Voters could cast ballots both on-site, at a Washington hotel, or online. As expected, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee performed well in front of voters he will need if he has any hope of overcoming chronic money woes in early primary states. No one, however, expected Huckabee to perform this well. Among on-site voters, Huckabee attracted a stunning 51% of the nearly 1000 ballots cast.
And David Brody:
Clearly, the people that actually heard the speeches thought Huckabee was the best candidate there. It would be one thing if Huckabee and Romney were neck and neck for onsite voting but for Huckabee to be such an overwhelming onsite winner, that is saying something.
And more from Brody:
Having said all that, Huckabee is poised now to really take off. Why? Two words: Sam Brownback. With Brownback out of the race, many of the votes may go to Huckabee. That could translate into some marginally better poll numbers. Plus, Huckabee can claim victory here and go around the country saying that social conservatives have spoken and that he’s the guy.
October 20th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
[...] post by Rett Hatcher and software by Elliott [...]
October 20th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Exactly! But the Rombots are insisting Mitt’s the story of the weekend. They were wrong after Ames (Mitt slid in the polls while Huck rose), and they are wrong today.
Huck is the story and just added to his momentum.
October 20th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
What Brownback voters?? If he had any voters he wouldn’t have dropped out. Also,it would be a little more intellectually honest of Huck to go around the country talking about his win if he had won.
October 20th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Interesting, on the RCP home page under the Values Summitt, there are two nice stories about Huck and two nice stories about Rudy. Mitt? zero.
October 20th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Dave, you’re smart enough to know the people who came in person are far more influential than random supporters on the Internet.
Also Huck totally won the expectations game with that 51% showing… something you Rombots have never understood. It’s covered in Politics 101.
October 20th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Wow, Huck soaring at Intrade.
October 20th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
So the smart money see s Huck win, too. Romney’s basically even.
October 20th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
…We want Huckabee! We want Huckabee! We want Huckabee! [totakevotesawayfrommittromney!]
Dave, he DID win.
October 20th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
The other big story out of this weekend is that Fred is the huge loser. Mitt’s not doing badly with the religious right and Huck is dominating. Fred’s not getting their support, which was his raison d’etre. And gave another lousy speech.
October 20th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Metro,
Everybody knows that Huck can give a speech. They also know that he can’t raise a dime or form anything remotely resembling a viable campaign organization. When it becomes obvious that it’s a 2-man race and Huck isn’t one of the two men, Huck’s voters will go to Romney. They’ll leave skid marks. BTW, did you notice that 15 times as many attendees voted for Romney as Rudy, and they both gave speeches? Talk to me about this stuff when your guy can get 2% of the vote.
October 20th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
It’s hard to see how this can be seen as anything other than a huge win for Huckabee and a big loss for both Romney and Thompson.
October 20th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Ooh, ooh, let’s play Spy the Logical Fallacy.
“When it becomes obvious that it’s a 2-man race and Huck isn’t one of the two men, Huck’s voters will go to Romney…Talk to me about this stuff when your guy can get 2% of the vote.”
Rombot-to-English:
“Romney will do well with so-con voters, moreso than Huck, because Rudy Giuliani does poorly with them!”
Huh? I’m slow, explain to me what that has to do with anything.
October 20th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Cliff, Romney is the Deity. He will win every single social conservative vote because Huckabee has poor fundraising abilities. In fact, as this poll shows, social conservatives dislike Huckabee because he can’t raise the money. This is why Romney was able to beat Giuliani handily, right, Dave? Back me up here! Romney can beat Rudy in this straw poll, therefore, he won!
(Also — the online poll counts more.)
October 20th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
TLG,
You seem to be arithmetically challenged. Also, any votes Huck gets that Mitt doesn’t wind up with Mitt anyway. C.f., #10.
October 20th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
TRSG, you’re repeating the same logical fallacy Dave did! You ought to be ashamed!
October 20th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
That is, as far as any straw poll can be said to have any value at all. Although to spend so much money on it, like Romney, and to all but proclaim yourself the savior of the group that’s voting, like Thompson – to do either of those and make such a poor showing, I would be worried if I were their campaigns. Of course Giuliani could care less about this at all, it’s just a hygeine event for him.
October 20th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
“Any votes Huck gets that Mitt doesn’t wind up with Mitt anyway”
So even votes Mitt DOESN’T get go to Mitt!?
That’s amazing!
Or are you saying that Huckabee will drop out before Iowa?! When his numbers there have been as high as 22 percent within the MoE!?
