PDA

View Full Version : Straw Poll Results


Jenson71
08-11-2007, 07:30 PM
Mitt Romney 4516 31.5%
Mike Huckabee 2587 18.1%
Sam Brownback 2192 15.3%
Tom Tancredo 1961 13.7%
Ron Paul 1305 9.1%
Tommy Thompson 1039 7.3%
Fred Thompson 203 1.4%
Rudy Giuliani 183 1.3%
Duncan Hunter 174 1.2%
John McCain 101 1.0%
John Cox 41 0.1%

14,302 Total Votes
26,000 Total Tickets Sold

BucEyedPea
08-11-2007, 07:58 PM
I was just coming in here to post those. :shake:

Best results money can buy for Mitt.

I am very surprised Tancredo and Brownback placed before Paul.

I'd say, Huckabee, is the real winner when you scale it taking Mitt's money outta the picture. Guess it's the 1930's all over again...war, war and more war.

Anyhow, Paul is not quitting just yet.

Jenson71
08-11-2007, 08:01 PM
I was just coming in here to post those. :shake:

Best results money can buy for Mitt.

I am very surprised Tancredo and Brownback placed before Paul.

I'd say, Huckabee, is the real winner when you scale it taking Mitt's money outta the picture.

Anyhow, Paul is not quitting just yet.

No, Paul is not quitting. I talked to his campaign manager. They're focusing on getting people in the hometowns to get to their halls. Not that I'm saying everything's great. Obviously, we wanted more than this. :\

I told him I'd be a hard working intern if they open up an office in Waterloo/Cedar Falls. :)

Jenson71
08-11-2007, 08:03 PM
In my opinion, Paul and Brownback supporters were the most enthusiastic. Romney had half the place wearing his yellow shirts. And Romney had the buses. Even golf carts going from the buses to the tents.

BucEyedPea
08-11-2007, 08:20 PM
I waited for the results Jens and nothing, all over tv and the net for over an hour....I had no idea until I saw the other thread title here, that there was a machine malfunction.

I finally saw the results on Lew Rockwell....and I read the turnout was low much lower than expected. That surprised me.

I hear Mitt had mostly kids running around with his signs. And that he had a soundstage the size of Canada. Lol! Was that true?

Anyhow....it's still a Straw Poll.
I'm gonna volunteer and make a good size donation despite the resutls.

banyon
08-11-2007, 08:29 PM
When do the Paul supporters think he would hang it up, if necessary? IA caucuses, NH primary, SC, SuperTues? An Independent Bid?

BucEyedPea
08-11-2007, 08:31 PM
He will not run as a 3P candidate. He's already said so.
A 3P can do damage but it can't win.

Other than that he's in it until the end. I guess that means until the end of the primaries or nomination. His campaign said they would not quit if they didn't do well in this.

SNR
08-11-2007, 08:49 PM
This isn't bad. I think this is just what Ron Paul was looking for. Tancredo, Brownback, and Huckabee spent over a month in Iowa. Ron Paul spent not even a week. That much time in a less-than-libertarian state and predicted to finish last. He finished 5th and beat out two other lower-tier opponents. Hunter and Tommy Thompson have got to be getting low on funds and will probably end up dropping out of this one shortly. He also made the jump from 2 to 9 percentage points.

The important thing is that Ron Paul did this without spending much cash. From what I hear, he spent about $100 per vote compared to Mitt's $2200 per vote.

We've still got New Hampshire to go and that will be a biggie. I would expect Paul to spend a bit more time and effort in that state, which is one that is more closely aligned to his views. That's also where this bullshit streaming from guys like Brownback and Huckabee will stop. I wouldn't expect them to do well there at all.

The Revolution is just getting started.

BucEyedPea
08-11-2007, 08:59 PM
This isn't bad. I think this is just what Ron Paul was looking for. Tancredo, Brownback, and Huckabee spent over a month in Iowa. Ron Paul spent not even a week. That much time in a less-than-libertarian state and predicted to finish last. He finished 5th and beat out two other lower-tier opponents. Hunter and Tommy Thompson have got to be getting low on funds and will probably end up dropping out of this one shortly. He also made the jump from 2 to 9 percentage points. [That's what's needed.]

The important thing is that Ron Paul did this without spending much cash. From what I hear, he spent about $100 per vote compared to Mitt's $2200 per vote.

We've still got New Hampshire to go and that will be a biggie. I would expect Paul to spend a bit more time and effort in that state, which is one that is more closely aligned to his views. That's also where this bullshit streaming from guys like Brownback and Huckabee will stop. I wouldn't expect them to do well there at all.

The Revolution is just getting started.

Some new data I haven't heard. One week compared to a month. Interesting for perspective.
Iowa is far less than libertarian, and I think of it as more moderate Pub but maybe that's just because of my former in-laws.

NH is a whole 'nother ball of wax....however, Mitt's been working it too. On one of my Pat boards, not a mention of Paul and they drool over Mitt. I think the Manchester Union may pump him up though. Too many Dems have moved over the border and have started wrecking the place...but that may not be bad for this election. NH still has a strong libertarian presence....afterall their liscense plates say "Live Free or Die."

I hear Mitt's votes came to $5,000 each! ROFL

Ultra Peanut
08-11-2007, 08:59 PM
Yeah, but with 9iu11iani being a non-entity and Fred Thompson holding off and holding off and holding off, it has to be a bit disappointing to still end up fifth behind a couple of goobers like Tancredo and Brownback.

That being said, I really would like to see Paul somehow steal this nomination, because he's infinitely more palatable than any of the other candidates the Republicans are spewing out there.

