Posted on 10/20/2007 1:41:59 PM PDT by freespirited
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.
FRC= NUTCASES!!
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.
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.