October 20th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Dave, Rudy isn’t really a factor in this crowd, except to keep them respecting him. He exceeding expectations and is grabbing headlines for it.
The story is Huck v Mitt v Fred. Huck comes out way ahead, Mitt slightly ahead, Fred way behind. Plus some good headlines for Rudy.
Money? Pffft. Iowa voters gave combos of Bauer/Keyes/Robertson/Buchanan 23-31% of the caucus vote in every contested GOP caucus in the last 20 years. Did their lack of money matter? Clearly, no.
October 20th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
What could happen: Huckabee will take a majority of Thompson’s support. Giuliani will take a majority of McCain’s support. Romney will take a majority of his own support in the form of a loan. This has the potential to either be a two man plus one or a three man race.
October 20th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Ben: Nicely put.
October 20th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
TLG,
I covered this on another thread. Most of the attendees voted online rather than wait in long lines. The only reason a sizable chunk of Huck’s support had to wait in those lines to vote is because they don’t own computers. Of course, Huck at least has support. Your guy, not so much.
October 20th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Dave’s #21 sounds like it came straight from the mouth of a Ron Paul supporter!
October 20th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Huck’s fundraising isn’t as good as Mitt’s because he doesn’t have Cash on Hand of 250 million dollars. It does hurt your capabilities if you can’t loan yourself $30,000,000.
October 20th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Dave is right as he often is. Most supporters of Brownback, Hunter, Tancredo, Huckabee, and Thompson will become Romney supporters before Super Tuesday. By then, they will either be out of the race or lagging behind. Romney has the best run campaign and the others won’t be able to keep up.
October 20th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Even if #21 were not patently ridiculous, it is still 100% blind to the expectations game and reason Huck has the story.
October 20th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Gee Rombots, haven’t you checked the polls? Mitt Romney is not the 2nd choice of all or even MOST of the supporters of those candidates.
When Rudy v. Mitt are polled one-on-one, Rudy has close to a 20% lead over Mitt.
Wishful thinking.
And screwing up the expectations game for Mitt………..yet again.
October 20th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Where does Dave get his information about Huckabee supporters not owning computers? (Out of his ass, maybe?)
PS — Let’s stop entertaining delusions about McCain or Huckabee dropping out. Huckabee will stay through at least Iowa and McCain will stay through at least South Carolina. Hunter, Tancredo and Keyes will stay in for something to do.
October 20th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
While Huckabee is most definitely pleased with the results, if he does break into top-tier status it could hurt his Veep chances. Obviously, he’s not concerned with that right now, but the more status he gains, the more people will learn about him. And that’s not good for any VP candidate. Nominees usually choose someone who is relatively scar free after the primaries. With the Texas Governor pledging to assist Rudy in overturning Roe v. Wade, he becomes a plausible choice for the former NYC Mayor.
I’d like to throw out a name of a prominent individual who is a Republican and get your thoughts on him as a VP candidate. Michael Steele
October 20th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Ben, huh? Candidates choose their VPs out of their top-tier competitors most times. Check your 40-year history on this.
October 20th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Hard to be a VP candidate when you’ve only been Lt Gov and lost your last major race.
October 20th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Why would it hurt his veep chances, Ben? I can’t think of any historical examples.
In 2004, we saw just the opposite: Edwards was chosen by Kerry because he performed well in the primaries.
And can we stop with the Michael Steele crap? People have been saying this for months. The guy’s never done a damn thing in his life that would qualify him to step into the Presidency at a moment’s notice. (But he is black!)
October 20th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Bush – Cheney
Clinton – Gore (if I’m correct, Gore considered running but didn’t)
Gore – Liberman
Dole – Kemp
Traditionally they have taken a top-tier competitor but recent trends seem to go against that.
October 20th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
As a Huckabee supporter, I have to say that Mitt Romney has done an excellent job in Iowa, building up a very impressive grassroots effort. Mitt Romney is the *prohibitive* favorite to win Iowa. Huckabee would be lucky to get half the support that Mitt gets in Iowa. Let me repeat:
We should all be expecting Mitt Romney to totally dominate in Iowa!
October 20th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
TLG,
Will Huckabee drop out before Iowa? No, he will drop out after SC, probably. Possibly before. If he were to actually win Iowa, he could stay in a lot longer, but the last poll out of Iowa shows Mitt at 27% and Huck at 12%. You don’t get any momentum when you lose that badly. Since Rudy was at 13%, Mitt has more support than both of them combined.
