Bachmann wins Iowa

Polls are seldom worth the paper they are written on, this early in the runnings. I remember distinctly when Dean was considered a shoe-in for the democratic nomination, with the vast majority of polls showing him with a significant lead - until after the NH primaries, and his screaming fit that was supposed to be a rallying speech.

And then there was Hillary, assumed by both democrats and republicans as the presumptive nominee.
Don't I wish THOSE polls had turned out accurate.
 
Didn't Ron Paul win it last year? And place second this year? I think the straw poll in Iowa is not indicative of anything at all.
 
Damocles said:
Didn't Ron Paul win it last year? And place second this year? I think the straw poll in Iowa is not indicative of anything at all.
Click to expand...

I think the straw poll is once every four years, and I think Paul came in 5th four years ago.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Damocles said:
Didn't Ron Paul win it last year? And place second this year? I think the straw poll in Iowa is not indicative of anything at all.
Click to expand...

I thought so too, but I think we're remembering different straw polls? Here's a piece I found on Paul and straw polls:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ing-straw-polls/2011/06/20/AGu2qvcH_blog.html

Posted at 11:43 AM ET, 06/20/2011
Why Ron Paul keeps winning straw polls
By Chris Cillizza

Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul may be the single best straw poll candidate in the 2012 field.

Paul easily won the straw vote at this weekend’s Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, outdistancing the likes of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann.

That victory comes on the heels of Paul’s straw poll win at the Conservative Political Action Conference earlier this year — a straw vote he also won at the 2010 CPAC gathering.

And yet, for all of Paul’s straw poll success, he remains a marginal figure — at best — in the 2012 field. What gives?

The simple — yet largely unspoken — fact is that the vast majority of straw polls don’t matter as history suggests they have little correlation with the dynamics of actual primaries and caucuses.

The most important reason for that disparity is that the number of votes cast in straw polls is minuscule.

Paul won the RLC straw poll on Saturday with 612 votes out of 1,542 cast; at CPAC this year, a total of 3,742 votes were cast.

To put that in perspective, Paul finished fifth in the 2008 Iowa Republican caucuses — behind Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) who didn’t even compete in the state — with 11,817 votes. There were nearly 119,000 total votes cast.

The tiny voter universe of straw polls plays into Paul’s greatest strength — the deep and abiding loyalty that a relatively narrow group of supporters have for him.

(For more on that particular phenomenon, make sure to check out our piece on what Paul and “Friday Night Lights” have in common.)

The problem for Paul is that he has struggled mightily to scale that support upwards as the number of people voting in a given contest has grown.

Remember that Paul did not win a single primary or caucus in the 2008 presidential race despite raising tens of millions of dollars via the Internet and emerging as one of the stories of the campaign.

And, even at the 2007 Ames Straw Poll — perhaps the only straw event worth paying attention to — Paul couldn’t turn the energy of the few into the votes of the many.

To walk around Ames that day — as we did — one would have thought Paul was going to pull a titanic political upset. His supporters seemed to be everywhere, parading around the event site chanting his name and dwarfing the other more establishment candidates when it came to the excitement factor.

And yet, when the results were announced, Paul finished fifth with 1,305 votes — behind even then Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, a decided longshot in the race.

What all of that suggests is that Paul tends to win these minor straw poll skirmishes for two basic reasons:

1. His ardent base of supporters is large enough to have a determinative impact on events where so few votes are cast.

2. None of the other, more establishment candidates care enough to make a concerted effort to win. (When they do, they tend to win; Romney won the CPAC straw poll in 2007, 2008 and 2009.)

With Romney already announcing that he will not participate in any straw polls this year — including Ames — the door is open for Paul to continue his winning streak.

But, don’t mistake winning straw polls for winning elections. History suggests they are two totally different animals.
Click to expand...
 
Good Luck said:
Polls are seldom worth the paper they are written on, this early in the runnings. I remember distinctly when Dean was considered a shoe-in for the democratic nomination, with the vast majority of polls showing him with a significant lead - until after the NH primaries, and his screaming fit that was supposed to be a rallying speech.

And then there was Hillary, assumed by both democrats and republicans as the presumptive nominee.
Don't I wish THOSE polls had turned out accurate.
Click to expand...

what are you smoking there was no fucking way in hell democrats ever were not going to nominate their golden boy obama.
 
Good Luck said:
Polls are seldom worth the paper they are written on, this early in the runnings. I remember distinctly when Dean was considered a shoe-in for the democratic nomination, with the vast majority of polls showing him with a significant lead - until after the NH primaries, and his screaming fit that was supposed to be a rallying speech.

And then there was Hillary, assumed by both democrats and republicans as the presumptive nominee.
Don't I wish THOSE polls had turned out accurate.
Click to expand...

Agreed wit the first part. These straw polls tend to bring out the extremes and party activist. This was a hell of a boost for Bachman and an eye opener for Romney showing he's not popular with the parties right wing.

As for the second part...what have you been smoking? Clinton was never the presumptive nominee in 08. The knock on her was that she was eminantly qualified but came with to much baggage and was to polarizing. It was on that basis that I cast my first ever vote as a registered Democrat for Obama despite my misgivings about his inexperience.
 
