabee’s speech as well as the multitude of people who were there that did not vote “on site” - You have no idea how it all went down, you can only cast aspersions at this point.
October 21st, 2007 at 9:44 am
James,
I agree that winning the straw poll does not signify that evangelicals got the approval/nod from the evangelical community lock, stock, and barrell. However, his VERY warm reception to his excellent speech and his growing list of conservative Christian endorsements to seem to say that he’s made SOLID inroads in this area where many pundits and opponents never thought he would. In this sense Mitt is EXCEEDING EXPECTATIONS.
Also, a win in the FRC straw poll does nothing to hurt these perceptions.
And I have to agree with Irish Right above how it shouldn’t be a surprise that Huckabee shines in this FRC forum. He’s a minister by trade and words that inspire the conservative Christian mind have always been his currency.
He didn’t seem to be able to financially capitalize on his surprise 2nd place showing @ Ames very much . . . and I think this strong showing at FRC is a less visible “win” for him than Ames.
October 21st, 2007 at 9:49 am
James,
Are you suggesting that if you combine the onsite and online polls that Huckabee wins? If you are then you need to look closer. The larger numbers released (over 1500 for Mitt and Mike) WERE a combination of onsite and online votes. So Mitt did win that. Just clarifying.
October 21st, 2007 at 9:51 am
Why, with his vast numbers of supporters, wasn’t the supposed “frontrunner�, Giuliani able to do better than he did?
Because Rudy wasn’t trying to convince anyone he had experienced an epiphany and become an honorary member of the group in question. He said he was their ally and made a take-me-as-I-am argument about being honest and authentic.
These GOTV efforts will mean votes just as Romney’s GOTV efforts did in this straw poll. Would anybody criticize a vote cast for a conservative candidate because it was cast due to GOTV efforts in a general election?
If you think the straw polls are a measure of GOTV success, Romney still performs very poorly in terms of bang for the buck. Romney has spent major cash attempting to create a loyal base throughout Iowa and New Hampshire, and this drew in only some 1400 extra votes.
Straw polls and online voting are relatively easy to skew for candidates who try to do so. The drawback is that it smacks of insincere manipulation.
October 21st, 2007 at 9:59 am
Great post. One of the most enlightening I have ever seen. Thank you, Justin.
October 21st, 2007 at 10:17 am
I Heart Huckabee!
October 21st, 2007 at 10:22 am
MarkG,
I’m sure “take-me-as-I-am”, and “honest and authentic” Rudy will remain true to his philosophy and will not try to “manipulate” the caucuses and primaries with get-out-the-vote causes, eh?
I’ll say it again . . . all this dissing of straw poll wins for Romney are just sour grapes. Which candidate wouldn’t have liked to have won this? Why didn’t they all try then? Because if you “try” and still lose big (which would have happened with Rudy and others) it looks much worse than sitting out of the competition. That speaks of cowardice (albeit politically wise and calcuated cowardice)
October 21st, 2007 at 10:23 am
Mark G,
Insincere manipulation? Or, Sour Grapes?! The Romney campaign didn’t shell out major cash to win, and in fact, didn’t shell out any cash at all aside from Mitt’s travel expense. He simply had more people willing to do what was necessary to meet the voting requirements in the straw poll than any other candidate. Both Mitt and Huck came out of this smiling like roses. By contrast, Fred was probably the biggest loser, despite doing many times better than Giuliani or McCain. This was another major indication that Fred can’t run a campaign. He’s not ready for prime-time. BTW, if these things are so easy to skew, why hasn’t Rudy done it? Not just at this one, but at any of them? Does this strike you as sound strategy? The press has anointed him as the prohibitive front-runner, but every time he gets less than 2% at one of these things the public receives data that he’s a loser. This will be confirmed when he finishes 3rd in the Iowa caucuses. The aura of invincibility has been punctured. In January, it will be blown apart.
October 21st, 2007 at 10:28 am
The thing is - Romney did not win. Add all the online and onsite votes together and Huckabee wins.
October 21st, 2007 at 10:33 am
This poll is the equivalent of a Democrat winning a straw poll by the Alliance of Gay Black Women in Wheelcahirs against Firearms.
October 21st, 2007 at 10:35 am
UARazorback and James,
What is this false manipulation coming out of the Huckabee camp? . . .
So Huck won if you count online and onsite together? (you two Huckabee supporters have now said this in this thread)
Are you guys getting this from the campaign folks themselves?
If so, looks like Huckabee’s “organization” is even more loose and unorganized than Fred’s.