Ben,
As I told you in a previous post: use your head. Romney will get more of Fred’s votes than Rudy will, and more of McCain’s votes than Huck will. And Mitt will have the advantage of coming off of wins in January.
October 20th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
WiseGuy,
Would you say that if Mitt has expectations so high in Iowa, that a victory will be expected and not cause a tremendous rise in support and that a close victory or a loss will be detrimental to his campaign? Thus saying that at best, he can only meet expectations and not exceed them?
October 20th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Ben, VP’s are chosen to make up for potential flaws in a candidate. If a candidate has no serious flaws, the Presidential nominee chooses someone to enhance the message. Take a look at that list:
*Cheney (Experience and wisdom)
*Gore (Enhancing the message)
*Lieberman (Distancing from Clinton)
*Kemp (Enhancing the message)
There’s a reason that people are only floating pro-life Southerners as Rudy VP’s…
October 20th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Dave — “TLG,
Will Huckabee drop out before Iowa? No, he will drop out after SC, probably. Possibly before. If he were to actually win Iowa, he could stay in a lot longer, but the last poll out of Iowa shows Mitt at 27% and Huck at 12%. You don’t get any momentum when you lose that badly. Since Rudy was at 13%, Mitt has more support than both of them combined.”
You don’t get any momentum from losing an early state, but you don’t necessarily lose any, either. In the past cycles, Iowa and New Hampshire have never rubber-stamped one another’s decisions on the GOP side.
I honestly do not think Rudy will place any better than 3rd in Iowa.
October 20th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Dave,
Please show me a poll where Mitt polls higher than Rudy as people’s second choice? And if you used your head and read what I wrote, you would see that I said Fred’s support would go to Huckabee, not Rudy. McCain’s votes won’t go to Mitt because of the inter-party fighting they had in previous debates and along the campaign trail. If McCain’s votes don’t go to Rudy, they will most likely go to Thompson; however if Thompson’s own support has already left him, that only leaves one other option…Giuliani.
October 20th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Rudy does best as the 2nd choice of McCain, Fred, and Mitt voters. It’s been well-documented if you average the internals of all the polls that ask it.
That also explains why Rudy wins when polled one-on-one vs. Mitt, Fred, or McCain.
October 20th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
#36,
Yes, I know that VP’s are chosen to make up for potential flaws. That’s why I’m saying this could increase Mark Sanford’s chances and lessen Huckabee’s. I’m not changing the type of person it could be, just the individual itself. I’m just saying that some of Huckabee’s economic policies are being questioned by conservatives. But no one is saying anything about Sanford (or other Southern pro-lifers). This makes them unscathed by the primary competition.
October 20th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Ben — Not to beat it to death, but that really isn’t what you said. What you said was that Huckabee’s chances were reduced because he might to better in the primaries. But there’s no basis for that.
Huckabee would come out as a stronger contender if he doesn’t get hurt in the primary process and is shown to be popular among social conservatives. If he flounders or if something big comes out about him…no way.
(PS — It’s intra-party fighting. Inter means across; intra, within.)
October 20th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
TLG,
The fact is that there are eye-witness accounts of the straw-poll voting. Check out Evangelicals for Mitt for details. I confess I was just guessing that Huck’s people don’t own computers. The alternative explanation is that they learned how to manage their time from studying Huck’s campaign.
October 20th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Dave, why would long lines impact Mitt supporters more than Huck supporters? Why would Mitt supporters be dumb enough to screw up the expectations game and headlines?
October 20th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Or maybe the people that weren’t given marching orders by the Romney campaign liked Huckabee best..?
October 20th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Ha!
October 20th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Ben,
What I am saying is that we haven’t even begun to see Mitt Romney in action in Iowa. Rest assured, Romney fans, Mitt will most likely take Iowa! Don’t even sweat it!
October 20th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
WiseGuy, LOL!
October 20th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Mittbots ought to be worried that religious conservatives and secular economic conservatives are being buddy-buddy in their mutual opposition to Mitt Romney.
October 20th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
“TLG,
The fact is that there are eye-witness accounts of the straw-poll voting. Check out Evangelicals for Mitt for details. I confess I was just guessing that Huck’s people don’t own computers. The alternative explanation is that they learned how to manage their time from studying Huck’s campaign.”