Synchronicity said:
what are you smoking there was no fucking way in hell democrats ever were not going to nominate their golden boy obama.
Click to expand...

What have you been smoking? The 08 democratic primary was predicted as being a close fight between Obama and Clinton and that's what it was. If Obama had been the presumptive nominee he would have wrapped up the nomination after super Tuesday.
 
Synchronicity said:
what are you smoking there was no fucking way in hell democrats ever were not going to nominate their golden boy obama.
Click to expand...

I disagree......I think if we get down to the Democratic primaries in the summer of '12 and public opinion regarding Obama is the same as it now he will be forced to step down..........he will be LBJ2 instead of Carter2.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I disagree......I think if we get down to the Democratic primaries in the summer of '12 and public opinion regarding Obama is the same as it now he will be forced to step down..........he will be LBJ2 instead of Carter2.....
Click to expand...

:lol:

Keep drinking the tea dude, keep drinking the tea!

Obama is certainly at risk for losing re-election but the biggest thing he has going in his favor is the incredibly weak field the Republican party is fielding. There is no way that the majority of American voters are going to vote for a far right wing ideologue. You are just simply bullshitting your self if you think that's gonna happen. Particularly when you consider that the Republicans most viable candidate in a general election, Romney, isn't well liked at all by the parties base.

Read the polls with an objective eye and try not to convince your self of what you want to believe. Obama's poll ratings have dropped and he is certainly at risk but Republicans are polling far lower then he is meaning whomever is nominated by the Republican party has a long up hill battle ahead of them.

You need to get out of rural Iowa and talk to a more diverse group of people cause public sentiment there is not representative of the nation by a long shot.

You're making a huge mistake if you interpret the public dissatisfaction with Obama's leadership as public approval of a right wing agenda.
 
I consider this a huge win for Bachmann. The lame stream media can never again claim her not to be a serious candidate.
 
The Straw Poll was regarded as very important in 2008 when the Kenyan community organizer won it. Why the new attitude, Liberals?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
:lol:

Keep drinking the tea dude, keep drinking the tea!

Obama is certainly at risk for losing re-election but the biggest thing he has going in his favor is the incredibly weak field the Republican party is fielding. There is no way that the majority of American voters are going to vote for a far right wing ideologue. You are just simply bullshitting your self if you think that's gonna happen. Particularly when you consider that the Republicans most viable candidate in a general election, Romney, isn't well liked at all by the parties base.

Read the polls with an objective eye and try not to convince your self of what you want to believe. Obama's poll ratings have dropped and he is certainly at risk but Republicans are polling far lower then he is meaning whomever is nominated by the Republican party has a long up hill battle ahead of them.

You need to get out of rural Iowa and talk to a more diverse group of people cause public sentiment there is not representative of the nation by a long shot.

You're making a huge mistake if you interpret the public dissatisfaction with Obama's leadership as public approval of a right wing agenda.
Click to expand...

lol.....Obama is going to be your candidate and you're worried about OUR "weak field"?.......crap, a third of the people on the extreme left who voted for him in '08 won't even bother to go to the polls in '12......and all the folks who voted for him just so they could say they voted for the first black president won't be coming to the party, either.......how many states do you think he can carry?.....

do you think he can carry Michigan?....do you really think he can carry Ohio, Florida?.....you better hope Hillary steps in or you WILL spend at least four years with whoever we nominate.......and it sounds like you don't like any of them......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
lol.....Obama is going to be your candidate and you're worried about OUR "weak field"?.......crap, a third of the people on the extreme left who voted for him in '08 won't even bother to go to the polls in '12......and all the folks who voted for him just so they could say they voted for the first black president won't be coming to the party, either.......how many states do you think he can carry?.....

do you think he can carry Michigan?....do you really think he can carry Ohio, Florida?.....you better hope Hillary steps in or you WILL spend at least four years with whoever we nominate.......and it sounds like you don't like any of them......
Click to expand...

Dude, have you been hiding under a rock? Are you aware of how pissed off the general public in both Ohio and Florida are? Kasich and Scott are polling some of the lowest numbers for Governors in American history and have alienated large segments of voters who traditionally vote Republican. Yea......Obama can win Ohio and Florida and your a tea drinking partisan who's either completely clueless or totally incapable of being objective or so lacking in imagination that you can't conceive that people from some small town in Iowa (yes, we are aware that by your standards it's the cultural center of the universe) views are not representative of the entire nation.

As for michigan. Poll and poll after poll shows Obama with crushing leads over all the right wing nut jobs currently running and that the only competative republican is Romney (who's originally from michigan) and he trails Obama by 5% so yea......Obama's chances of winning Florida, Ohio and michigan are looking real competitive.

http://race42012.com/2011/07/27/poll-watch-ppp-d-michigan-2012-presidential-survey-3/
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Obama's chances of winning Florida, Ohio and Florida are looking real good.
]
Click to expand...

lol.....you remember, of course, that every prediction you've made here in the last several months has been a disaster for you.....I've seen that a handful of union members are vocally opposed to legislation requiring them to contribute to their own retirement plans like everyone else does......I've seen them try to recall Wisconsin Republicans over it......I've seen low turnout at the recall elections and I've seen Republicans retain control of the Wisconsin legislature......I've seen Obama lose in polls to "any Republican" consistently for months.......I've seen him lose the support of liberals and moderates......do you seriously think he has a shot at winning any state that he won by less than 5% in '08?
 
