Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Romney Wins Conservative Straw Poll
ABC News ^ | 10/20/07 | Karen Travers

Posted on 10/20/2007 1:41:59 PM PDT by freespirited

Mitt Romney won the Family Research Council Values Voters' Summit straw poll in Washington Saturday, barely beating out Mike Huckabee with just 30 more votes.

Romney garnered 1595 votes to Huckabee's 1565 in the poll of conservative activists. Ron Paul was third with 865 and Fred Thompson was fourth with 564 votes. No vote count has been announced for Rudy Giuliani.

Romney spoke at the summit Friday and called for ending the "marriage penalty" and decreasing out-of-wedlock birth.

In a veiled hit at his rival, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and his more liberal positions on gay rights and abortion, Romney said, "We won’t win the White House with only two out of three or one out of three… We’re not going to beat Hillary Clinton by acting like Hillary Clinton."

Romney reiterated his belief that "two parents are the ideal setting for raising a child." On abortion, Romney declared he would be "a pro-life president," acknowledging that he was a "convert to this cause," referencing his 2005 change from an "effectively pro-choice" position to a pro-life stance.

More than 2,000 conservative activists attended the summit and heard from the Republican presidential field over the last two days.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said 5,776 votes were cast in the straw poll by voting in person, online or by mail. Romney's campaign actively petitioned supporters to vote online whether or not they had attended the conference.

The straw poll is non-binding, unscientific, and does not necessarily reflect the social conservative movement as a whole.

The following three questions were on the straw poll ballot:

1. Which of the following candidates for president would you be most likely to vote for?

RESULTS: Romney-1595 Huckabee-1565 Paul-865 Thompson-564

2. Who of the following candidates would be least acceptable to you as President of the United States? (results not yet announced)

3. Please indicate which issue is the most important in determining your opinion of the candidate that you will most likely vote for – choose one: RESULTS: -abortion -defending marriage -tax cuts -permanent tax relief


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2008; duncanhunter; elections; frc; fred; fredthompson; giuliani; huckabee; mccain; romney; ronpaul; strawpoll; tancredo; valuesvoters; wheresfred
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-119 next last
To: Spiff
The REAL story out of this poll is that Thompson lost.

No the real story is, that in three months, mitt was only able to buy so few votes, and huckbee was able to dupe so many of the few.

51 posted on 10/20/2007 7:17:50 PM PDT by org.whodat (What's the difference between a Democrat and a republican????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
It doesn’t really matter if Romney or Huckabee one.

Correction: It doesn’t really matter if Romney or Huckabee won.

52 posted on 10/20/2007 7:26:04 PM PDT by Spiff (<------ Mitt Romney Supporter (Don't tase me, bro!) Go Mitt! www.mittromney.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: JMack
Thank you for posting that photo. It is further testament to Mitt Romney's pro-life conversion. You see, that image is of a protest organized by Planned Parenthood Action Fund. They were protesting Mitt Romney, at one of his fundraisers, because he is pro-life. Every time you post that image, just proving how pro-life Romney has become since 2002.
53 posted on 10/20/2007 7:30:18 PM PDT by Spiff (<------ Mitt Romney Supporter (Don't tase me, bro!) Go Mitt! www.mittromney.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
It doesn’t really matter if Romney or Huckabee one. The REAL story out of this poll is that Thompson lost.

***************

I've never been more disappointed in you. For shame.

54 posted on 10/20/2007 7:37:04 PM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: MojoWire
Actually, it looked like Romney won the 'live' vote overwhelming at the Family Values convention, but Huckabee won overwhelmingly in the online voting.

No, it's the opposite. When both live, on-site votes and online votes were included, Romney beat Huck 1595 to 1565. When only the actual event votes are counted, Huck beat Romney 488 to 99.

55 posted on 10/20/2007 7:39:12 PM PDT by ellery (I don't remember a constitutional amendment that gives you the right not to be identified-R.Giuliani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Spiff

I agree Thompson’s campaign staff must be maajorly disappointed by doing so badly in this poll. I mean Fred’s supposed to be the great conservative, the next Reagan right?

Fred is a big fat zero so far.


56 posted on 10/20/2007 7:48:43 PM PDT by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestu s globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

I must not be a “values voter” if Ron Paul scored third in this.


57 posted on 10/20/2007 7:50:36 PM PDT by Hattie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat
No the real story is, that in three months, mitt was only able to buy so few votes, and huckbee was able to dupe so many of the few

Wait, you mean the ones who are suposedly about to bolt third party are easily duped?

Tell me again why this group is so important?