Cochise
08-11-2007, 09:03 PM
Mitt Romney 4516 31.5%
Mike Huckabee 2587 18.1%
Sam Brownback 2192 15.3%
Tom Tancredo 1961 13.7%
Ron Paul 1305 9.1%
Tommy Thompson 1039 7.3%
Fred Thompson 203 1.4%
Rudy Giuliani 183 1.3%
Duncan Hunter 174 1.2%
John McCain 101 1.0%
John Cox 41 0.1%

14,302 Total Votes
26,000 Total Tickets Sold

The thing that strikes me about this is not really that Paul finished 5th, but more that two of the three frontrunners were out and it didn't really help him. The support from Rudy and Thompson being absent seems to have bolstered the more conservative candidates and been largely neutral to him. I think we can still safely say there isn't any evidence to think he's more than 6th-7th place candidate at this point.

Tancredo is a guy who I could see myself casting a vote for.

BucEyedPea
08-11-2007, 09:06 PM
Yeah, but with 9iu11iani being a non-entity and Fred Thompson holding off and holding off and holding off, it has to be a bit disappointing to still end up fifth behind a couple of goobers like Tancredo and Brownback.

That being said, I really would like to see Paul somehow steal this nomination, because he's infinitely more palatable than any of the other candidates the Republicans are spewing out there.
What someone on the news said tonight is that most people are still doing outdoor BBQ's and only very political people are paying attention right now.
Sounds about right.

Even Biden said on King early news reports have never been right about who wins a nomination. I also read the same, that it's only about 10% of people that are being measured right now. So Thompson waiting isn't that big a deal...and those who looked like winners could still nosedive.

It will be tougher for Paul to win the GOP nomination though, because the base is so pro-war. Now that the surge-is-working Public Relations (lies) is being disseminated Bush's poll numbers are moving back up too.

BucEyedPea
08-11-2007, 09:09 PM
The thing that strikes me about this is not really that Paul finished 5th, but more that two of the three frontrunners were out and it didn't really help him. The support from Rudy and Thompson being absent seems to have bolstered the more conservative candidates and been largely neutral to him. I think we can still safely say there isn't any evidence to think he's more than 6th-7th place candidate at this point.

Tancredo is a guy who I could see myself casting a vote for.
I read Rudy didn't bother with Iowa because he was dropping in the polls. I don't know it that's true...just what I read.

I love Tancredo on immigration and many other issues....but nuking Mecca is just over the top for me. That whole paranoia thing is just not good. If he hadn't of said that...I could consider him.

The others though will lose most of the swing voters and independents in the national election. IMO.

Cochise
08-11-2007, 09:13 PM
I read Rudy didn't bother with Iowa because he was dropping in the polls. I don't know it that's true...just what I read.

I love Tancredo on immigration and many other issues....but nuking Mecca is just over the top for me. That whole paranoia thing is just not good. If he hadn't of said that...I could consider him.

The others though will lose most of the swing voters and independents in the national election. IMO.

The base has to support you first. That's Paul's problem. He has some support out there, but it consists almost entirely of anti-war moderates. He won't pull significantly from the right because only a fraction of the right is not committed to Iraq. He won't pull from the anti-war left because they've got plenty of other candidates more suitable to them who are anti-war.

Sure, Paul has a lot of ideas that are good ones, but his candidacy in my opinion is a measure of the support the war has among the conservative base, and it still seems to be relatively unified.

banyon
08-11-2007, 09:15 PM
I read Rudy didn't bother with Iowa because he was dropping in the polls. I don't know it that's true...just what I read.

I love Tancredo on immigration and many other issues....but nuking Mecca is just over the top for me. That whole paranoia thing is just not good. If he hadn't of said that...I could consider him.

The others though will lose most of the swing voters and independents in the national election. IMO.

Nuking Mecca? Knew he was nutty but that's crazy.

Sounds like he should be StcChief's candidate.

BucEyedPea
08-11-2007, 09:17 PM
Nuking Mecca? Knew he was nutty but that's crazy.
Yes! He said that.

Sounds like he should be StcChief's candidate.

You noticed too?

BucEyedPea
08-11-2007, 09:28 PM
The base has to support you first. That's Paul's problem. He has some support out there, but it consists almost entirely of anti-war moderates. He won't pull significantly from the right because only a fraction of the right is not committed to Iraq.
Of course the base has to support you first....that's why he's a dark horse.
But it just may cost the GOP the WH too. However, Hillary could mop the floor with him on his other issues.

He won't pull from the anti-war left because they've got plenty of other candidates more suitable to them who are anti-war.
Like who?
Hillary won't talk to our alleged enemies and nukes on Iran are not off the table. Barack will bomb Pakistan and says nukes on Iran are not off the table.
The Dem field is less crowded to find someone who is not really anti-war.

Sure, Paul has a lot of ideas that are good ones, but his candidacy in my opinion is a measure of the support the war has among the conservative base, and it still seems to be relatively unified.
Yeah...like I said it's the 1930's all over again.

Taco John
08-11-2007, 10:07 PM
I'm disappointed as I was hoping for a home run here. Even still... Liberty is on the march, and Mitt Romney is clearly in his last throes. Ron Paul should hang a mission accomplished banner, and call it good.

BucEyedPea
08-11-2007, 10:11 PM
I'm disappointed as I was hoping for a home run here. Even still... Liberty is on the march, and Mitt Romney is clearly in his last throes. Ron Paul should hang a mission accomplished banner, and call it good.
...and hire patteeu as campaign motivational speaker to "stay the course!" :D

recxjake
08-11-2007, 11:52 PM
I read Rudy didn't bother with Iowa because he was dropping in the polls. I don't know it that's true...just what I read.

I love Tancredo on immigration and many other issues....but nuking Mecca is just over the top for me. That whole paranoia thing is just not good. If he hadn't of said that...I could consider him.

The others though will lose most of the swing voters and independents in the national election. IMO.


Rudy didn't bother with the straw poll because it doesn't mean anything... just a big fat waste of 3 million bucks. He was in Iowa 3 days last week, and is going to the fair later this week. He is very much playing in Iowa, but for the day it counts... Jan 14th.