Once again, read the facts . . . Romney won the tally of ALL votes (online and onsite COMBINED). I was close . . . but Huckabee did not win the overall straw poll (though I agree he was the “big winner” of the event . . . but that is not surprising).
Please tell us where you guys are getting this info that Huck won when you combine the polls.
October 21st, 2007 at 10:40 am
Cliff - maybe it is for Huckabee, who is a Baptist preacher, but for Mitt Romney, a Mormon, this is a very exciting accomplishment.
Justin - great post!
October 21st, 2007 at 10:43 am
Hey, someone’s gotta toss the Rombots something of substance to chew on from time to time before they drown in their own frothy exuberance.
October 21st, 2007 at 10:44 am
Beth - Giuliani has really opened a lot of people’s eyes to the fact that the Republican Party no longer has to be held hostage by the wingnuts. And his strength of will, I’m afraid, is stronger than theirs. Huillary will eat either Romney or Thompson like a Graham Cracker.
October 21st, 2007 at 10:48 am
I hope there will be a thread on Romney’s appearance on “Face The Nation” this morning. The headline I propose is: “Apparently, You Can’t Ask Mitt Anything.”
Romney sat down for the full half hour with Bob Schieffer, but managed to not say much of anything. Schieffer began with religion. Romney said he accepted all of the teachings of his church, but he did not expect to give a “Kennedy” speech. Schieffer then asked, “I am told that Mormons believe the garden of Eden was in Missouri. Is that true?” Romney said he would leave it to the church to answer what “it” believes. Schieffer was kind enough not to point out that Romney is a bishop in the church and should know LDS doctrine.
Schieffer then asked about Romney’s comment about being the real republican and went through a litany of positions that he had changed. Romney seemed flustered, having to try to make sense of his past statements on abortion, immigration, gay rights, and Reagan-Bush.
It was a good, fair interview, but it revealed obvious weaknesses in Romney’s campaign. With so many issues deserving attention - Iran, Iraq, mortgages, recession concerns, healthcare - not one of those issues came up in the interview because of all the flip-flops.
October 21st, 2007 at 10:54 am
James Boulder - “then add them together and HUCKABEE STILL WINS.”
Another guy who doesn’t know how to do his math. Romney won in total votes. Go here.
http://www.frcaction.org/
Romney’s speach was given
October 21st, 2007 at 10:56 am
In all fairness Pablo, the first half of your post only says that Romney won’t be lured into a debate on theology. He has said that his religion has differences with other Christian faiths, and he has left it at that. Romney has done exactly what Kennedy did, saying that he does not speak for his church, and his church does not speak for him.
As for the flip-flops, I haven’t seen the interview, but I think the flip flop issue is largely dead. His biggest problem was supposed to be Christian Conservatives, and that group is now flocking to Romney in droves.
October 21st, 2007 at 10:58 am
Here are my thoughts on FRC.
First, the voting was not excessively rigged, otherwise Ron Paul would have walked away the clear winner in the online poll. FRC did a fairly good job of weeding out the spam votes as is evident by the minuscule number of online votes cast (~6,000 is not much for an online poll).
Second, I’ve heard that many in attendance voted online anyway, which would explain why attendance was in the 2,000+ range but on site voting less than 1,000. Did the rest not vote? I don’t think so. The online votes are not completely useless.
Third, Romney’s speech was given at 7:30pm, after the polls had closed Friday night (6:00pm). Huckabee’s speech was given while the polls were open, letting all who liked it (and it was the best speech for the crowd) rush over and vote.
Third, Huckabee is “one of us”. That attendees recognized this when he spoke is a no-brainer. A Baptist preacher just gives an excellent sermon, and then these evangelicals rush over and vote for a Mormon. Are you crazy?
So what am I saying? Romney’s win is legitimate and he is a stronger candidate now because of it, but so is Huckabee coming in a very close second. Huckabee’s strength is going to lessen the probability of the social conservatives picking a single candidate.
The bottom line is, Fred is the big looser, and yes, RUDY is the big winner.
It really bites!
October 21st, 2007 at 11:04 am
I think Richard P is right on with this:
The bottom line is, Fred is the big looser, and yes, RUDY is the big winner.
October 21st, 2007 at 11:13 am
PabloZed,
Romney has no need to get into a discussion of his religion’s esoteric beliefs. All religions have them so I’m not sure why they have to come up.
Take Abraham, for example. He was in the process of killing his son by strapping him to a pile of rocks and stabbing him. God told him to do it. Then, right before the knife came down, an angel told him to stop.