58 posted on 10/20/2007 7:53:36 PM PDT by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestu s globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: trisham

Aaaand, that’s why I’m teetering on the brink between “could hold my nose for Romney” and “will vote third-party if Romney wins.”

I’m trying to keep emotion out of it, but what it comes down to is that if Romney supporters are so vehemently against Thompson’s positions that they would rather see Huck win, then Romney is probably not the candidate for me under any conditions. I’ve changed my mind on this a number of times, and I may again...but that’s where I stand now.


59 posted on 10/20/2007 7:55:11 PM PDT by ellery (I don't remember a constitutional amendment that gives you the right not to be identified-R.Giuliani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
Wait, you mean the ones who are suposedly about to bolt third party are easily duped? Tell me again why this group is so important?

Because approximately equal numbers of pubbies and donks will pull the party lever no matter what. So elections are decided by those who are willing to cross party lines, or those who stay home or vote third-party if they're not happy with the candidate.

60 posted on 10/20/2007 7:59:06 PM PDT by ellery (I don't remember a constitutional amendment that gives you the right not to be identified-R.Giuliani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: JMack
Why is it no pro-abortion group ever supported Romney?

Why is it the founder of the Pro-Life movement is in Romney's camp?
61 posted on 10/20/2007 8:02:24 PM PDT by elizabetty ("Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm." .Ralph Waldo Emerson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
It doesn’t really matter if Romney or Huckabee one. The REAL story out of this poll is that Thompson lost.

Not only did he lose, he got LESS THAN 10% of the vote. Did he forget to wear his "Conservative Messiah" Lapel pin?
62 posted on 10/20/2007 8:04:18 PM PDT by elizabetty ("Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm." .Ralph Waldo Emerson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Spiff

No, the story is that among actual conference votes, a so-called second-tier candidate absolutely trounced all three guys who are ahead in the polls — including my candidate and your candidate. Romney (and Paul) undoubtedly achieved some damage control with online votes, but it’s still a rout for everyone but Huck.


63 posted on 10/20/2007 8:05:13 PM PDT by ellery (I don't remember a constitutional amendment that gives you the right not to be identified-R.Giuliani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

Comment #64 Removed by Moderator

To: George W. Bush; billbears; KDD; jmeagan; traviskicks

When Ron Paul Loses Straw Polls:

"Ha! Ron Paul's a kook who couldn't get elected dog catcher! He's low in the polls, no chance of winning!"

When Ron Paul Wins Straw Polls

"George Soros is paying the Paulites to spam these polls, plus Code Pink is recruiting new members too! These straw polls don't mean nothing anyway."

65 posted on 10/20/2007 8:11:07 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist ("Just 3 hours a day with Rudy Guiliani is all I ask" -- Sean Hannity is on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah
Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin, LOL.

No wailing, I'm just laughing at the gross hypocrisy here of FReepers.

Mitt Romney isn't a social conservative, so it's moot anyway.

66 posted on 10/20/2007 8:13:03 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist ("Just 3 hours a day with Rudy Guiliani is all I ask" -- Sean Hannity is on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: JohnBovenmyer
Third, there is nothing here that the Fred Heads can use for bragging points over their competition for the title of either "the social conservative" candidate or even "the southern social conservative" candidate.

What makes you think these people are all conservative? First, these people are obviously pretentious. They are the only voters with values? Sure. Second, many of these people are theocrats not conservatives. Although some of the theocrat's positions are shared with conservatives like pro-life and pro-marriage, many are not. Many theocrats are basically socialist as long as the government is spending the money on things that support their religious values. Many theocrats' religious views cause them to support things like open borders and citizenship for illegal aliens. Many theocrats are nanny staters as long as the state is forcing people to abide by their "values".

This particular orginization obviously supports Huckabee. Good for Mike. However, supporting a big government, big spending, open borders Republican does not make them conservative.

67 posted on 10/20/2007 8:16:21 PM PDT by Prokopton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

Hee.


68 posted on 10/20/2007 8:18:56 PM PDT by ellery (I don't remember a constitutional amendment that gives you the right not to be identified-R.Giuliani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
Wait, you mean the ones who are suposedly about to bolt third party are easily duped?

Tell me again why this group is so important?

I will just as soon as you show me proof that the on-line voters were anything other than made up paid voters. Are you have proof that they were members of any group.