Logical
08-12-2007, 12:12 AM
The base has to support you first. That's Paul's problem. He has some support out there, but it consists almost entirely of anti-war moderates. He won't pull significantly from the right because only a fraction of the right is not committed to Iraq. He won't pull from the anti-war left because they've got plenty of other candidates more suitable to them who are anti-war.

Sure, Paul has a lot of ideas that are good ones, but his candidacy in my opinion is a measure of the support the war has among the conservative base, and it still seems to be relatively unified.That fraction is nearing 1/2 and has been over 1/3 for a long, long time.

Taco John
08-12-2007, 12:20 AM
Rudy didn't bother with the straw poll because it doesn't mean anything... just a big fat waste of 3 million bucks. He was in Iowa 3 days last week, and is going to the fair later this week. He is very much playing in Iowa, but for the day it counts... Jan 14th.



Actually, Rudy didn't bother because he knew that he'd lose it. He doesn't have the base behind him, and would gain nothing from this straw poll except a black eye if he participated.

Jenson71
08-12-2007, 01:10 AM
Rudy didn't bother with the straw poll because it doesn't mean anything... just a big fat waste of 3 million bucks. He was in Iowa 3 days last week, and is going to the fair later this week. He is very much playing in Iowa, but for the day it counts... Jan 14th.

If I remember right, Rudy said he didn't care about it shortly after the Des Moines Register reported that Romney was leading in polls in Iowa. Then McCain jumped in because he was behind Romney. I don't think Rudy wanted to compete and take the chance of losing the straw poll.

I feel kind of bad for you. You were so excited for some reason and Rudy seems to think Iowa doesn't mean anything.

Jenson71
08-12-2007, 01:21 AM
I hear Mitt had mostly kids running around with his signs. And that he had a soundstage the size of Canada. Lol! Was that true?

Yeah, all of the candidates had a tent and some space, Mitt had his own acreage; the stage was big - like at a concert. 6 feet high, 30 feet long.

I don't remember too many kids running around with his signs. But, like I said, it seemed half the people there were wearing his yellow "Team Mitt" shirts. And he had a ton of volunteers and staff working for him.

I only heard a couple speeches, one from Romney, one from Paul, and one from Thompson. Paul is a refreshing exception in that he doesn't trash any candidate (like Romney talking about Hillary enough), he doesn't share pointless ancedotes and stories (I heard many people say Huckabee did only that today). He wastes no time with wishy washy talk, and gives you straight up ideas, a positive vibe and...well, just hope.

SBK
08-12-2007, 01:27 AM
I went to the straw poll in 99 and it was crazy. ISU football couldn't pull that kind of audience if they went undefeated. It was a frickin madhouse.

Cochise
08-12-2007, 10:24 AM
That fraction is nearing 1/2 and has been over 1/3 for a long, long time.

Looks to me like it's about 9.1%

recxjake
08-12-2007, 10:51 AM
If I remember right, Rudy said he didn't care about it shortly after the Des Moines Register reported that Romney was leading in polls in Iowa. Then McCain jumped in because he was behind Romney. I don't think Rudy wanted to compete and take the chance of losing the straw poll.

I feel kind of bad for you. You were so excited for some reason and Rudy seems to think Iowa doesn't mean anything.

He didnt say he didn't care... he said it was a waste of his money.... what would a victory at the straw poll have proved....? That he is the frontrunner... well we already know that....

It isn't rocket science on how to win the straw poll.... You buy enough tickets to win, and bus people in from all over the state to use the tickets. If he wanted to have spent the 3 million bucks for one day, he could have easily won.... You don't think Rudy has more then 4,500 votes in Iowa?!?

If Rudy wins Iowa it is over... and he understands that.... he is opening up 2 more offices in Iowa in the next couple of weeks. He has a dozen paid staff in the state.

Has Ron Paul even opened up a office in Iowa yet?

Taco John
08-12-2007, 11:15 AM
what would a victory at the straw poll have proved....?



HAHAHA! You mean other than he can generate Republican support! ROFL

Jenson71
08-12-2007, 11:31 AM
Has Ron Paul even opened up a office in Iowa yet?

Yes. Just recently in Des Moines.

recxjake
08-12-2007, 12:09 PM
HAHAHA! You mean other than he can generate Republican support! ROFL

That isn't a question with Rudy Giuliani.... people by the hundreds go listen to him around the state... he has support.... why pay for it?

Didn't Ron Paul only get 1,000 or so votes? That is only 800 more then Rudy and Rudy didn't spend a penny.

recxjake
08-12-2007, 12:10 PM
Yes. Just recently in Des Moines.

I'm in Des Moines, where's it at?

StcChief
08-12-2007, 12:23 PM
Yes! He said that.



You noticed too?Yep Nuke 'em.

BucEyedPea
08-12-2007, 12:25 PM
That isn't a question with Rudy Giuliani.... people by the hundreds go listen to him around the state... he has support.... why pay for it?

Didn't Ron Paul only get 1,000 or so votes? That is only 800 more then Rudy and Rudy didn't spend a penny.
Who spent here?
Paul's campaign didn't spend much either....others spent their own money for him. Also the Paul campaign didn't bus people in or ply them with free barbeque either. The three behind Mitt did bus people though as well. Wonder if they would even have got 10% without paying for their results too. Paul's peeps bought some tickets but not many. Seems to me he spent the least and as far as I've read he's hung on to most of his money, like a true fiscal conservative.

I'd say Mitt has a stronger better organization and he understands management and that's what this shows too.

Turnout
Over 24,000 tickets were bought in June and look how many turned out. Not good for the GOP. Further if you total up the three behind Mitt, that exceeds Mitt's total. That can't be good for Rudy getting enough of the base voted. IIRC, those who don't win the GOP Iowa Straw Poll don't get the nomination. Not that something like that is carved in stone.

It's still too early and most aren't paying attention yet. Even if professional consultants are trying to change how we elect a Prez...most aren't paying attention except for political aficiondoes. So early leads are not necessarily reliable indicators.

