Ames straw poll results; Bachmann wins
By JR Hoeft | Sunday, August 14th, 2011 | PoliticsMinnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann won the presidential straw poll at the Iowa GOP fundraiser in Ames yesterday.
She is the first woman to win the straw poll, which is mainly an opportunity to show a candidate’s campaign organization and viability moving forward.
As I mentioned in my segment on “The Score”, whoever won yesterday would have momentum, but for those actively competing in the straw poll, if they lost it could mark the end of their campaigns.
Ames did not have present at the event the presumed front runner, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, nor did it have the newest presidential aspirant, Texas Gov. Rick Perry. However, Perry, who was not on the ballot did manage to muster more than 700 write-in votes while Romney, who was on the ballot only received about 500.
In an email to supporters, Bachmann, a graduate of William and Mary Law School, wrote of her victory: “Iowans took to the polls today to deliver a strong message to Washington: America cannot afford four more years of Barack Obama and his failed liberal policies, and our campaign for president is the right choice to put our nation back on a path to prosperity.”
Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who had been actively campaigning in Iowa and who, like Bachmann, had the most to lose by not winning the popularity contest, wrote: “we needed to show progress” and that “we are just beginning, and I’m eager for the campaign.”
However, for Pawlenty, it was certainly a defeat. Politico reports he will have a conference call this morning with “top campaign staff and donors” to discuss the way forward.
When trying to put the Iowa Straw Poll results into context, just think back to 2007 where Romney “won” with 37% of the vote (4516) and the eventual Republican nominee, Arizona Senator John McCain finished 10th with 101 votes. That being said, here are the results:
1. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (4823, 28.55%)
2. Congressman Ron Paul (4671, 27.65%)
3. Governor Tim Pawlenty (2293, 13.57%)
4. Senator Rick Santorum (1657, 9.81%)
5. Herman Cain (1456, 8.62%)
6. Governor Rick Perry (718, 3.62%) write-in
7. Governor Mitt Romney (567, 3.36%)
8. Speaker Newt Gingrich (385, 2.28%)
9. Governor Jon Huntsman (69, 0.41%)
10. Congressman Thad McCotter (35, 0.21%)
Texas Congressman Ron Paul’s performance was excellent and proved that his supporters will definitely turn-out for him. The question for Paul, as it always has been, will his message resonate with the average Republican voter?
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Conservative to the core; liberal with his opinion! J.R. has been involved in politics for over a decade and has worked on several campaigns in Hampton Roads. He has served on the Executive Committee of the Republican Party of Chesapeake and the Central Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia. He is also the director of “Blogs United” in Virginia. E-mail J.R.. Follow J.R. on Twitter.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
19 Responses to "Ames straw poll results; Bachmann wins"
rumors have it that Pawlenty is going to drop out
Would a fair assumption be that it will either be Perry or Romney for the nomination.
Florida may decide it. Don’t see how either Romney or Perry can afford to lose there.
Bandelja, I’m not assuming that //grin//.
Establishment will choose Perry for their nominee.
The only question I think is whether the establishment will get its way this time.
Yesterday I donated to Herman Cain. Mainly because I like what he has to say and I know he’s using his personal funds to pay for this run.
A few weeks back, I donated to Michele Bachmann because I thought her message ought to be considered in the discussion.
So, I have always, wondered, Temporary, what is this “establishment” that you speak of?
That’s often directed at us, particularly when Jamie Radtke’s name gets mentioned.
If, by establishment, you mean rank-and-file conservatives who are looking for the best candidate to challenge and WIN in 2012, color me establishment – and hundreds of thousands of others who are tired of seeing our party divided by those who are intransigent – whether we’re talking about social, fiscal, or international decisions.
Conservatives need to stop the pettiness and live by the mantra of the Rolling Stones: “You can’t always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you get what you need!”
JR,
I agree its hard not to like Herman Cain as a person and especially his life story. Speaking of the Rolling Stones, they provided an advance critique (in 1980) of the results of the welfare state in “Hang Fire”.
IMHO, the only Republicans who can beat an incumbent Democratic president, barring another recession, seem to be sitting this one out and waiting for 2016. Such is the state of our politics and the power of incumbency. Aren’t you glad that we have term limits for the President? Think how well that would work on Capitol Hill if every seat was an open seat after a fixed number of terms.
HisRoc,
While I like Christie, you are too pessimistic given the circumstances. Obama is in trouble for the following reasons apart from the economy.
First he’s not a backslapping chummy type of politician or military hero who always win. Second, no one believes that he is going to do a Clinton. Everyone knows if reelected he will ignore the Constitution and Congress. He won’t care if the Repubs defund or try to block him, he will regulate and legislate through the courts. Business is far more lined up against him than in 2008 for this reason. Third, unlike Clinton he passed some of his toxic ideas and he is tied to them. He is going to lose a chunk of votes he might otherwise get even if the Supremes knock out the health care mandate. The fourth point is that Presidents (except for the atypical Wilson who had a 3 way 1912 election with TR) are never reelected while getting Fewer electoral votes the second time. Obama is going to lose Indiana, VA and NC and almost certainly Ohio IMO. He is also going to lose 11 or 12 electoral votes from redistricting. This puts him very close to the tipping point.
val,
As usual, you present a logical assessment of the facts. However, what troubles me most is the simple reality that the “generic Republican” out-polls Obama by a far greater margin than any of the declared candidates. As a member of the Independent swing-vote block, I believe that a majority of Americans want real “change that you can believe in” and an end to Obama. But most of them won’t translate that into a vote for the likes of Bachmann or even Perry.