This guy would be in a psych ward today if he tried to pull a stunt like this, and he is considered the “father” of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. And you’re worried about Mormons thinking that Christ will come to Missouri? Such a discussion will just blow up in everybody’s face who is religious, so it’s not worth having.
October 21st, 2007 at 11:22 am
“And you’re worried about Mormons thinking that Christ will come to Missouri? Such a discussion will just blow up in everybody’s face who is religious, so it’s not worth having.”
Maybe in a perfect world, Richard P, but not in real life. The tens of millions of Catholics and Protestants are okay with their forehead-scratching beliefs of their religion. That doesn’t mean they’re ready to make the leap to shrug their shoulders at the other forehead-scratching beliefs of the Mormon religion. It’s not fair, but such a discussion would NOT blow up in the faces of everyone who is religious. After all, they take what they believe on FAITH. You can’t refute it. Romney can’t refute it. No one can. Like I said, it’s not fair, but your political antenna is off.
October 21st, 2007 at 11:30 am
Adam, I hear you. I guess I’m agruing that it shouldn’t matter.
October 21st, 2007 at 11:32 am
Drudge is a Romney shill.
http://www.potomacflacks.com/pf/2006/12/romney_hires_rh.html#more
October 21st, 2007 at 11:33 am
And to follow-up, Romney is in a lose-lose situation. If Romney were to get combative and point out these (we’ll continue to call them) “forehead-scratching” beliefs of Catholicism or Christianity, don’t you think he is only going to offend the very people he is trying to woo? He is in a lose-lose situation but HE put himself there! He is the candidate that is trying to make a play for these types. If he ran on his “strong executive” and “turn around” ideas and not this then he wouldn’t be in this predicament.
You can’t say “I’m going to be president and my religious beliefs shound not matter” at the same time you are trying to court these Values Voters that have preconceived notions of what the religious beliefs count for.
October 21st, 2007 at 11:35 am
You’re right though. It shouldn’t matter. My beef with Romney has nothing to do with Mormonism.
October 21st, 2007 at 11:37 am
Cliff (#18), I have known people to choke on graham crackers. Hillary would not be thr first to find herself hacking away on something that everyone feels is easy to swallow.
Pablo (#19), I am shocked that Bob Schieffer would spend that much time trying to learn about mormonism. Can you not go online and read up on it? And why does he spend so much time exploring if Mitt Romney lives every aspect of mormonism? Will Bob vote against Mitt or for Mitt depending on Romney’s adherence to a religion that many people admire but few people want to comply with?
Personally I would find it disheartening to learned that Mitt Romney was unfaithful to his wife or if Mitt Romney drank alcohol or if Mitt did not believe in revelation (as ascribed by their faith). But I do not think Mitt Romney will confess those sins on national television. Rudy or McCain do not have to convert to mormonism. Rudy and McCain should not violate their marriage oaths but I view their sins as less then a mormon who violates that same oath because I hold Mormons to a higher standard.
P.S. I am a Mormon but do not hold that against me. I would not vote for Harry Reid and I did not support Orrin Hatch when he explored a presidential race several years ago.
October 21st, 2007 at 11:37 am
ACT Blog,
Its hard to say his flip-flopping is a dead issue when he just spent half an interview combatting his own words.
Richard P,
Romney certainly has ammunition to go back at Christians regarding some of our rather antiquated beliefs, but that would be suicide. There would be ads comparing Romney to Christopher Hitchens (author of “God is not Great”). As Adam said, its not fair, but its political reality. One additional point. If indeed the Garden of Eden was in Missouri, I would like to know. We could do archeological digs. I can’t prejudge it because I don’t know what evidence LDS relies on.
October 21st, 2007 at 11:43 am
“Its hard to say his flip-flopping is a dead issue when he just spent half an interview combatting his own words.”
LOL.
October 21st, 2007 at 11:44 am
“He is the candidate that is trying to make a play for these types.”
Yes, but so is everybody else, even Rudy. Mormonism puts a big wrinkle in Romney’s plan though. He’s trying to convince them by saying that they share the same “values”, not beliefs. It’s an extremely hard sell.
October 21st, 2007 at 11:47 am
Rudy is trying to MAKE A PLAY for religious conservatives?
Earn their respect and keep 20% of them and get most of the other 80% not to vote against him in the general.
That is not “making a play for” in the way Mitt is. If you equate the two, you don’t have even a rudimentary understanding of this election.
October 21st, 2007 at 11:49 am
“Yes, but so is everybody else, even Rudy.”
Yeah but it’s not the same thing, Richard. Rudy is basically saying “We have some things in common. Let’s focus on that.” Romney is in a little game with Fred and Huck to see who can “Out Christian” whom.