Oh and they really didn't do a manual ballot count it was as spot count. These machines have been de-certified in CA and FL. Not that it was enough to change Mitt's lead.

recxjake
08-12-2007, 12:30 PM
Who spent here?
Paul's campaign didn't spend much either....others spent their own money for him. Also the Paul campaign didn't bus people in or ply them with free barbeque either. The three behind Mitt did bus people though as well. Wonder if they would even have got 10% without paying for their results too. Paul's peeps bought some tickets but not many. Seems to me he spent the least and as far as I've read he's hung on to most of his money, like a true fiscal conservative.

I'd say Mitt has a stronger better organization and he understands management and that's what this shows too.

Turnout
Over 24,000 tickets were bought in June and look how many turned out. Not good for the GOP. Further if you total up the three behind Mitt, that exceeds Mitt's total. That can't be good for Rudy getting enough of the base voted. IIRC, those who don't win the GOP Iowa Straw Poll don't get the nomination. Not that something like that is carved in stone.

It's still too early and most aren't paying attention yet. Even if professional consultants are trying to change how we elect a Prez...most aren't paying attention except for political aficiondoes. So early leads are not necessarily reliable indicators.

Oh and they really didn't do a manual ballot count it was as spot count. These machines have been de-certified in CA and FL. Not that it was enough to change Mitt's lead.

He spent more then Rudy.

I just hope we see some guys drop out.... T. Thompson, Hunter, Cox

I want Brownback to stay in because he likes throwing shots at Romney...


Rudy
Romney
Fred
Huckabee
McCain
Paul
Brownback
Tancredo

BucEyedPea
08-12-2007, 12:33 PM
I don't think this poll makes Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback or Tom Tancredo necessarily anyways. I don't know what states allow Indys or Dems to vote in a GOP elections for one.

patteeu
08-13-2007, 09:32 AM
He spent more then Rudy.

I just hope we see some guys drop out.... T. Thompson, Hunter, Cox

I want Brownback to stay in because he likes throwing shots at Romney...


Rudy
Romney
Fred
Huckabee
McCain
Paul
Brownback
Tancredo

I don't know who Cox is, but the three guys you mentioned should definitely consider dropping out. I like Hunter, but he's going nowhere real fast.

I think Brownback's failure to finish ahead of Huckabee is a pretty dire indicator for his campaign too. Brownback has been focusing on Iowa for quite a while now and if he had any real shot at the nomination he should have done better than this.

I think Huckabee has a pretty good shot at being the VP nominee if either Rudy or Romney end up with the nomination because he's from the south and he's well received by the social conservatives. Thompson would probably go in a different direction.

AFAIC, Paul met expectations here, but that won't be good enough to come close to the nomination.

IMO, Tancredo exceeded expectations here, but that won't be good enough to come close to the nomination.

Jenson71
08-13-2007, 09:38 AM
He spent more then Rudy.


I wonder how much Rudy spent on Huckabee's/Brownback's campaign to try putting a dent into Romney's victory?

Cochise
08-13-2007, 09:54 AM
I think Huckabee has a pretty good shot at being the VP nominee if either Rudy or Romney end up with the nomination because he's from the south and he's well received by the social conservatives. Thompson would probably go in a different direction.

I think that this probably does elevate Huckabee to a possible VP frontrunner. I think your postulation about he and Rudy is a good one.

I see the field as Rudy, then Romney and Thompson, then everybody else. It's hard to see anyone besides (possibly) Huckabee as even rising to the level of a being a dark horse.

I think that by now if we were going to see an enormous revolt against Giuliani we probably would be seeing the signs already. I had been skeptical that he would be able to secure the nomination, but I'm becoming less so. His numbers have been holding right around 30 since the early spring, we've had a few debates, and no one's been able to punch any big holes in him.

I think it's also telling that the other side is trotting out union bosses and such to discredit him, it shows that the strategists on the other side consider Giuliani to be the odds-on as well.

I think the earnest part of the primary run will be Rudy vs. Romney. I think Thompson could be a factor but he might have missed his window.

Cochise
08-13-2007, 11:16 AM
Who spent here?
Paul's campaign didn't spend much either....others spent their own money for him. Also the Paul campaign didn't bus people in or ply them with free barbeque either. The three behind Mitt did bus people though as well. Wonder if they would even have got 10% without paying for their results too. Paul's peeps bought some tickets but not many. Seems to me he spent the least and as far as I've read he's hung on to most of his money, like a true fiscal conservative.


So why then did Huckabee's supporters outnumber Paul's 2 to 1, when he spent less than $100,000 there?

recxjake
08-13-2007, 11:59 AM
I don't know who Cox is, but the three guys you mentioned should definitely consider dropping out. I like Hunter, but he's going nowhere real fast.

I think Brownback's failure to finish ahead of Huckabee is a pretty dire indicator for his campaign too. Brownback has been focusing on Iowa for quite a while now and if he had any real shot at the nomination he should have done better than this.

I think Huckabee has a pretty good shot at being the VP nominee if either Rudy or Romney end up with the nomination because he's from the south and he's well received by the social conservatives. Thompson would probably go in a different direction.

AFAIC, Paul met expectations here, but that won't be good enough to come close to the nomination.

IMO, Tancredo exceeded expectations here, but that won't be good enough to come close to the nomination.


I 100% agree with you.... I think a Giuliani/ Huckabee ticket would be huge.... it shores up the Republican base... and the south.... yet still puts California, Penn, Illinois, Conn, New Jersey into play.

If hillary has to spend money in blue states to win, she is in trouble.

recxjake
08-13-2007, 12:02 PM
I think that this probably does elevate Huckabee to a possible VP frontrunner. I think your postulation about he and Rudy is a good one.

I see the field as Rudy, then Romney and Thompson, then everybody else. It's hard to see anyone besides (possibly) Huckabee as even rising to the level of a being a dark horse.

