Widgetized Section

Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone

Romney wins Iowa straw poll

By
August 12, 2007

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney won an easy and expected victory in a high-profile Iowa Republican Party Straw Poll on Saturday, claiming nearly twice as many votes as his nearest rival.

Romney had been expected to win the test because he spent millions of dollars and months of effort on an event that was skipped by two of his major rivals.

Romney scored 4,516 votes, or 31.5 percent, to outpace former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee who had 2,587 votes, or 18.1 percent. Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback was third with 2,192 votes, 15.3 percent.

Announcement of the results was delayed for 90 minutes because a hand count was required on one of the 18 machines.

The biggest loser of the evening likely was former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson, who finished in 6th place with 1,039 votes. He had said repeatedly that if he didn’t finish in the top two his campaign was likely to end. He left the event before the results were announced, and there was no announcement from his campaign.

The missing big names got only a handful of votes.

Former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee got 203 votes. He was on the ballot, although not an officially declared candidate.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani received 183 votes and Sen. John McCain of Arizona got 101.

Romney was quick to claim the prize he had spent so much effort to win.

“The people of this great state have sent a message to the rest of the country,” said Romney. “Change starts in Iowa.”

Huckabee said his showing was impressive because he had little money to spend.

“You have taken a minimum amount of resources and made a maximum amount of gain,” Huckabee told backers.

Brownback and Huckabee had waged a fierce competition for the loyalty of influential social and religious conservatives, and Huckabee’s showing gave him new credibility.

Brownback put the best face on his showing.

“I think this is a ticket forward for us,” said Brownback. “It was pretty close. We were both right in there together.”

Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo has made illegal immigration his signature issue, and scored a fourth place showing with 1,961 voltes, while Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who has developed an Internet-driven following, came in fifth with 1,305 votes.

Filling out the field, Rep. Duncan Hunter got 174 votes, while Chicago businessman John Cox got 41 votes.

“Activists turned out in great numbers to support their candidate despite a heat index exceeding 100 degrees,” said Republican Party of Iowa Chairman Ray Hoffmann.

In all, there were 14,302 ballots cast, nearly 10,000 fewer than when a similar straw poll was held in 1999. Then-Gov. George Bush won that straw poll with roughly 7,400 votes, and went on to win the caucuses and the White House.

State Republican officials had predicted as many as 40,000 activists would attend the event, but said 33,000 eventually showed up. Many of those were from out of the state and not eligible to vote in the straw poll.

Although some candidates paid for chartered buses to get hoped-for supporters to the event, and often covered their $35 ticket cost, they had no way of knowing how they would vote in the secret ballot process.

Supporters of Paul had sought to block voting, arguing that vote-counting machines had fundamental weaknesses, but a federal judge refused to grant an injunction on Friday. The matter was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, which on Saturday upheld the ruling, said Matt McDermott, attorney for the Republican Party of Iowa.

The grounds around Iowa State University’s basketball arena took on a carnival atmosphere on the steamy day as candidates erected huge air-conditioned tents where they courted activists with food, prizes and plenty of rhetoric.

The National Rifle Association, anti-abortion groups and other organizations also were on hand to capture a slice of the spotlight.

Candidates consider the straw poll a vital chance to demonstrate support that could help them this winter when Iowans hold precinct caucuses, an event that also puts a premium on a campaign’s organizational skills and leads off the presidential nominating process.

For some candidates, a poor showing could prompt them to drop out of the race.

The scale of the spectacle was so immense — event organizers planned for the arrival of 375 buses — that even Iowa Democratic Chairman Scott Brennan decided to take a look. State Democrats don’t hold anything similar, arguing the event is more about raising money than selecting candidates.

McCain and Giuliani opted to skip the event, but their names were on the ballot.

McCain, campaigning in Milton, N.H., called the straw poll “a great way to raise money for the Iowa Republican Party” and said he doesn’t criticize it.

“But I think I can do my campaign and me personally better by being here in New Hampshire, talking to people, having the town hall meetings, and responding to their questions and concerns,” he said.

Voting security was tight. Before voting, activists had to show ID and tickets, both of which were scanned to ensure they hadn’t been used before. Stealing a page from the Iraqis, those casting ballots dipped their thumbs in purplish indelible ink to make sure they couldn’t vote again.

___

Associated Press writer Amy Lorentzen in Ames contributed to this report.