“He’s trying to convince them by saying that they share the same “valuesâ€?, not beliefs. It’s an extremely hard sell.
”
It’s an IMPOSSIBLE sell because to these people “beliefs” and “values” can’t be separated. personally I think it’s just stupid. if I were Romney I would focus on my achievements as governor. To try to win over this people and meekly say “Vote for me. Overcome your bigotry” makes Romney look weak. He shouldn’t even have to engage with these types and any candidate that can keep them at arm’s length will help the GOP in the long run.
October 21st, 2007 at 11:57 am
Adam’s right, Mitt’s whole campaign has gotten mired in the values stuff. His economic credentials are strongest and nobody’s talking about or thinking about them. Then again, this also covers up his non-existent national security credentials, and it is a wartime election.
Mitt is now running on the issues where he has mostly weaknesses. Rudy’s running on his strengths.
October 21st, 2007 at 11:59 am
Adam, you can ignore Richard, he is a Neanderthal who said the other day that gay families don’t exist. (And worse, ascribed that to the conservative position.)
I’d love to see him invited to dinner at the Cheney’s and have those words brought up……….
October 21st, 2007 at 12:01 pm
PabloZed - “If indeed the Garden of Eden was in Missouri, I would like to know. We could do archeological digs. I can’t prejudge it because I don’t know what evidence LDS relies on.”
They probably rely on the same evidence that you rely on when you believe that the flood happened. A guy told you it happened and you believe him. You show me your evidence, and I’ll make the Mormon show his too.
October 21st, 2007 at 12:06 pm
“Adam, you can ignore Richard, he is a Neanderthal who said the other day that gay families don’t exist. (And worse, ascribed that to the conservative position.)”
But they sure do try to exist. My point here is that Gay couples can’t create kids. It’s not my fault, they just can’t do it. Don’t blame me, blame evolution.
October 21st, 2007 at 12:06 pm
I daresay if there had been a Straw Poll of the Florida Republican Party last night Giuliani would have cleaned houese. The crowd was whipped into hyteria when he spoke. Compare the others.
October 21st, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Richard, you’re a few decades behind on science. And a few centuries behind on adoption.
October 21st, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Check this site for further enlightenment on the actual on-site straw poll vote:
http://www.evangelicalsformitt.com/
October 21st, 2007 at 12:48 pm
PabloZed: What kind of archeological evidence would one be looking for if one was searching for the Garden of Eden? I don’t see any references in the Biblical text to Adam and Eve putting up large buildings there or anything like that.
As far as I can tell, leaders of the Mormon Church have indeed taught that the Garden of Eden was located in what is now Jackson County, Missouri (the Kansas City area).
http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ba4e425e0848b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
October 21st, 2007 at 12:52 pm
THE FRC NEVER SAID THAT THE 1595 and 1565 were the total numbers they were claimed to be the online numbers. SO we aren’t misreading anything.
October 21st, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Boulder you are way off here. Do you think that FRC misread their own numbers?
They are the ones who said Romney won the overall vote. That is what they have put in their press releases.
This is beyond grasping at straws, it looks pretty silly. Just tout the downfall of FDT and the potential rise of Huckabee.
October 21st, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Fred bombed his speech last night before an influential group of Florida voters. Unless he does well tonight in the debate I think he will start losing serious ground in polling and Romney and McCain will both pass him nationally. This link talks more about the speech Thompson bombed last night.
http://redstate.com/blogs/robert_a_hahn/2007/oct/21/the_presidential_4
October 21st, 2007 at 1:15 pm
LOL Joshua.
I don’t know about buildings, but I was thinking more about burial plots and bone fragments. I wonder if the Tree of Life is itself immortal?
October 21st, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Romney 08!!
October 21st, 2007 at 2:04 pm
[...] Romney sycophant, young Justin of the Heart-Land, in a petulant and hectoring complaint titled This is why you win straw polls. You don’t try to win straw polls as proof of momentum. You don’t try to win straw polls as [...]
October 21st, 2007 at 3:32 pm
#19 Pablo
Bob Schieffer doesn’t seem to agree with your synopsis of his interview.
Read what Bob says about it:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/21/opinion/schieffer/main3389204.shtml?source=RSS&attr=_3389204
October 22nd, 2007 at 1:37 pm
[...] Justin Hart of Race42008 wrote a post that is 95% correct. He said: [...]
October 22nd, 2007 at 2:59 pm
[...] Justin Hart of Race42008 wrote a post that is 95% correct. He said: [...]