I think that by now if we were going to see an enormous revolt against Giuliani we probably would be seeing the signs already. I had been skeptical that he would be able to secure the nomination, but I'm becoming less so. His numbers have been holding right around 30 since the early spring, we've had a few debates, and no one's been able to punch any big holes in him.

I think it's also telling that the other side is trotting out union bosses and such to discredit him, it shows that the strategists on the other side consider Giuliani to be the odds-on as well.

I think the earnest part of the primary run will be Rudy vs. Romney. I think Thompson could be a factor but he might have missed his window.

My beliefs as well.

I think it will end up Rudy vs Romney.... Fred missed his chance

As long as Brownback and Huckabee stay in it will hurt Romney because they are splitting up the prolife vote.

As for the big picture... Rudy can still win the nomination if he loses in Iowa and NH.... He has offices in Cali, Illinois, New Jersey, Delaware, Florida, N Dakota, Florida....

Feb 5 2008 we will know the nominee.

BucEyedPea
08-13-2007, 12:22 PM
I think Romney's going to win it because he's been a gov'r, ran a business, has a calmer demeanor, looks and sounds waspy. Guiliani is too ethnic, paesano for Americans as well as a hot-headed authoritarian.

Cochise
08-13-2007, 12:54 PM
I think Romney's going to win it because he's been a gov'r, ran a business, has a calmer demeanor, looks and sounds waspy. Guiliani is too ethnic, paesano for Americans as well as a hot-headed authoritarian.

Rudy is too ethnic? That's a new one. LMAO

And as far as Romney being protestant, I believe that to be in error as well. A protestant denomination traces itself back to the protestant reformation, which logically excludes restorationist movements.

Baby Lee
08-13-2007, 01:24 PM
I 100% agree with you.... I think a Giuliani/ Huckabee ticket would be huge.... it shores up the Republican base... and the south.... yet still puts California, Penn, Illinois, Conn, New Jersey into play.

If hillary has to spend money in blue states to win, she is in trouble.
I can stomach a Huckabee veep. I think he's a likeable, well-intentioned guy. I don't want him as pres, because he's my complete opposition on positions. Socially conservative evangelical nanny-stater with regards to behavior [abortion, smut, marriage, everything for 'the kids'] AND fiscally liberal envangelical nanny-stater on entitlements and programs.
But he'd be a great counterpoint to Giuliani at the head of the ticket [also his opposite].

recxjake
08-13-2007, 01:42 PM
I can stomach a Huckabee veep. I think he's a likeable, well-intentioned guy. I don't want him as pres, because he's my complete opposition on positions. Socially conservative evangelical nanny-stater with regards to behavior [abortion, smut, marriage, everything for 'the kids'] AND fiscally liberal envangelical nanny-stater on entitlements and programs.
But he'd be a great counterpoint to Giuliani at the head of the ticket [also his opposite].

I am 100% certain that if Rudy is the nominee.... he will pick a southern, pro-life VP....

BucEyedPea
08-13-2007, 02:25 PM
Rudy is too ethnic? That's a new one. LMAO
Yup!

And as far as Romney being protestant, I believe that to be in error as well. A protestant denomination traces itself back to the protestant reformation, which logically excludes restorationist movements.
Where did I say Romney was a protestant? You need to re-read what I wrote.
I said he sounded and looked "waspy." I'm beginning to wonder about you're reading comprehension? Or are you intentionally twisting my words around for some reason?

Cochise
08-13-2007, 02:38 PM
Where did I say Romney was a protestant? You need to re-read what I wrote.
I said he sounded and looked "waspy." I'm beginning to wonder about you're reading comprehension? Or are you intentionally twisting my words around for some reason?

Well, as far as I know, that's the P in Wasp.

Baby Lee
08-13-2007, 02:41 PM
Well, as far as I know, that's the P in Wasp.
And looks ≠ is.

Jenson71
08-13-2007, 02:49 PM
I'm in Des Moines, where's it at?

405 6th Avenue

recxjake
08-13-2007, 03:00 PM
405 6th Avenue


I'll have to go check it out... Pauls a good man, I agree with him on a lot of issues.... just not isolationism.

BucEyedPea
08-13-2007, 03:22 PM
I'll have to go check it out... Pauls a good man, I agree with him on a lot of issues.... just not isolationism.
How is he an "isolationist" when he's for commerical & trade relations with the world, diplomatic and cultural relations with the world while not getting politically involved in the internal affairs of other nations or using the military on non-threats due to those internal affairs?

It isn't. That word describes a hermit country which Paul is NOT recommending no matter how hard pat might try to spin it.

That word was originally coined by leftist progressives ( Wilson was one) to embroil us in numerous wars that had nothing to do with our national defense. Internationalism on a grand utopian scale as world's police and empire of military bases. It broke the Dutch, Spanish, French, British and Soviet Empires. Today it is used as a NeoCon smear. It's not true. He's a non interventionist...the way we used to be doing business with the oppressive Ottoman Empire and Czarist Russia.

IMO we are truly better off without this mindset as we became the most prosperous nation in history without it reserving our military for true threats and attacks. Ron Paul supports trade with all nations. That's the opposite of a hermit country.

BucEyedPea
08-13-2007, 03:26 PM
And looks? is.
:thumb:

And he certainly does look good! :drool:

Woman just may determine the next president....and then throw their underwear on the inaugaration stage.

patteeu
08-13-2007, 04:15 PM
I think Romney's going to win it because he's been a gov'r, ran a business, has a calmer demeanor, looks and sounds waspy. Guiliani is too ethnic, paesano for Americans as well as a hot-headed authoritarian.

You've kidded me about being a big supporter of Romney and to the extent that I'll most likely be voting for Rudy, Romney, or Thompson this time around I guess it's true. But as between these three guys, my vote is still up in the air. It only seems like I support Romney more than the others because I think Romney has a great chance to be the nominee for all the reasons you mention above and because he's in pretty good shape to win both Iowa and New Hampshire.