5 Responses to Romney wins Iowa straw poll

  1. acf

    August 12, 2007 at 4:33 pm

    Yes, Mitt. Voters did send a message to the rest of America. Barbecue, climbing walls, and music can buy otherwise disinterested voters. Oh, let’s not forget cash, lots of it. BTW, how did two extremely underfunded candidates, Huckabee & Brownback manage to get more votes (in combination) than you did? Were they serving chitluns at their events?

    BTW, talk of a spectacle, and outstanding turnout, pale when compared to the actual turnout. Actual turnout was around 30% below anticipated (hoped for?) turnout for this straw vote. If this was an article about reported corporate earnings that fell 30% below plan, then Monday’s stock price for them could be expected to take a major hit, with some highly placed CEOs suddenly ‘resigning to spend more time with their families, or pursue other opportunities’. In this case, some candidates and party poobahs should be doing the same thing.

  2. SEAL

    August 12, 2007 at 4:40 am

    Half of the eligible voters in america understand that carnivals are rigged [crooked] for the suckers and that tent revivals are phony actors being “cured” by con men. Political events such as this are why they don’t bother to vote. They consider that if so many people would attend and have their vote influenced by one of these rigged [busing in paid outsiders] events where the polititions lavish food and prizes and promises to “buy” their votes, that the results of the election would be based upon all the wrong principles. Why participate?

    Also, they are incensed at the amount of money “wasted” that could be better spent if these people were truly interested in our nation. They would not be spending all this money if it were not an investment in their own financial future.

    The polititions know this and they do not want those intelligent people to vote. That’s why they run these political sideshows. Bring in the suckers, boys, and lets have an election. A chicken in every pot. A rifle in every gun rack. A minister in every gyn’s office. A gay bashed at every opportunity. Let’s vote!

  3. Sandra Price

    August 12, 2007 at 6:53 am

    Iowa is the heart of the religious right and it should be no shock that those men who came in on top were the same who did not believe in evolution. Those voters have no need for a Constitution in their lives or Ron Paul would have come in in the top 3.

    I was delighted that CSPAN carried so much of the vote as it shows how utterly unbalance constitutionally that whole area of voters are.

    2008 will be the year of Democratic winners and that may not be a dime’s bit of improvement over America. Republicans need a moral face lift.

  4. geyser

    August 13, 2007 at 4:45 pm

    It was an empty victory, Thirty one percent, hardly worth cheering about.Romney out spent every other candidate by a larger margin, then his win.

    Taking One Day at a Time

  5. SEAL

    August 14, 2007 at 3:36 am

    I cannot understand how any candidate could claim victory in these polls or practice votes when they receive 30-40%. But they grab the bullhorn and gloat about winning because the closest adversary only got 20-25%. I made good grades in math. If Romney only got 31% that means 69% don’t want him. How can anyone consider themselves “leading” or “winning” when they get less than 50% in a poll or a barbecue vote.

    I think we still have some primary states that require all of their convention votes to go to the “winner” of their primary even though the winner gets less than half the primary votes. What sense does that make?

    Why is our electoral process so stupid? Gore won in 2000 and Bush became president. Forget the hanging chad crap – more people voted for Gore. Considering that, you would think the dems would have made abolishing the electoral college a top priority when they gained a majority. But no one even mentions it.

    The biggest mystery is why do we have voting with no paper trail? Machines that continue to fail the testing but are still in use?

    Voters should be given one week [7 days] to vote in every election and they should be required to write their choice on paper. No punch, no check mark, write the damn name down. Any name. That would ecourage people to vote for the person they want instead of being forced to choose between the handpicked two.

    I advocate forced voting. It works in Australia.

    Anyone who cannot speak or write our language – the american basterdized English – has no business deciding who should be president or governor or dog catcher.

    We don’t need to know who won the same day we vote. Hell, it would be more fun to wait and anticipate while the votes are hand counted twice by two separate groups of people from two other countries.

    Honesty and accuracy is more important than speed. As it is, we don’t even have the apperance of honesty in either our choices or the process.

    If they won’t fix the electoral process, how can they expect us to have any respect for them or any faith in them? But I have yet to hear any candidate mention this problem that goes to the root of all of our problems. If they won’t give us legitimate candidates to choose from and elections we can trust, what is the point of our calling it a democracy or expecting any of our real problems to be solved?