This is like, utterly delusional, right here, really: Huckabee can’t possibly have legitimately won. The only explanation is that those wily Huckabee supporters learned how to manage their time by carefully watching Huckabee’s campaign movements! The other explanation is that they don’t own computers!
It can’t possibly be that, like, you know, Huckabee was the favorite.
October 20th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
I’m saying that because he is doing better, he’ll get more media attention. Thus generating more public knowledge about him. Thus his economic policies will be well known, and potentially other things that conservatives may not agree with. This could hurt him because voters would already know his flaws and the opposition would also already know them. If another candidate was chosen to be VP, he would enjoy the luxury that Huckabee has enjoyed so far: Being under the radar, at least for some time. I’m just saying that a fresh face would allow those people who didn’t like Huckabee as a candidate the chance to like the same pro-life stance, just in another VP choice.
October 20th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Ben — I’ve always maintained that Huck’s economic stances would make him incompatible with a Rudy-headed ticket. I have never thought that Rudy would pick Huck and I think still that the odds him choosing him are about 0.1%. There’s no sense in having a clashing ticket. But it has nothing to do with how well-known he is, because either way, all of those things would become known.
October 20th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Wiseguy,
I noticed you didn’t answer my question. Feel free to try again.
October 20th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
we haven’t even begun to see Mitt Romney in action in Iowa. – Wiseguy
And what is THIS nonsense?!
October 20th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
TLG, sarcasm alert, he is playing the expectations game.
October 20th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
#51,
I understand where you’re coming from. But allow me to use this analogy (it may be bad as my analogies are not historically strong): It’s like having a used car and a new car. The new car may have the same flaws as the used car, but you may not notice them for some time.
October 20th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Ohh, I didn’t see his previous post, Metro.
October 20th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
I don’t like that analogy. Politicians aren’t like cars, because unlike cars, they can get stronger with time.
October 20th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Potentially, Thompson has gotten weaker.
October 20th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Ben,
Romney does fairly well in polls of 2nd choices, but that really misses the point. Rudy is the 2nd choice of most Romney supporters. He’s certainly mine. But that’s irrelevant because Mitt has the money and the organization to go the distance. He won’t be dropping out. Rudy entered the contest, as did McCain, as individuals that everybody in the country were familiar with. They both have well-deserved national reputations. Mitt entered without this, so he knew that he would have to take the nomination away from these guys. To do this, he needed to craft a text-book perfect campaign, and he has. He’s raised as much money as Rudy and more than McCain, not counting his own contributions. His organization is superior to their’s. And he crafted a path to the nomination that focuses on winning states as they occur on the calendar. Every time he wins one, he takes votes from everybody else in the race, but more than that, he attracts votes that haven’t belonged to anybody because they just became aware of what’s going on. National polls before Iowa are meaningless.
October 20th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
And in #59 Dave drops all the arguments in this thread and repeats the Romney mantra from months ago. Evasion = lose.
October 20th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Dave,
I really appreciate talking with someone so high up in the Romney campaign. You must be paid quite handsomely as his E-Campaign coordinator.
October 20th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
…Um, yes, potentially, that’s why I added the word “can” to my sentence, lol.
October 20th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Mitt is the kind of guy to take a bazooka to a gun fight. No surprise he wins.
Huckabee is the kind of guy who brings a swiss army knife to the gun fight and comes out ahead on skill alone.
The reason I think Mitt would lose handily to Hillary is that Mitt can’t outspend or out organize her. I take the giant killer over the giant any day because there’s always a bigger giant out there.
October 20th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
“their’s. ”
smashes with a hammer
theirs.
That’s better.
October 20th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Thank you for correcting my English. I appreciate it. As for the logic of your argument, you’re saying that politicians could get stronger or they could get weaker over time. That’s quite an assessment.
I appreciate everyone allowing me to play devil’s advocate tonight, however I have further obligations that prevent me from continuing. I hope I have not offended anyone have enjoyed this political discussion. I shall leave with one final question: If Alan Keyes is included in the power rankings, how long until John Cox is also included?
October 20th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
What will stop Romney from writing a check to himself for $50M on Jan. 1 knowing that he won’t have to report it until Feb. 20, long after the primary has been decided?
October 20th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Ben, no, no — I was correcting Dave’s English, lol.
October 20th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Ben! I was telling you why your analogy was bad! You were using cars as an analogy to politicians, but politicians can either get weaker or stronger over time, while cars can only get weaker.
Read, dammit!