I picked Hillary and Romney as the two I saw competing in the general election quite a while ago

patteeu
08-13-2007, 04:18 PM
I'll have to go check it out... Pauls a good man, I agree with him on a lot of issues.... just not isolationism.

Ron Paul is not an isolationist!! He's a neo-isolationist! Get it right. ;) LMAO

BucEyedPea
08-13-2007, 04:20 PM
IOW's you're not voting for Romney on where he stands on issues but on those shallow reasons aka electibility alone?

You do know he passed Romney Care in Mass....not in effect yet.
It wasn't a big govt plan....just a fascist one where he mandates businesses to provide it. You do know he did increase taxes and did increase spending in Mass too? He's a tax n' spend liberal. I put up a whole article on this from a small govt group in Mass. You musta missed it.

ChiefaRoo
08-13-2007, 08:12 PM
The straw poll was a complete waste of time and money unless you actually went for the corn dogs.

Hoover
08-13-2007, 08:43 PM
The straw poll was a complete waste of time and money unless you actually went for the corn dogs.
Waste of time? Its a great event if you are a politicial junkie.

ChiefaRoo
08-13-2007, 08:49 PM
Waste of time? Its a great event if you are a politicial junkie.

In the grand scheme of JUST Iowa, nobody voted. The population percentage that voted was miniscule.

recxjake
08-13-2007, 09:03 PM
In the grand scheme of JUST Iowa, nobody voted. The population percentage that voted was miniscule.

In total, there was probably 7 or 8 million bucks spent for this one day..... 14,000 people voted.... seems a stupid if you ask me.

Logical
08-13-2007, 09:26 PM
Ron Paul is not an isolationist!! He's a neo-isolationist! Get it right. ;) LMAO

I wonder if BEP would be so kind as to provide the proper definition for neo-isolationism. I know my lexicon is short that definition.:p

BucEyedPea
08-13-2007, 09:29 PM
Ron is the Thomas Jefferson of our day...so he's a neo-Jeffersonian.

BTW logical, haven't seen you around for a short bit and saw your heaven/hell thread...hope you're doing okay?

Jenson71
08-13-2007, 09:35 PM
In total, there was probably 7 or 8 million bucks spent for this one day..... 14,000 people voted.... seems a stupid if you ask me.

Tell that to Huckabee and I'm sure he'd just brush you aside getting to his next interview.

Logical
08-13-2007, 09:36 PM
Ron is the Thomas Jefferson of our day...so he's a neo-Jeffersonian.

BTW logical, haven't seen you around for a short bit and saw your heaven/hell thread...hope you're doing okay?
I am fine, just been really busy at home and at work lately. I edited that thread so people would know I am ok.

recxjake
08-13-2007, 09:43 PM
Tell that to Huckabee and I'm sure he'd just brush you aside getting to his next interview.

He got 2,000 votes in a state of 3,000,000..... wow

BucEyedPea
08-13-2007, 09:51 PM
He got 2,000 votes in a state of 3,000,000..... wow
Not of a whole state voting. Only of the GOP...the one's that bothered to vote. The hard core base.

recxjake
08-13-2007, 10:07 PM
Not of a whole state voting. Only of the GOP...the one's that bothered to vote. The hard core base.

If Rudy, John and Fred would have participated Huck would have placed 5th. There wouldn't have been a blurb about him....

However they didn't participate, and he pulled off a 2nd place finish... good for him.... but he won't be the nominee.... VP at best.

ClevelandBronco
08-13-2007, 10:09 PM
Ron is the Thomas Jefferson of our day...

I wouldn't go around saying that like it's a good thing.

BucEyedPea
08-13-2007, 10:11 PM
Don't forget rex, Clinton and Carter ( and there's one more) were polling 1% nationally early on and suddenly shot up out of nowhere. They just didn't have name recognition. Once they did they came from waaaaay behind and won it. Rudy has name recognition because of 9/11. McCain because he's run before. And Fred because of tv and movies.

Anything can happen. And the country is VERY angry and unhappy.

BucEyedPea
08-13-2007, 10:13 PM
I wouldn't go around saying that like it's a good thing.
Matter of opinion.

Judge Napolitano says this all the time. You know who he is right?
Gotta be a limited govt lovah to think it's a "good thing" or Martha Stewart. :p

ClevelandBronco
08-13-2007, 10:32 PM
Matter of opinion.

Judge Napolitano says this all the time. You know who he is right?
Gotta be a limited govt lovah to think it's a "good thing" or Martha Stewart. :p

Mr. Thos. Jefferson was such a lover of limited government that he compromised his principles during his presidency to expand the role of the executive branch past the powers he previously had advocated.

He was enough of an egomaniac to believe that he was justified in doing that because he saw a need.

If you've heard anything like this since, please stop me...

Mr. Kotter
08-13-2007, 10:53 PM
Anyone thinking this is, in any significant way....meaningful, at this point in the election....has serious delusions about how this country has, in the past at least, elected Presidents.

:rolleyes:

wazu
08-13-2007, 10:54 PM
Anyone thinking this is, in any significant way....meaningful, at this point in the election....has serious delusions about how this country has, in the past at least, elected Presidents.

:rolleyes:

They usually elect people who run for president. Some of them actually even want the job.

Mr. Kotter
08-13-2007, 11:48 PM
They usually elect people who run for president. Some of them actually even want the job.

If that was a lame attack on Fred.

Watch. And, learn. Americans are NOT interested in 24 month campaigns (or 19-20 month campaigns, IMHO) :)

patteeu
08-14-2007, 06:40 AM
IOW's you're not voting for Romney on where he stands on issues but on those shallow reasons aka electibility alone?

You do know he passed Romney Care in Mass....not in effect yet.
It wasn't a big govt plan....just a fascist one where he mandates businesses to provide it. You do know he did increase taxes and did increase spending in Mass too? He's a tax n' spend liberal. I put up a whole article on this from a small govt group in Mass. You musta missed it.

