Skip to comments.Romney Wins Conservative Straw Poll
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 wont win the White House with only two out of three or one out of three Were 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
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.
Correction: It doesnt really matter if Romney or Huckabee won.
I've never been more disappointed in you. For shame.
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.
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.
I must not be a “values voter” if Ron Paul scored third in this.
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?
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.
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.
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.
"Ha! Ron Paul's a kook who couldn't get elected dog catcher! He's low in the polls, no chance of winning!"
"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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I hear a clinking sound, you know like thirty pieces of silver.
He should have worn a Reagan mask or played the LAW & ORDER music.
HUGE LOSS for Willard.
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...
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.
Yes, I know, with that massive voter turn out he's on fire, some what like a wet bottle rocket.
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.
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.
I think you should blow a wad against Thompson. Should play big.
If you’re right that is.
I should have said to “further” split the conservative vote.
Petronski (Congratulations Tribe! AL Central Champs)
Man the Indians are getting smoked tonight.
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.
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.
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.
I’m sure Giuliani is happy with Medved’s help! : )
“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.
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.
I'm still confused. Does "on-site" mean on WEB-site ... or on-site at the values event???
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.
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).
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.
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.
I said “concert” — I meant “conference” of course.
Medved may like Huckabee, but he wants Giuliani for president. 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.
Yes, everybody could vote. Huckabee got a thousand votes from the online crowd as well.
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.
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.