October 20th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Randy, yeah, fool the primary voters to try to buy yourself the Presidency. Really smart way to set you up for the general electorate, when a good fraction of the population reacts negatively to your personality, another good fraction to your religion, and an even bigger fraction to your party.
October 20th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Its Mitt’s money and he can do what he wants. Why would spending it on an opportunity to win be a negative? The Presidency can’t be bought but you can buy the best chance of winning. Mitt is the only one who has a machine to match Hillary’s.
October 20th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Metro,
Great talking point. Primary voters are drones who are easily bought. Keep it up.
So far your talking points are;
1. Frget your faith and beliefs and join Team Rudy
2. Primary voters are easily bought
A wonderful combo sure to give Rudy the edge.
TLG,
Cars can get stronger over time, Ever seen my 67 Buick?
October 20th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Jason I saw your Skylark and had fuzzy feelings inside (I never owned a car built after I was born until this year). I bet that ’67 causes a lot of envy.
October 20th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Jason, if you’ve been paying attention, I’m arguing for values voters to vote for Huck, not Rudy.
You guys are the ones who keep talking about spending $50-100M of Mitt’s own money to buy the primary and the Presidency. Daily!
October 20th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
This is major for Huckabee. He needed a major boost to take everybody’s mind off of his cash problem. His poll win and great performance is it.
http://www.political-buzz.com/
October 20th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Jason — Shush. Haha.
October 20th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Metro, I will admit that I envy Mitt’s money. It’s unfair, but, well, it’s legal. And I wish Rudy had it.
October 20th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Metro,
It doesn’t matter who you are talking about your points have interesting implications, that’s all.
October 20th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Meanwhile Rudy sounds at Home Down in FL Today….
http://blip.tv/file/436832
October 20th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
I’m late to this but I just could not believe someone would say something like this to explain why Mitt did not win the straw vote on the ground.
“…The only reason a sizable chunk of Huck’s support had to wait in those lines to vote is because they don’t own computers…”
What kind of an elitist and untrue statement is that? Huck’s backers, no doubt, are far less sophisticated and less successful than Mitt supporters, therefore it’s just obvious that that this would be the case. Of course, they also tend to drag their knuckles as they go along which, just as a dexterity problem alone, is another reason for the voice vote on the ground.
Be careful Mitt supporters, your condescension is showing again.
October 20th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
have you seen the donation counter on Huckabee’s site? It was just added this week (starting at zero) and the last time I checked, it was $140K – not bad for 5 days.
I know before that, he has raised at least $350K this month. It is not the millions that Romney has, but it is getting better.
October 20th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Yes they can afford to fly or drive to Washigton DC durning a non weekend in OCT, but they do not old computers.
October 20th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
And by the way do not laugh but I think Trade is going to be the hidden issue in Iowa on the Republican side. The Mailman dude from cheers is hosting townhalls around Iowa on the issue and is getting a good check of Republicans along with Dems coming out. By the way there is also growing cries to get rid of the Estate tax from the labor crowd on the grassroute level because if Forgian Companies showing up at Estate Sales and buy up small time companies and sending the jobs overseas.
October 20th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
But in the end this is the story that comes out to the casually interested majority.
“Romney narrowly wins ‘values voters’ straw poll
Despite efforts to woo religious conservatives, Giuliani finishes distant 8th”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21391400/
October 20th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Rett, where is the youtube video of the Huckabee speech?
October 20th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
The Problem for Huckabee is that he will not have the natural base in NH that he does in Iowa. While Iowa is stocked full of Christian Conservatives from the heartland, NH is more of a fiscally Conservative state, that usuaually does not place as much importance on social issues. Huckabee could very well poll above 10% in Iowa, and he could, potentially, beat Rudy or McCain in IA, but he is not going to be able to pick up the kind of momentum Romney will (assuming he wins). I don’t see Huckabee being able to overcome the accusations of being a nanny-stater and weak on immigration.
October 20th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Buchanan won NH in 1996 and almost won in 1992. I’d have to say there’s a large opening in NH for a populist. Who besides Huckabee fills that role?
October 20th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
EGS,
I don’t see Huck rallying with pitchforks anytime soon. Also, Buchanan was the far from a nannystater. He ran as a protectionist and a supreme culture warrior with libertarian leanings in the “Live free or die” state. Maybe you’re on to something but I don’t see it.
October 20th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
#10 Dave: “BTW, did you notice that 15 times as many attendees voted for Romney as Rudy, and they both gave speeches?”