I don’t know how old you are, but I was a working adult when we threw out the last ineffectual Democratic President, Jimmy Carter. Believe me, the economy, national security, and Americans’ sense of well-being were far, far worse back then than now. If 9% unemployment wasn’t such a human tragedy, then I would be laughing at younger folks today who don’t know what it was like to have double-digit annual inflation, 22% mortgage rates, and a hollow military that couldn’t train or fight. It was grim.
J.R.,
When some of us use the word “establishment” when writing of some in the Republican party, I think what we mean is approximately what this entry from Wikipedia says:
“The Establishment is a term used to refer to a visible dominant group or elite that holds power or authority in a nation. The term suggests a closed social group which selects its own members (as opposed to selection by inheritance, merit or election). The term can be used to describe specific entrenched elite structures in specific institutions, but is usually informal in application and is more likely used by the media than by scholars.
The term is often use by rebels complaining about a small group that dominates a larger organization.”
So above, when I wrote “Establishment will choose Perry as their nominee”, what I meant was that the people loosely described above will choose Rick Perry as their nominee. Perry was first elected as a Democrat to the Texas Legislature in 1984, so he has a good 27 years in. Call me crazy, but maybe not exactly what the new fiscal conservative rebels are looking for.
So let’s tally it up.
1) Visibly dominate group or elite that holds power or authority, CHECK.
2) Closed group that selects its own members, CHECK.
3) Entrenched elite structures in specific institutions, CHECK.
Yep, the Republican party establishment, it’s all in there, and you don’t have to squint very hard to see it.
Temporary,
Uh, well. The Republican Party is an established party going back to at least 1857. It is a structured organization with local leaders at the county level going all the way up the state and national levels. That is how large organizations or run, be they political or business or labor unions or educational or financial, usually based on a number of factors like membership, leadership experience, voting shares, and the like–what is loosely called capital. If I understand you correctly, you seem to think that anyone with any experience in any organization is “elite establishment” and therefore are not to be trusted to know anything, and the alternative is for a loosely formed group of know-nothings to somehow seize the reigns of government and all of society–a group that is not organized and would not agree on any single particular decision–and call that an improvement. I think the word you are looking for to describe your version of governance is not a new one. It is called “anarchy.” Is this what you really want?
To be more precise in modern-speak, as we’ve seen in London and around the globe: “flash mob” rule. Wonderful idea. What will you do once you’ve destroyed the elite establishment telecommunications industry?
Temporary,
First, Wikipedia is never to be confused with an authoritarian resource. The definition of “Establishment” that you cite from Wiki is reminiscent of the great conspiracy theories ranging from Bohemian Grove to the Masons. Please.
Second, there is little or no “Establishment” in the party out of power. A party out of power has all the organization of a street brawl, hence the wide variety of serious and silly candidates running for the Republican nomination.
Sorry, that is “authoritative.”
Word Press really needs a preview and edit function, guys.
HisRoc,
Quite old enough to remember Carter. I remember getting a minor car repair done just so they would fill my gas tank. Yes it was miserable but not so much in terms of longterm unemployment and the precariousness of those who had jobs. And there were only the 3 networks then. Only people in the military at the time understood how messed up the Services were at least until the copters went down. But given the cocoon many Americans live in nowadays the current citizens probably feel subjectively much worse than people did back then.
The polls this far out are best ignored. They said the same thing about Reagan in 1979. Bachmann is not going to be nominated anyway being a House backbencher (because she’s a Repub – Dems don’t need anything to be qualified). I think Perry is far from a shoo-in but probably could win a close election given the economy. I would still bet on Romney getting the nomination and Christie is still a remote possibility IMO.
I picked Bachmann to win this. This poll was a realy weak record of predicting anything to come.
I see Ron Paul continues his strong performance in polls and caucuses that don’t make any difference.
I think the GOP is down to three candidates….Romney, Perry, Bachmann faily soon. Well, Ron Paul will hang in there. Not that it makes any difference.
The old guard GOP/status quo Master Narrative continues … “Well, Ron Paul will hang in there. Not that it makes any difference.”
Republican Congressman Ron Paul nearly won the straw poll.
Reid: Yes, Republican Congressman Ron Paul has an amazing record in straw polls that can be easily rigged and don’t count for anything.
Real elections? He’s not so good at those.
The image of the eight candidates at the republican debate before the poll, raising their hands in allegiance to the Grover Norquist No Tax Pledge is sickening given the fact that increased revenue has to be part of deficit and debt reduction, and most Americans believe that to be so. So how can a Party put forth a slew of so called candidates, none of whom consent to the view of the majority of the voters, and expect ot win an election? Further, if they had thought that before the downgrade, the debt increase debacle, and the stock sell off, did they bother to read the report from S&P which specifically said that the republicans united disapproval of tax increases, even closing unneeded tax loopholes for billionaires, was the reason for the downgrade, and they have not changed their position, makes on ponder whether the Party has simply gone nuts.
Leave your response