\(\(V\/V)/)/

┬ ┭ ┮ ┯ ┰ ┱ ┲
This message is hidden because \(\(V\/V)/)/ is on your ignore list.
View Post

Remove user from ignore list
Click to expand...
oh, you're back?......just yesterday someone was saying you had left and were cancelling all your accounts....
 
The Dude said:
Iowa is affective at thining the crowed, Pawlenty dropped out.
Click to expand...



Thanks for the news flash, doper. What'd we do without your timely info?


Since you set such store by education, explain the difference between "affective" and "effective", dumbass.


While we're at it, what's a "crowed", and what does "thining" it mean?


LOL @ GED doper. Looks like Pawlenty's not the only one who 'dropped out'.



stoner-weed-advisory-150x150.jpg
 
PostmodernProphet said:
lol.....you remember, of course, that every prediction you've made here in the last several months has been a disaster for you.....I've seen that a handful of union members are vocally opposed to legislation requiring them to contribute to their own retirement plans like everyone else does......I've seen them try to recall Wisconsin Republicans over it......I've seen low turnout at the recall elections and I've seen Republicans retain control of the Wisconsin legislature......I've seen Obama lose in polls to "any Republican" consistently for months.......I've seen him lose the support of liberals and moderates......do you seriously think he has a shot at winning any state that he won by less than 5% in '08?
Click to expand...

You're in insluated lala land. The only Republican polling well against Obama is Romney. All the others trail him by double digit margins. Polling against "any republican" is completely meaningless.

You've seen a handful of Republicans win recall elections in heavily Republican districts in Wisconsin with out even stopping to think, somebody must have been pissed off to have recall elections for them in the first place, that these districts are not representative of the entire State of Wisconsin nor the fact that Democrats did gain during these recalls (so far..two more this week). Assuming Dems with the two recalls this week (highly likely going by current polling) then it's been a slight gain for Dems and, again, none of that is representative of the entire state. Not to mention that what is happening in Wisconsin has had no bearing on what is happening in Ohio.

The writting is on the wall in Ohio. Opponents of SB#5 not only have the referendum to elminate the bill on the State Ballot but they also acheived the ballot langauge they wanted. With polls showing 2/3 of the State thinking that SB#5 goes way to far Kasich has even gotten desperate and has had closed door meetings with legislative opponents of SB#5 to see if they could cut a deal in which he would drop the union busting aspects of the bill if union workers would agree to concesion and they could then drop SB#5 from the State ballot. Major screw up by Kasich cause now everyone is pissed off as to why the incompetent SOB didn't do this in the first place and spare Ohio this divisive fight. Needless to say he was told to GFO and SB#5 is going down to defeat. Political winds are pretty solid that the legislature in Ohio will change hands in 2012 making Kasich a one term lame duck. No governor with his poll ratings has ever won re-election in our entire States history. He's toast and that has impacted the Obama race cause many traditionally conservative voters in Ohio who did not support him have now switched sides. (From what I gather from my friends active in State Republican politics, Kasich's political career is over if he loses SB#5 and he is desperate with polls showing 60 to 65% thing that SB#5 goes to far). Then let's talk Florida where Scott has alienated massive numbers of traditional conservative government workers on a far grander scale then Kasich. Scott has the lowest approval ratings of any Governor in the entire State History of Florida and he's dragging down Republican support for national candidates not to mention he's done a bang up job of alienating hispanics/latinos in his State with his anti-immigration rhetoric.

Then if you want to chew on some other facts that Obama has going for him besides Republicans being disliked more then him. Nearly 25% of the population is hispanic or African American. Nearly 90% or more will vote for Obama. Losing hispanics was unneccesary but Tea bagger xenophobia alienated them. Then you have about 20% of the population that's white liberal Democrats and the vast majority of them aren't going to vote for a right wing canddiate. That leaves Obama with a base of support of around 45%. He only has to convince a little over 5% of independents or moderates to vote for him and polls show that a Republican candidate has only about 56% of support of Independends but only about 1/3 of moderates. Do the maths dude? Obama would only have to convince about 5 to 6% voters to re-elect him. Romney would have to convince about 10 to 12% of voters and a wingnut like Bachman would have to make up 20 to 30 points.

You're making a very serious mistake to assume that because liberals and moderates are not happy with Obama's leadership that they would turn around and vote for a nut job like Bachman. NOT GONNA HAPPEND DUDE! So quit drinking the partisan tea and start getting real, cause if you don't, Obama is going to smoke his Republican opponent.

You might as well accept these two hard cold facts. #1. Romney is the only viable candidate Republicans have that can beat Obama. #2. Anyone other then Romney means 4 more years of Obama.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top