No, I noticed that 15 times as many total voters, including the Internet voters, voted for Romney than Rudy. Among the people who actually voted on site, Romney didn’t even receive twice as many votes as Rudy.
(Yes, I know, some of the attendees voted online, but there’s no way to separate them out from the people who just paid $1 to vote via the Internet.)
October 20th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
#79 – he was joking. Maybe we should all lighten up.
The good news is that we have a great group of candidates, compared to the poverty of the dems. Really, what are their choices?
Even though I support Mitt Romney, I will support whoever wins the nomination.
A “non” vote in the republican primary is a “yes” vote for the dems.
The least qualified of our candidates would be better than a democrat as POTUS.
October 20th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Looks like the Rombots are in full blown damage control.
Face it guys, in the only part of the poll that really mattered,
YOU GOT SMOKED!!!!!!!!!
October 20th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
…..seriously, how can anyone spin this as a win for Romney, any more than one could say that Paul won all those Fox News debates based on online voting?
October 20th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
bethtopaz,
79. No, he wasn’t. Read the comments.
October 20th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
The second biggest story in this poll is that Fred D. Titanic continues to take on water.
October 20th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
MWS,
Check out the link provided by Dm in #83 to see who’s “spinning” this as a win for Mitt, and a total humiliation for Rudy.You’re the one who is spinning and engaging in damage control. After thousands (literally) of press stories about how Evangelicals would never in a million years vote for a Mormon, Romney wins the Evangelical Values Voters poll. You guys are toast.
October 20th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Dave,
You know very well that MSNBC is a Rombot spin factory. How can you reference it with a straight face.
October 20th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
It seems everyone is missing one point. Huckabee was expected to win on his home turf. I never thought Romney would come in first and if he does, great! He didn’t need to come in first. He only needed to do well and be acceptable.
Huckabee flunks the fiscal conservatives crowd. Their looking for someone who can bring all the conservative “factions” together.
Huckabee is probably number one in the social conservative crowd, but a flunkee for the fiscal conservative crowd as well as a couple of other conservative factions. Romney is the only one that has a good enough shot at all the large blocks of voters. And the social conservative leaders know that. That is why they are lining up behind him. Huckabee’s appeal is limited.
October 20th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Shawnie,
Very good points.
October 20th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Dave,
“You guys are toast.”
My guy beat your guy among those who were there 5-1, despite the fact that your guy tried to pack the place with his own people.
My guy is running about 5 points behind your guy nationally despite your guy outspending him by a ratio of 31.6 to 1.
Your guy, despite all of his “financial prowess,” would have less than $-8,000,000 cash on hand if he weren’t writing him campaign checks.
On the contrary, “us guys” are just hitting our grove while “you guys” have two more months to watch your butter-soft support melt away………
October 20th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Romney would have to be a trillionaire to buy this election.
October 20th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
98. OUCH!
October 20th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
There is one fact that needs to be cleared up right now. Romney’s campaign did NOT email any of his supporters about the online poll. Duh, he has 80,000 donors.
The email was sent out by “Evangelicals for Mitt”. It was sent to their email list. Most of the online votes that were prompted by this email are those who belong to the “Evangelicals for Mitt” community. And a majority of those are evangelicals.
Huckabee was expected to come in first, that’s his home turf. That’s not the point. It never was.
October 20th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Shawnie,
Huckabee was expected to get more votes than the other 18 candidates COMBINED?
Cause, you know, that’s what he did among those who actually SAW the speeches.
October 20th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
101. Plausible deniability…same difference. Nice try, though.
October 20th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
A jaw-dropping performance by Huckabee – beating Romney, Giuliani, Thompson and McCain COMBINED among those who actually saw the speeches. The lesson is clear: when people focus their attention on the candidates they pick Huckabee in overwhelming numbers. So far the polls mostly measure name recognition (which is why Giuliani and Thompson do so well in Rasmussen, etc.).
The real question now who is who Huckabee will pick as VP. I don’t think it will be any of the current candidates. Thoughts on Representative John Kasich of Ohio anyone?
October 20th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Getting way ahead of yourself there, MNM. Way, way….way.
October 20th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Scott:
(1) I respectfully disagree. I think its Huckabee’s race to lose now. Republicans will not nominate someone they don’t think is strongly pro-life. Romney is Huckabee’s only real competition, and once voters see enough “flip flop” commercials with quotes from Romney about how he supports abortion rights (not necessarily aired by Huckabee but by someone), that will be all she wrote.
(2) Huckabee has more charisma than anybody in the field. And charisma is at least as important as any other factor.
(3) On Huckabee’s VP choice, it cannot hurt to think ahead. I think the tendency some people have is to think of VP choices only in terms of who is in the race, and that’s a mistake. Ohio is obviously going to be a very important state, so Kasich is worth considering.
October 20th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
1. Respectfully disagree back at you. You think the person who is at 5% in national polls is at the point of owning the race and thereby it’s only his to lose? Mr. 12%(Romney) is Huck’s only real competition?
2. Huck has charisma but not enough to win over fi-cons/anti-nanny types/defense-cons.
3. You are so far ahead of yourself that Huck, himself, would tell you to cool your heels man!
Glad you’re passionate about your candidate but please don’t go so far over the top that no one will take you or your candidate seriously.
October 20th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Does anyone here think that if Huckabee had $17,000,000 to “lend” his campaign that he would only be polling about 12-13% nationally?
October 20th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Scott:
Thanks for the reply and nice tries but:
(1) The national polls still mostly measure name recognition at this point. Plenty of historical lessons re this.
(2) The fiscal conservative/social liberal wing of the party is big on these blogs and in the media but is a teeny-tiny part of the electorate.
(3) Regarding “cooling of the heels,” thinking ahead about VP choices is actually the cool, calculated, forward-looking thing to do. What would be irrational is to not think ahead.
We Huckabee supporters not going over the top – it is the FUTURE VOTERS who are going over the top, by placing more votes for Huckabee than for all of the other guys COMBINED. You can call the voters “over the top,” but they pick who wins:)
October 20th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Huckabee has just replaced Fred as the “anybody but Rudy” candidate. His support is weak and will get weaker as Mitt gets more face time. Huck is a better speaker than Fred and has potential, but as of right now, I wouldn’t get too excited about Huck’s chances. He’s just not Rudy, he’s not old like Fred, and he’s not Mormon. That might win you a straw poll but won’t win the nomination.
October 20th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
MWS, Huckabee is 5.4 nationally (RCP) NOT 12-13. You are off by more than 50%!!
Rudy does not have millions to “lend” his campaign. Mitt’s millions are not helping all that much. The “nightmare scenario” (Romney’s words) of a self-financed candidate to the tune of about $15 mil has come true. Of course, he has raised a considerable amount of money otherwise. It’s just not enough and I don’t think he can ever get enough $$ raised or self-given.
October 21st, 2007 at 12:17 am
Scott,
“MWS, Huckabee is 5.4 nationally (RCP) NOT 12-13. You are off by more than 50%!!”
You missed my point. I was not saying that Huckabee is currently polling 12-13, but that Romney is, even after the tens of millions he’s spent.
My point was I Huckabee had $17 million to give himself, he’d be a lot further ahead of where Romney is now (about 5-6 points ahead of Huckabee according to Rasmussen).
October 21st, 2007 at 12:20 am
“His support is weak and will get weaker as Mitt gets more face time.”
What are you talking about? The MSM spent the first half of this year pumping Romney as the conservative alternative to McCain and Romney. He has saturated the Iowa market with ads (only one on TV) and has apparently peaked there (currently around 25% and sliding).
I don’t think Mitt has lacked for media exposure. The difference now is that for the last 2 months, Huckabee has finally started getting some face time as well.
October 21st, 2007 at 6:36 am
MWS,
I think you are exactly right. No way Huck would still be nationally at 12 if he had Mitt’s money. In addition to coming across as far more genuine, Huck is one of them. The guy knows what it’s like to not have money. He can relate to people that live from paycheck to paycheck. I don’t agree with him but the guy is all heart. He means what he says. He doesn’t just come round to positions when its beneficial to him. Huck is the anti-Romney. You know what? As much as I want Giuliani to win, I would feel more comfortable with a president that will go on television and look Americans in the face and be truthful. Romney is just a liar. I would vote for Huck in a choice between him and Romney.
October 21st, 2007 at 7:41 am
MWS:
Your big theories about how many more points Huckabee would have with more money ignores a couple of facts.
Oops, you’re overlooking the fact that Romney has raised more than any other Republican from individual donors. Huckabee has NO excuse for such dismal money other than his lack of appeal. He is raising $1 million from individual donors when the others are speeding past $15 million from individual donors per quarter.
There were far more people at the event than voted “on site”. Many attendees voted online as well.
