Posted on 08/11/2007 7:40:59 PM PDT by Turret Gunner A20
AMES, Iowa - Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney won an easy and expected victory in a high-profile Iowa Republican Party Straw Poll on Saturday, claiming nearly twice as many votes as his nearest rival.
(Excerpt) Read more at home.peoplepc.com ...
How did the MSM favorite McCain do?
McCain finished next-to-last.
He got 101 votes. I suspect I probably could have gotten 101 votes.
I figure that last-place finisher, John Cox, spent about 50 grand apiece for his 41 votes.
McCain is a looser, as in cannon.
102. I’m for you!
You’re sleeping on the job.
Ol’John got 101 votes,time for him to pack it in.
This “fundraiser” for the Iowa GOP netted them a cool $1 million. But, Romney, alone, spent $5 million so the State Party could make $1 million. What’s wrong with this picture?
Well, look at the bright side; it’s always good for the economy to get money into circulation.
How did the MSM favorite McCain do?He fought a hard battle against the FR favorite Duncan Hunter, but he just wasn't able to close the gap.
Was there a vote tally for Hunter? Did I miss it??
1. Gov Mitt Romney 4516 votes 31%.
2. Gov. Mike Huckabee 2587 votes 18.1%
3. Sen. Sam Brownback 2192 votes 15.3%
4. Tom Tancredo 1961 votes 13.7%
5. Ron Paul 1305 votes 9.1%
6. Tommy Thompson 1,009 votes 7.3%
7. Fred Thomson 231 votes
8. Rudy Giuliani 183 votes
9. Duncan Hunter 174 votes
10. John McCain 101 votes
11. John Cox 41 votes
Iowa state auditor David Vaudt unofficially certified the results.
14,203 ballots were cast.
Interesting Ames facts:
Mitt romney spent more money than all of the other Iowa participants combined.
Number of votes cast at Ames in 2007: 14,302.
Number of votes cast at Ames in 1999: 23,685.
Results of Saturday's Iowa Republican Party Straw Poll.
Candidate Votes Percent
Mitt Romney 4,516 31.5
Mike Huckabee 2,587 18.1
Sam Brownback 2,192 15.3
Tom Tancredo 1,961 13.7
Ron Paul 1,305 9.1
Tommy Thompson 1,039 7.3
Fred Thompson 203 1.4
Rudy Giuliani 183 1.3
Duncan Hunter 174 1.2
John McCain 101 1.0
John Cox 41 less than 1
It would be interesting to know how much Slick Willard actually spent per vote. No doubt it is astronomical, especially for an electorally meaningless straw vote.
Morale victory for Tancredo.
Romney is a Mormon (like Reid) don’t cha’know.
Cry baby
I was in the hall today.
One of the most notable things to me was the behavior of the Romney supporters in their yellow shirts.
Normally, a Republican crowd listening to a cast of candidates like this will applaud pretty vigorously on good applause lines even for candidates they’re not supporting. Or at least, clap politely.
I watched the Romney supporters in the stands, and they, en masse, overwhelmingly kept their hands firmly in their laps, even for things that should make any conservative, or any Republican, applaud.
You can draw your own conclusions about what that means. I know I have.
The results speak well to me, anyway.
As one that hasn’t decided on a candidate yet, I don’t place much weight on the Iowa Caucus; however, I do hope that some of the field will be narrowed. I’ve lived in Iowa, and it’s all about money and organization when it comes to the straw poll. The GOP candidate basically buys the vote in Iowa. It’s completely different when it comes to the dems. The unions control the dems in Iowa along with the most radicalized group of people that you’ve ever seen. They could be a study in abnormal psychology.
Who gets to vote in this meaningless poll?
Yeah, it’s all meaningless. Hell, Romney didn’t do anything but throw money at a bunch of corn-shucking rubes too stupid to know any better.
meaningless since Fred wasn’t there.
Whoa! You, sir, are a sad case!
See #27
Poor showing for Rudy.
I do not think it is meaningless to be able to get 14,000 activists out and jazzed for Republicans. Does anyone know why they say attendance was 30,000 but only 14,000 voted? Please tell me where MCain and Rudy found audiences this size this weekend.
Bump that.
Only Iowans can vote. Attendance is allowed by anyone who wants to make the trek.
It was a pleasure to just be able to listen to the candidates speak freely, so unlike the debates.
I am really getting tired of the CNN & MSNBC moderators cutting off the candidates when they’re saying something interesting. They even tried to cut off Romney’s Dr. Strangelove comment by interrupting, but it didn’t work.