69 posted on 10/20/2007 8:19:08 PM PDT by org.whodat (What's the difference between a Democrat and a republican????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: JMack
All the money Romney has spent and effort he has made in Iowa alone, and all he got onsite was 99 votes to Fred's 77 which Fred spent almost nothing on and barely even campaigned for, since he just got in and has spent most of the past two weeks attending fundraisers to build cash. This makes Romney look like he's a version of Duncan Hunter with a lot more cash to burn, but still no traction. That he got spanked so badly by Huckabee though is the real story. If this plays out in the primary, and Huckabee takes Iowa, and then Guiliani takes NH, Romney will be finished fast. Wouldn't surprise me with his flip flops. I'm not sure what will happen with Fred. This could be a sign of problems, or a brilliant strategy. We'll find out on primary day. Let him get his cash to where he wants it, and begin a push in ernest, and I think he will ultimately be the one, though Huckabee is surprising so far, and to be watched, if this can be believed.

I agree with everything you said 90% (minus your Thompson observations). I dont think its strategy by Thompson to have done poorly in this event, he just has not performed well. He does not have the luxury of time to be saving his cash or efforts. This primary season is going to be all but over in 3 months. It takes months to build up the kind of ground game and local organization you need to do well in these primaries. You cannot possibly expect to jump in at the last second and make it happen.

BTW, i'm playing the fantasy '08 markets at real clear politics and just made a big bet on Huckabee doing well in Iowa.

70 posted on 10/20/2007 8:19:46 PM PDT by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestu s globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

I totally discount the online voting fomr this event. That Ron Paul came in third is all you need to know.

But in the live onsite voting Huckabee won.


71 posted on 10/20/2007 8:21:08 PM PDT by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestu s globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: elizabetty
Why is it the founder of the Pro-Life movement is in Romney's camp?

I hear a clinking sound, you know like thirty pieces of silver.

72 posted on 10/20/2007 8:22:44 PM PDT by org.whodat (What's the difference between a Democrat and a republican????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: elizabetty
Not only did he lose, he got LESS THAN 10% of the vote. Did he forget to wear his "Conservative Messiah" Lapel pin?

He should have worn a Reagan mask or played the LAW & ORDER music.

73 posted on 10/20/2007 8:23:23 PM PDT by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestu s globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
Mitt Romney won the Family Research Council Values Voters' Summit straw poll in Washington Saturday, barely beating out Mike Huckabee with just 30 more votes.

HUGE LOSS for Willard.

LOL

Thirty votes?

74 posted on 10/20/2007 8:23:44 PM PDT by Petronski (Congratulations Tribe! AL Central Champs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
The is great, as long as he is not faking it, right Spiff?

I am glad after fake websites, fake cop badges and of course his faking being pro life to garner votes from the baby killers, he has decided to be upfront as you say...

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/08/09/romneys_honesty_problem/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/10/AR2007091002227.html

http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/6144-romney-s-fake-cop-discussed

Politicians always listen for the beat of the constituency they seek to represent, and waltz to it as best they can. They routinely tap dance around tough issues. They cha-cha-cha, reversing course when necessary. But they don't all do what Romney did on abortion rights. He engaged in a full-body tango with Massachusetts voters, doing everything he could to convince them he was pro-choice. He used his mother and another dead relative as props in a cold political calculation. But, this "pro-life Mormon," to quote Murphy, was "faking it" big time.

That's more than a mistake. That's dishonest.

Romney could very well win the GOP nomination. If he does, establishing credentials as a truth-teller will be harder than establishing credentials as an abortion-rights opponent.

75 posted on 10/20/2007 8:24:00 PM PDT by ejonesie22 (265 pound Lemming with attitude for Thompson!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
But in the live onsite voting Huckabee won.

Yes, I know, with that massive voter turn out he's on fire, some what like a wet bottle rocket.

76 posted on 10/20/2007 8:25:39 PM PDT by org.whodat (What's the difference between a Democrat and a republican????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: redgirlinabluestate

Couldn’t agree more. Additionally Huckabee is another nice guy who can’t win in the general. Michael Medved, has been pushing Huckabee, in order to split the conservative vote to insure a Guiliani victory.


77 posted on 10/20/2007 8:26:29 PM PDT by TAdams8591 ((Mitt Romney '08 ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
I dont think its strategy by Thompson to have done poorly in this event...

I disagree that Thompson is doing poorly overall, but I also don't think this particular third- or fourth-place finish (depending on how you count) was strategy either. What remains to be seen is how well the attendees of this event mirror evangelical voters, and overall primary voters. At this point, the information is all over the place.

I will say that if Huck takes root and actually wins one of the early primaries, that would seem to be very good news for the Giuliani camp.

78 posted on 10/20/2007 8:26:49 PM PDT by ellery (I don't remember a constitutional amendment that gives you the right not to be identified-R.Giuliani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: finnman69

I think you should blow a wad against Thompson. Should play big.

If you’re right that is.