Uh, at this point, I'm voting for Romney for the same reasons you're voting for Romney. That was the point of my post. You've been mistaken about my relationship with the Romney campaign all along.

BucEyedPea
08-14-2007, 07:55 AM
Uh, at this point, I'm voting for Romney for the same reasons you're voting for Romney. That was the point of my post. You've been mistaken about my relationship with the Romney campaign all along.
You took what I said completely wrong. I'm not nominating Romney.
Unless you're being saracastic...not sure. How can I be mistaken about you and the Romney campaign...I went soley by what you said. You chose him in the polls here. You never have said much as to why until in this thread. He's a tax and spend liberal but he looks good and has been a governor. You're the practical conservative remember.

Unless you hunker to throw your underwear on the inaugaration stage, I think I have it right. If not...you're the one who needs to fill in the missing pieces to be understood.

Hoover
08-14-2007, 08:36 AM
In the grand scheme of JUST Iowa, nobody voted. The population percentage that voted was miniscule.
You have to take into account that only 89,000 republicans voted in the 2000 Caucuses, so 14k is a good number. Iowa isn't a primary state, thats why this Straw Poll is important.

recxjake
08-14-2007, 09:07 AM
Uh, at this point, I'm voting for Romney for the same reasons you're voting for Romney. That was the point of my post. You've been mistaken about my relationship with the Romney campaign all along.

Romney... ROFL... why??!?!

He just tells people what they want to hear.

patteeu
08-14-2007, 11:26 AM
You took what I said completely wrong. I'm not nominating Romney.
Unless you're being saracastic...not sure. How can I be mistaken about you and the Romney campaign...I went soley by what you said. You chose him in the polls here. You never have said much as to why until in this thread. He's a tax and spend liberal but he looks good and has been a governor. You're the practical conservative remember.

Unless you hunker to throw your underwear on the inaugaration stage, I think I have it right. If not...you're the one who needs to fill in the missing pieces to be understood.

I am being sarcastic. What I'm saying is that I'm no more a dedicated supporter of Romney than you are. I've voted Romney in the polls because he's the guy I expect to win not because I'm supporting him. It's the same reason I've voted Hillary in some polls. In the end, I'll be a supporter of one of the Republican frontrunners and if Romney gets the nomination, I'll vote for him, but frankly, at this point I'd lean toward Guilliani over Romney or Thompson. I'm an undecided in this election.

patteeu
08-14-2007, 11:35 AM
Romney... ROFL... why??!?!

He just tells people what they want to hear.

I think they all do this so it becomes a question of degree. And it becomes a matter of paying attention to what they're saying to decide what you think they'll do in office. For example, the reason I lean toward Rudy right now is because I trust that he's going to continue an assertive GWoT policy. I haven't heard enough from Romney to have that confidence. But my allegiance is still up for grabs. We have a long way to go and all of the candidates will disappoint us or surprise us between now and the elections. (I have ruled out a vote for a democrat though, and the only way I'd vote for Ron Paul would be if he got the Republican nomination).

BucEyedPea
08-14-2007, 12:57 PM
I It's the same reason I've voted Hillary in some polls.
You did? :huh: :spock:

I sure as hell missed that.
I also thought the polls were asking who "you" plural as in each of us would chooseŚnot who we thought would win the nomination.

A liberal hawk like Guilius Caesar is more like what I'd expect from you.
Although, Mitt has one as a fp advisor, and is towing the line here, I suspect he's just a tad less hawkish than RudyŚAEI/PNAC/Murdoch/FOX/Weekly Standard's top candidate and everything the American people don't want if they knew the truth.

patteeu
08-14-2007, 01:30 PM
You did? :huh: :spock:

I sure as hell missed that.
I also thought the polls were asking who "you" plural as in each of us would chooseŚnot who we thought would win the nomination.

A liberal hawk like Guilius Caesar is more like what I'd expect from you.
Although, Mitt has one as a fp advisor, and is towing the line here, I suspect he's just a tad less hawkish than RudyŚAEI/PNAC/Murdoch/FOX/Weekly Standard's top candidate and everything the American people don't want if they knew the truth.

Here's an example of me voting for Hillary (as the better of the democrat candidates). That doesn't mean she'd be the one I'd vote for if I had to vote democrat though.


http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=157253&highlight=candidate

BucEyedPea
08-14-2007, 03:34 PM
Here's an example of me voting for Hillary (as the better of the democrat candidates). That doesn't mean she'd be the one I'd vote for if I had to vote democrat though.


http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=157253&highlight=candidate
Not really the type of poll choices I was referring to pat. That's an either or for that camp. I was talking when all the choices were put up as options.

But okay.

patteeu
08-14-2007, 08:30 PM
Not really the type of poll choices I was referring to pat. That's an either or for that camp. I was talking when all the choices were put up as options.

But okay.

I guess you can go on believing you know more about my voting rationales than I do if you want. :shrug:

banyon
08-14-2007, 08:54 PM
I guess you can go on believing you know more about my voting rationales than I do if you want. :shrug:

She knew more about my own political positions than I did the other day too when she said Ron Paul was my "polar opposite".

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4128673&postcount=30

patteeu
08-14-2007, 09:05 PM
She knew more about my own political positions than I did the other day too when she said Ron Paul was my "polar opposite".

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4128673&postcount=30

From that thread:

Dick Cheney is my polar opposite and I think patteeu can vouch for that.

:LOL: Yeah, that sounds about right. :)

BucEyedPea
08-14-2007, 09:13 PM
I guess you can go on believing you know more about my voting rationales than I do if you want. :shrug:
That's not what I said in my post. I said "but okay" meaning I got what you were saying. It was an acknowledgement. I was simply clarifying what I had meant earlier by saying what I had in mind when you voted for Mitt in other polls. Total misunderstanding here.

And banyon I said Paul was your polar opposite on other issues and named the ones where I felt you would agree with him. Seems to me you confirmed that in the thread on what a liberal ( eventhough you're a progressive) thinks of Paul.

Hope that clears things up you silly guys. I swear men have different communication cues.

banyon
08-14-2007, 09:19 PM
That's not what I said in my post. I said "but okay" meaning I got what you were saying. It was an acknowledgement. I was simply clarifying what I had meant earlier by saying what I had in mind when you voted for Mitt in other polls. Total misunderstanding here.

And banyon I said Paul was your polar opposite on other issues and named the ones where I felt you would agree with him. Seems to me you confirmed that in the thread on what a liberal ( eventhough you're a progressive) thinks of Paul.

Hope that clears things up you silly guys. I swear men have different communication cues.

Nah, you didn't limit your comment to certain issues at all, but I'm not going to bother to dig it up anymore since you wouldn't admit it even if you had painted me with too broad a brush. Still waiting just this week for any kind of admission or explanations on the Edwards for Fairtax or the "Un is making it illegal to say GW is false" claims you made earlier this week, and I won't hold my breath. I don't know why you can't admit a simple mistake here and there, that's a bad trait to share with Bush, Cheney, and Tom C***.

patteeu
08-14-2007, 09:24 PM
That's not what I said in my post. I said "but okay" meaning I got what you were saying. It was an acknowledgement. I was simply clarifying what I had meant earlier by saying what I had in mind when you voted for Mitt in other polls. Total misunderstanding here.

And banyon I said Paul was your polar opposite on other issues and named the ones where I felt you would agree with him. Seems to me you confirmed that in the thread on what a liberal ( eventhough you're a progressive) thinks of Paul.

Hope that clears things up you silly guys. I swear men have different communication cues.

Ok, we're good as long as you renounce the Buccaneers and admit that Ron Paul is a neo-isolationist. :p (just kidding)

BucEyedPea
08-14-2007, 09:45 PM
She knew more about my own political positions than I did the other day too when she said Ron Paul was my "polar opposite".

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4128673&postcount=30

I don't know how to do that single post view you do...but that post is but ONE out of a string, including one after that where I answer your question:

"Is it disturbing to you that I share some of his policy goals and attitudes on issues?"

I answered "no" to that and clarified:

Post #32
"Of course I don't find it disturbing...I knew you would agree on those issues and not the others. I just think except for those few issues, you prefer a more activist govt. Paul is not in that mold was all I was saying. "

Post #34
"No, by "polar opposite" I simply meant you and Paul are at opposite ends of the spectrum overall, which I feel is the case. I'm not saying it as a put down that's just how I see you too.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=167386&page=3&pp=15

Now, pat's even posted similary in the "liberals on Paul thread" that you guys don't support many of his views. That's all I was saying...even if there's an overlap.

Yep! Men are from Mars.

BucEyedPea
08-14-2007, 09:47 PM
Ok, we're good as long as you renounce the Buccaneers and admit that Ron Paul is a neo-isolationist. :p (just kidding)
Nah! We got Garcia and even beat the Pats!! Even if it was only preseason.

I'm like Wendy hanging with the Lost Boys: Pirates and Injuns!

banyon
08-14-2007, 09:56 PM
I don't know how to do that single post view you do...but that post is but ONE out of a string, including one after that where I answer your question:

"Is it disturbing to you that I share some of his policy goals and attitudes on issues?"

I answered "no" to that and clarified:

Post #32
"Of course I don't find it disturbing...I knew you would agree on those issues and not the others. I just think except for those few issues, you prefer a more activist govt. Paul is not in that mold was all I was saying. "

Post #34
"No, by "polar opposite" I simply meant you and Paul are at opposite ends of the spectrum overall, which I feel is the case. I'm not saying it as a put down that's just how I see you too.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=167386&page=3&pp=15

Now, pat's even posted similary in the "liberals on Paul thread" that you guys don't support many of his views. That's all I was saying...even if there's an overlap.

Yep! Men are from Mars.


Here's your post (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4128665&postcount=29):

How could you do this though? It don't think you could do that on a few states because it's a national tax. You could try it for a few years perhaps.There have been unintended conequences from a progressive income tax too but I don't think that would be yourpov on it. Paul's message is liberty not engineering the country for equality. You're not his public, banyon. You and Paul are polar opposites.

I don't see any qualifiers attached to your statement.It's a fairly direct characterization.

BTW, I hope that's not the message you are out on the stump with. "If you don't support Ron Paul, then you are against Liberty". That's some pretty condescending crap to say. Reminds me alot of the Bush "you're with the terrorists" BS.

BucEyedPea
08-14-2007, 10:03 PM
All I can say is wow, I can't believe you take it that way.That bolded part was referring to engineering for equality. That is progressivism.I've seen what other progressives have said about him.

As for the liberty part...I meant also on economics and less regulation and letting markets regulate themselves. He is for far less activist govt than progressives here. I think your definition is a bit different. He's even for less govt overall than myself and he's pretty close to my views.

banyon
08-14-2007, 10:14 PM
All I can say is wow, I can't believe you take it that way.
As for the liberty part...I meant also on economics and less regulation and letting markets regulate themselves. He is for far less activist govt than progressives here. I think your definition is a bit different. He's even for less govt overall than myself and he's pretty close to my views.

Problem is, it's with a capital "L", so as not to be confused with lesser component liberties. It is clearly intended as an over-arching concept in nearly all of the literature I have seen from the Paul campaign (not just your posts do this).

BucEyedPea
08-14-2007, 10:18 PM
Well sorry for how you took it. I guess I just don't see it the same. I cannot see having less economic liberty ( property rights really) and being really free. In fact I feel it's the basis for other freedoms like privacy. I know Paul is the same on this because he's a Misean. That's a fundamental. This is where I feel we're opposites. On war and other issues we're the same.