Idea: Why couldn't the Republican debates be held at the straw poll and other Republican events?
Why not get a sharp conservative to moderate, somebody like John fund, or Rush, or even Hannity, have Fox News televise it, and deliver a true quality debate?
So Mitt spent a lot of money. That shouldn’t say he is the best qualified. Look at Hitlery.
Rock on Mitt!
What kind of shucking takes place in your lofty abode?
Expected by whom? Surely not by me! Interesting comments about the crowd EV. I'll keep your observation in mind when this poll is mentioned.
Bill
If Romney spent only $5M in Iowa, for a presidential campaign that’s a bargain .. the Straw Poll effect carries into the IA caucuses, which start things rolling into the primaries. This straw poll is not insignificant to the candidates, and for a mere $5M, Romney bought lots of momentum.
Put aside sour grapes and wonder. Why is it that some candidate like Duncan Hunter doesn't have smart money backing him. I don't know the answer to that. All I know is that his contacts in the defense industry in CA could fund one of these campaigns any day of the week that they chose to. So, I wonder. What do they know about him that I don't know?
Does that move Mike up to the first tier of candidates.
The must have counted the presstitutes in attendance,
Heh. That’s what I want to know. Why in the heck is this supposed to be SO important?
MSM going nuts about it. Blah blah and blah.
Most people I know (sadly) don’t follow politics, and aren’t even thinking about the election at this point.
This is all just MSM hype.
I’m sure the gays are happy, since he supports gay marriage. “It’s the American way.” < :P
” . . . a bunch of corn-shucking rubes too stupid to know any better.”
Be careful, Sir/Madame, that your eyes don’t permanently cross while looking down your nose at middle America. What’s next, coming up with some cute little barbs about southerners?
” . . . a bunch of corn-shucking rubes too stupid to know any better.”
Be careful, Sir/Madame, that your eyes don’t permanently cross while looking down your nose at middle America. What’s next, coming up with some cute little barbs about southerners?
I think you hit the nail on the head. This shows Romney can win even at the grassroots conservative level, in what is a change from his usual 'big city republican' appeal in Massachutes. I think big money backers will see him and his organization as tested now, and provide heavier funding.
I think the issue with Hunter amongst the big money backers like you said the defense industry. It might be fear of what would happen with his get tough trade policies. Or it might simply be Duncan while great ideologically isn't that great organizationally.
In an interview with Phil Klein of the American Spectator during CPAC 2007, the following exchange took place:
PK: On gun control, I know you signed an assault weapons ban in Massachusetts in 2004, now I know you joined the NRA within the last year. Can you tell me if an assault weapons ban came up at the federal level, would you sign or veto that?
ROMNEY: Well, it depends on what it looked like, but…
PK: If it was something like the ‘94 bill…
ROMNEY: I have indicated that my position is the same as it has been which is I support the Second Amendment, but I also support (an) assault weapon ban, that’s why I signed a bill of that nature. That’s what I said back in ‘94. I’m in the same position that President Bush is. President Bush also says he supports the Second Amendment, but he would support an assault weapon ban. But the specifics of the particular ban are something that I’d have to look at, and it’s been a long time since we’ve looked at the particular types of weapons that might be involved. So my position is the same there as it has been before —
PK: But if the ‘94 one came up for vote again…
ROMNEY: Well obviously, we’ve learned some things since then. I haven’t seen the specific proposal at this stage and so I couldn’t comment on it until we had. We had an effort in Massachusetts on the part of some to ban 50 caliber rifles. I opposed that, indicated I would oppose that ban. You know, I think we have to be very careful in any way restricting Second Amendment rights. I support the Second Amendment. We’ve got a gun at our house, it’s owned by my son. I’ve hunted since I was a young man. I believe that people have the right to bear arms. But I also recognize that there’s some types of weapons that don’t need to be in the public’s hands, machine guns certainly, and I’d be open to consider appropriate kind of measures, but I’m not looking for blanket kind of prohibitions on people being able to have arms for their defense.
In Romney’s reply he states “I support the Second Amendment, but I also support (an) assault weapon ban” and “You know, I think we have to be very careful in any way restricting Second Amendment rights.
The Second Amendment: A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Bottom-line he does not support the Second Amendment, he is willing to infringe on the rights of the people of Massachusetts. He is fractionalizing the Second Amendment, saying “you can keep and bear arms, it is your right, but only those arms government allows.
Do you trust Romney with the U.S Constitution? I don’t!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.