79 posted on 10/20/2007 8:27:07 PM PDT by ejonesie22 (265 pound Lemming with attitude for Thompson!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: TAdams8591

I should have said to “further” split the conservative vote.


80 posted on 10/20/2007 8:28:49 PM PDT by TAdams8591 ((Mitt Romney '08 ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

Petronski (Congratulations Tribe! AL Central Champs)

Man the Indians are getting smoked tonight.


81 posted on 10/20/2007 8:28:50 PM PDT by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestu s globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: TAdams8591

Heh - I just posted a similar Giuliani comment right after yours. It’s counter-intuitive, but even though Giuliani came in at the bottom in votes, his camp is going to be very happy if this straw poll turns out to be meaningful as a gauge of social conservative voters.


82 posted on 10/20/2007 8:30:48 PM PDT by ellery (I don't remember a constitutional amendment that gives you the right not to be identified-R.Giuliani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: JMack
which Fred spent almost nothing on and barely even campaigned for, since he just got in and has spent most of the past two weeks attending fundraisers to build cash

Fred came and gave a speech, the same as the other candidates. Of course Fred can't do everything at once himself. I presume he has some campaign staff to help him lobby groups for their support. So everything else doesn't stop when the big guy is out landing the big bucks. Also Fred was in DC a couple days earlier to give a speech live at Club For Growth. Romney's speech to them was via satellite so he got in later, yet his staff delivered a string of endorsements at this event.

83 posted on 10/20/2007 8:36:08 PM PDT by JohnBovenmyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22

Already made a bundle on Thompson puts on the nomination and in various states. May put in a few more. Just put a bunch of puts in on Romney too in Iowa. I have a TON on Giuliani winning the nomination, they have moved up nicely. Also have a parley bet on Hillary/Giuliani. The most maddeining are the puts on Ron Paul winning the nomination. I have a ton on those at a less than 7% chance to win. That should be gravy $ but the Paul nutters are throwing their money away.


84 posted on 10/20/2007 8:37:13 PM PDT by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestu s globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: ellery

I’m sure Giuliani is happy with Medved’s help! : )


85 posted on 10/20/2007 8:49:53 PM PDT by TAdams8591 ((Mitt Romney '08 ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Prokopton

“What makes you think these people are all conservative? First, these people are obviously pretentious. They are the only voters with values? Sure. Second, many of these people are theocrats not conservatives. Although some of the theocrat’s positions are shared with conservatives like pro-life and pro-marriage, many are not. Many theocrats are basically socialist as long as the government is spending the money on things that support their religious values. Many theocrats’ religious views cause them to support things like open borders and citizenship for illegal aliens. Many theocrats are nanny staters as long as the state is forcing people to abide by their “values”.”

Hey, I’m not trying to support any candidate here, but I’ve got to say that rhetoric like the above is devisive and will only shatter the coalition that makes of the Republican Party. “Theocrats”? Give me a break.


86 posted on 10/20/2007 8:53:56 PM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Prokopton
You are likely right about some of them being theocrats. I don't claim to know what the proportions of such are in this group. However this event was promoted, for better or worse, in both the MSM and many of the alternative right wing media as being a major social conservative event and as such will its results be reported. The degree to which that is inaccurate will generally be overlooked. Any individual candidate bumps or dumps resulting from it will be, fairly or not, based on the perception that it was a social conservative event.

Mitt and Mike can plausibly claim bumps. Rudy was dissed, but will go on saying he doesn't need social conservatives while hoping they don't unite against him. McCain was dissed, but has too much ego to notice his campaign died months ago. The small fry candidates will be ignored. The only negative story that plausibly "matters" is Fred's, so the bad news loving press will jump on him. Fred should be thankful it's a Saturday story and there's a debate the next day. If he debates well he can erase this story. If he doesn't there will be stories Monday on Fred's bad weekend. At least with Fox there should be some decent questions.

87 posted on 10/20/2007 8:59:44 PM PDT by JohnBovenmyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Sturm Ruger

FRC= NUTCASES!!


88 posted on 10/20/2007 9:13:23 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (Pray for, and support our troops(heroes) !! And vote out the RINO's!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ellery
When both live, on-site votes and online votes were included...

I'm still confused. Does "on-site" mean on WEB-site ... or on-site at the values event???

89 posted on 10/20/2007 9:28:01 PM PDT by Edit35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: MojoWire

It is confusing — they should have used a word other than on-site.

On-site means actually onsite at the conference. The overall total (where Romney beat Huckabee by 30 votes) includes both online and conference totals. But Huckabee pretty much stomped everyone else at the conference itself.