Huckabee applied the religious test in his speech, our religion vs their religion. And even though it appealed to the folks in this crowd, it will backfire on him big time. He will repulse and alienate the folks who already don’t care for him. There are several conservative factions, and Huckabee ranks well in only one of them. It is not good enough.
October 21st, 2007 at 7:54 am
MWS:
“My guy beat your guy among those who were there 5-1, despite the fact that your guy tried to pack the place with his own people.”
Wrong on two accounts. There were many more people there than chose to vote “on site”. They voted online, because guess what? They’re modern and have laptops and stay in hotels with online access.
Romney has an 80,000 plus donor base. And thousands who will support him in any event he asks help for. He did NOT put the word out to attend this event. If he had, there would have been a lot more than “99″. Those people were there on there own accord.
“My guy is running about 5 points behind your guy nationally despite your guy outspending him by a ratio of 31.6 to 1.”
Nice spin.
And they’re both doing dismally in the national polls, and national polls don’t decide the primary. Romney didn’t spend his money on national recognition, he spent it on key first primary states, and he is doing VERY well, while Huckabee is failing there.
October 21st, 2007 at 8:02 am
Scott:
“101. Plausible deniability…same difference. Nice try, though.”
Do you think your smug little quips with no facts to refute or back them up have sway?
Huckabee isn’t electable, he’s popular among the value voters crowd. That sums it up.
If Romney were to go to a convention in SLC and talk about how there needs to be a Mormon in the White House, and he got a majority of the straw poll vote there and we all danced in the street and said, SEE, SEE he’s going to win!” You would shake your heads and think we were pathetic.
Your exuberance over rates what happened at the Value Voters event, and you’re like high school kids who won one football game after a losing streak and now predict the regional championship.
October 21st, 2007 at 9:12 am
Shawnie,
“Oops, you’re overlooking the fact that Romney has raised more than any other Republican from individual donors. Huckabee has NO excuse for such dismal money other than his lack of appeal. ”
I give credit for Romney’s abillity to raise money, and did not try include those in my hypothetical because that is a genuine difference in the candidates. There are no two ways about it, Huckabee is a lousy fundraiser. He is polling 8-9% nationally and rakes in $1 million. Romney polls 12-14% nationally and rakes in several times that. My hypothethical did not suppose if Huckabee was as good a fundraiser as Romney, but if Huckabee was as rich as Romney. Obviously, the ability to fundraise is a hard earned positive for a candidate and Huckabee (so far) doesn’t have it. But simply being rich doesn’t make one a better candidate, but it does give one a huge advantage- an advantage that Romney can’t seem to parlay into a lot more support. If Huckabee had $17 million of his own money to toss in, he’d be pulling higher than 12-14%. That’s all I’m saying. I’m not trying to take away from Romney’s ability to raise funds (which I will concede is far superior to Huckabee’s).
October 21st, 2007 at 9:14 am
Shawnie,
“he spent it on key first primary states, and he is doing VERY well, while Huckabee is failing there.”
Did you see Rasmussen’s latest Iowa poll? I guarantee you it is causing heartburn in Camp Romney.
October 21st, 2007 at 9:16 am
Shawnie,
“There were many more people there than chose to vote “on siteâ€. ”
Fine, but you can’t tell me that there weren’t many non-”values voters” voting as well. Paul get’s something like 14-15%? C’mon.
Let’s agree that among the “real” straw poll voters, Huckabee trounced Romney by something a little less than 5-1?
October 21st, 2007 at 9:21 am
Shawnie,
“Huckabee isn’t electable”
Yeah that’s the mantra of those who see him speeding up in their rearview mirror.
Trouble is, Huckabee doing about the same in head-to-head matchups for the general as Romney, without Romney’s name recognition. What’s that say for Romney’s electability?
Secondly, many people who know something about elections- from Bill Clinton to Newt Gingrich- think Huckabee would show VERY well in a general election.
As much as I loathe Clinton’s politics, he is an asute observor of politics, and I’ll take his assesment on this count over yours. Why is Huckabee supposedly SO unelectable? Seems to me that that is the last excuse given by people who can’t seem to find another way to stop someone else’s campaign.
October 21st, 2007 at 9:42 am
MWS
For all your crowing, did you know they closed the on site polls after Romney’s speech and opened them after Huckabees? What that means is those who came to listen and support Huckabee got to vote on site, while those who came to hear Romney were not able to.
And you’re still touting national polls stats, they don’t determine primaries.