Mitt Romney Wins Straw Poll, Kinda

[toastywombel]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/04/10/2264694.aspx

 

NEW ORLEANS -- In the presidential-preference straw poll here at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference, Mitt Romney won by ONE vote over Ron Paul -- out of 1,806 cast.

 

Romney received 24% of the vote (439 votes) to Paul's 24% (438 votes).

 

http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/04/10/romney-wins-srlc-straw-poll/?test=latestnews

 

New Orleans -- Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney ® won the Southern Republican Leadership Conference straw poll with 24% of the vote. It was an impressive display of organizational ability for the 2008 presidential candidate, especially considering he didn't even attend the event.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002208-503544.html

 

NEW ORLEANS -- Mitt Romney won the straw poll at the Southern Republican Leadership conference here Saturday in a victory that will be taken as a sign of the former Massachusetts governor's strength as a 2012 presidential candidate.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/10/republican.conference/index.html?iref=allsearch

 

New Orleans, Louisiana (CNN) -- Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney defeated Texas Rep. Ron Paul by a single vote in the Southern Republican Leadership Conference's 2012 straw poll on Saturday.

 

 

Hmm. this is a comparison of this news headline from several different sources, it seems much of the media is minimalizing Ron Paul.

[Sisyphus]

Romney: 438

Paul: 437

Palin: 330

Gingrich: 321

 

This early, it doesn't really mean anything. I've only seen a couple articles, but it does seem like Ron Paul is really being de-emphasized, which is interesting, since he essentially tied for first.

 

For the Paul-ites out there, though, I wouldn't get ahead of myself. Ron Paul is the sort of candidate the GOP establishment likes to think they would vote for, in the abstract, in the same way that they like to call themselves "libertarian." They won't, though. Right now, Romney is the establishment candidate, and as always, the nomination is largely in the hands of people with things to lose.

[Mr Skeptic]

It's notable that the top two winners (or at least their supporters) may have bought half the votes (or rather the entrance fee to the voting place). That is, Romney supporters paid for ~200 of the admission fees, whereas Paul's supporters gave an 80% discount ($30 instead of $150). I don't know which contributed more to the votes, since a free ticket is far more appealing than a $30 ticket, and the people willing to pay $30 are more likely to be willing to pay $150 than are the folks who got a free ticket.

 

Eh, money well spent, I think.

[ecoli]

I learned in '08 that straw polls mean absolutely nothing.

[jackson33]

toasty; As ecoli, I don't hold much faith in straw polls, but the important thing IMO, is whether a person could even win the nomination.

 

Romney would make a very capable leader, with his business and family experiences, but can NOT going to be nominated.

 

Ron Paul, may be the only person (in current picture of all the parties), who could turn the tide (I know you don't want it turned) but won't lie, telling the truth on what would be needed and has -0-% chance of being nominated for the Republican Ticket.

 

Gingrich, as a person with his ideology, is not much different than McCain, could possibly win the nomination (name recognition) but couldn't beat either Obama in a second bid or most any likely Democrat, including Ms. Clinton.

 

Palin, while she can't voice an interest and doing very well in the business world for herself and family, will fade as a contender.

 

Huckabee, Perry, Santorum and the rest, at this point have a long way to go....and if what it takes is there, I don't see it....

[toastywombel]

This thread wasn't about putting faith in straw polls, it an attempt to show that some like CBS NEWS, and FOX NEWS seem to be minimalizing Ron Paul, with opening statements to articles like,

 

"New Orleans -- Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney ® won the Southern Republican Leadership Conference straw poll with 24% of the vote. It was an impressive display of organizational ability for the 2008 presidential candidate, especially considering he didn't even attend the event"

 

It glorifies Romney, who won by one vote in a poll that means very little, on his impressive organizational abilities, please.

[bascule]

Personally I'd love to see Ron Paul as a mainstream GOP presidential candidate. Unfortunately, my gut tells me it just isn't going to happen.

[toastywombel]

Personally I'd love to see Ron Paul as a mainstream GOP presidential candidate. Unfortunately, my gut tells me it just isn't going to happen.

 

I would as well, but I think Paul would stand a better chance as a third party.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I don't think any third party candidate really stands a chance as it is.

[toastywombel]

I don't think any third party candidate really stands a chance as it is.

 

Maybe, just maybe. I think the most likely way of it happening, unfortunately is a party split.

[Pangloss]

Hey fair enough, I love to see people with real ideas and a modicum of common sense getting attention. No, he doesn't stand any chance (did you know he's a year older than John McCain?), but at this stage it's really about the ideas, and Paul has a great way of putting forth his ideas without sounding kooky and contrived. Good for him, and thanks for the thread.

[john5746]

I think Ron Paul is looking more like the candidate for the right, with the exception of the war. If the war is seen as less important and Paul doesn't need to criticize American involvement again and again, then he could break through.

 

I still think he is just too unrealistic, essentially wanting to ctrl-alt-delete the country, but Obama/Bush spent my grandson's money avoiding that in 2008/2009. Some may feel it is time to do it.

[ParanoiA]

Yeah, this is similar to the climate we had for Paul in 2008. For us Paul-ites, this is about the time that the mainstream media is the most kind and humbled and almost appear downright fair in including him and his ideas in the mix.

 

But as short of a memory as I may have, I will not forget how quickly Fox news marginalized him and ignored him when it started to count. Once things get rolling and we're in campaign mode, Paul will be ushered out the back entrance again.

 

And while I will always be a little bitter about it, it's not like I don't appreciate at least a nod to his ideology by the mainstream. To me, he is the hands down statesman that is true to the republican intention. His anti-war stance and negative views on the Federal Reserve don't help matters any and probably keep him from becoming anything more than an interesting showcase item.

 

 

I do think it would be fun to finally have a dog in the fight and someone to take up for - and answer for - like I'm always doing to you guys. I've had it nice not being on a team really - it would probably do me some good to have to advocate and defend someone.

[jryan]

Sorry, Ron Paul is a cancer on the conservative movement. He has some good ideas and a lot of bad ones, and more skeletons in his basement than a Romanian monastery.

 

His newsletters of the 90s warning of the coming race wars is enough to sink him in any national election, and don't think for a minute that the Democrats wouldn't plaster the television with ads educating the public on those very troubling documents.

 

Ron Paul is a 1930s isolationist Republican, and he would be just as disastrous as a national leader. Luckily the chances of that happening are slim.

[jackson33]

jryan; Unfortunately, you have it about right and why I don't feel he could ever be nominated. Additionally, Ron Paul would be 78 Years old, if nominated and elected president on inauguration day January 2013.

 

The problem is, it's going to 'have to be a radical', to undo what's been going on and quite frankly, if he could somehow pull off the task, being a one termer, would probably be a gift. As for isolationism, in the 1930's, that was the accepted norm, nothing unusual. As for Democrats plastering the airways, with 'anti' candidate advertisement, it's going to happen regardless the candidate.

 

You might keep your eye on Ron Paul's son, Randal Paul (48), think currently running for Congress in Kentucky.

[ParanoiA]

Sorry, Ron Paul is a cancer on the conservative movement. He has some good ideas and a lot of bad ones, and more skeletons in his basement than a Romanian monastery.

 

His newsletters of the 90s warning of the coming race wars is enough to sink him in any national election, and don't think for a minute that the Democrats wouldn't plaster the television with ads educating the public on those very troubling documents.

 

Ron Paul is a 1930s isolationist Republican, and he would be just as disastrous as a national leader. Luckily the chances of that happening are slim.

 

I would like to see any evidence he wrote of the coming race wars. I ask because similar charges have been levelled in the past, and Paul took responsibility for it being in his newsletter, yet made it clear he did not write them and had no knowledge of them.

 

I disagree he is an isolationist. His policy is non-interference and free trade. Exporting liberty by example instead of force. It's weird to tell people you're going to force them to be free of force.

 

But yeah, you're right, his changes aren't even slim really. America is quite fond of its car salesmen. I can't tell if Mitt Romney wants to a seat in the white house or if he wants to put me in a car that's over my monthly budget.

 

I would rather have another term of Obama than see Mitt Romney any where near the white house. The devil you know...

[jryan]

I would like to see any evidence he wrote of the coming race wars. I ask because similar charges have been levelled in the past, and Paul took responsibility for it being in his newsletter, yet made it clear he did not write them and had no knowledge of them.

 

I wouldn't want anyone near the White House who can accidentally have articles about race wars show up in their own personal one page news letters. He is either incredibly negligent or as big a liar as any other politician in Washington.

 

I disagree he is an isolationist. His policy is non-interference and free trade. Exporting liberty by example instead of force. It's weird to tell people you're going to force them to be free of force.

 

We've tried exporting by example, ParanoiA. I want no part of aworld view that would have us trade with England, Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany as a way of showing them how nice it is to be capitalist. It is a form of naivete that has been punished over and over again throughout human history.

 

 

But yeah, you're right, his changes aren't even slim really. America is quite fond of its car salesmen. I can't tell if Mitt Romney wants to a seat in the white house or if he wants to put me in a car that's over my monthly budget.

 

I would rather have another term of Obama than see Mitt Romney any where near the white house. The devil you know...

 

I'm glad we agree there. I think Romney would have been a better choice than McCain and Obama in 2008.... but at this point he is saddled with Massachusetts Health care on his watch, and no real alternatives or ideas beyond that. In fact, he used Massachusetts Health Care as a selling point in the 2008 primaries. I don't know that the average American is savvy enough to realize the constitutional differences between the state program and the federal one... so he can easily be painted a hypocrite by the left.

 

I'm still a fan of Fred Thompson, but he has no will to run, I don't think.

[ParanoiA]

I wouldn't want anyone near the White House who can accidentally have articles about race wars show up in their own personal one page news letters. He is either incredibly negligent or as big a liar as any other politician in Washington.

 

Or apparently not any more prescient than the rest of them either. I would guess predicting race wars doesn't suggest a thirst for race wars, but I'm sure that won't stop the accusations of such.

 

Americans never let ignorance stand in the way of drawing a conclusion.

 

We've tried exporting by example, ParanoiA. I want no part of aworld view that would have us trade with England, Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany as a way of showing them how nice it is to be capitalist. It is a form of naivete that has been punished over and over again throughout human history.

 

Seemed to work pretty well for us until we started with the international value judgements, embargos, unconditional alliances, NATO, the UN - boy that sure has been a blast (pun intended).

 

I'm not seeing how these clubs keep us out of war.

 

I'm still a fan of Fred Thompson, but he has no will to run, I don't think.

 

I wasn't impressed with him. For 2012, I look for Gingrich. Because Gingrich is a historian and has the ability to articulate legislative and executive detail as well as the big picture. He was doing bipartisan work in 2008 while republican and democratic candidates were talking about it.

 

I think he's in a unique position to appear as the libertarian-ish modeled conservative the republicans could unite with (thinking of the libertarian portion of the tea partiers). I don't get the religio dogma from him, so it makes it easier to trust his vision. Ultimately though, I don't think I could vote for him. I think he's worth a listen and contributes well to a discussion of the issues, but I'm not fond of the current republican ideology, which he represents.