90 posted on 10/20/2007 9:33:13 PM PDT by ellery (I don't remember a constitutional amendment that gives you the right not to be identified-R.Giuliani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: TAdams8591

Ugh — do you get the impression that Medved is sincerely a Huckabee fan? Or is it really a cynical pro-Giuliani move? Another thread mentioned that Huckabee would not rule out VP — I wonder if Giuliani would pick him? What a disastrous ticket that would be (from my perspective, at least).


91 posted on 10/20/2007 9:38:50 PM PDT by ellery (I don't remember a constitutional amendment that gives you the right not to be identified-R.Giuliani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: ellery; Spiff
No, the story is that among actual conference votes, a so-called second-tier candidate absolutely trounced all three guys who are ahead in the polls — including my candidate and your candidate. Romney (and Paul) undoubtedly achieved some damage control with online votes, but it’s still a rout for everyone but Huck.
It's not clear how many attendees voted onsite vs. online. I would say that the significance of the onsite totals is much less than it originally appeared to be.
92 posted on 10/20/2007 10:08:24 PM PDT by Quicksilver (Mitt Romney for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Quicksilver
If any candidate counseled actual conference attendees to vote online instead of in-person, that would be a very serious mis-step. To me, it's kind of a given that a vote cast in-person is much more weighty than one cast online. For people to vote in-person, they had to pay $95 (I think it was), plus take the time and expense of traveling to the concert. It took $1 and an internet connection to instantly vote online. It's obvious which vote is going to be meaningful.

Trust me, I'm not by any means a Huckabee booster -- but I think an objective person has to credit him with a huge win here.

93 posted on 10/20/2007 10:33:27 PM PDT by ellery (I don't remember a constitutional amendment that gives you the right not to be identified-R.Giuliani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: ellery

I said “concert” — I meant “conference” of course.


94 posted on 10/20/2007 10:34:39 PM PDT by ellery (I don't remember a constitutional amendment that gives you the right not to be identified-R.Giuliani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: ellery

Medved may like Huckabee, but he wants Giuliani for president. His pushing Huckabee is manipulative and deceitful in my book.


95 posted on 10/20/2007 10:42:23 PM PDT by TAdams8591 ((Mitt Romney '08 ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: TAdams8591
His pushing Huckabee is manipulative and deceitful in my book.

It does look at this point as if Huckabee is Giuliani's best shot. If Huck weren't a nice guy by all accounts (albeit completely wrong-headed on any number of issues and in my view a terrible choice for president), I might have to dust off the tin-foil.

96 posted on 10/20/2007 10:52:18 PM PDT by ellery (I don't remember a constitutional amendment that gives you the right not to be identified-R.Giuliani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

Yes, everybody could vote. Huckabee got a thousand votes from the online crowd as well.


97 posted on 10/20/2007 11:04:21 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT (ninjas can't attack you if you set yourself on fire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

First, ONLY members could vote. You couldn’t get to the vote if you weren’t a member (I’m a member).

Second, in order to be a member, you have to make an annual donation. So nobody voted who hasn’t given money to the group.

BUT, it is true that apparently you can donate only 1 buck and it counts. I’ve not done that, but I guess that’s cheap enough that SOME people would join just to vote in a straw poll.

So before I continue, tell me — would you have donated a dollar to vote in this straw poll? Does getting people to pay a dollar to vote show a strength over other candidates who can’t get their supporters to pay a buck?

Anyway, and here’s the big unknown — there were a LOT of people who attended the conference, at least some of it, that voted ONLINE before the conference. There were only 952 votes AT the conference, but 3000 people were there at one time or another. Of those other 2000, some probably just didn’t vote, but many of them vote online because it was easy.

So we don’t really know WHO won of those that “showed up”. Romney was pushing online votes, so maybe his guys mostly voted online even if they went to the conference.


98 posted on 10/20/2007 11:20:13 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT (ninjas can't attack you if you set yourself on fire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

Comment #99 Removed by Moderator

To: finnman69

We don’t know that. We know that of those who waited to vote until they got to the conference, Huckabee won. Romney told his people to vote online, so maybe a lot of conference attendees voted for Romney online.

3000 people attended the conference, and Huckabee got 488 of those votes. We don’t know how many huckabee online votes showed up at the conference.

In fact, it kind of breaks the rules to separately publish the “on-site” votes. I’m sure that if Romney had known they would do that, he would have told his supporters who were going to be sure to vote ON SITE instead of online. But they didn’t, because they didn’t know someone would push to release the on-site vote count.


100 posted on 10/20/2007 11:23:06 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT (ninjas can't attack you if you set yourself on fire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-119 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson