High: 73°F ~ Low: 49°F
Friday, Sep. 30, 2016
What's All the HubbubPosted Sunday, August 14, 2011, at 1:47 PM
The Ames Straw Poll (commonly referred to as the Iowa Straw Poll) was held the other day and in a close race Michelle Bachmann came out as the winner.
The official results looked like this:
1. Bachmann - 4,823
2. Ron Paul - 4,671
3. Tim Pawlenty - 2,293
4. Rick Santorum - 1,657
5. Herman Cain - 1,456
6. Rick Perry - 718
7. Mitt Romney - 567
8. Newt Gingrich - 385
9. John Huntsman - 69
10.Thad McCotter - 35
Rick Perry and Mitt Romney faired well considering that Perry had not even announced he was running until the day of the straw poll and Romney skipped the event.
The MSM has been spending a lot of time on the results of the straw poll and telling everyone that this is a huge boost the the Bachmann campaign. It apparently is so important that after finishing 3rd in the poll Pawlenty dropped out of the presidential race.
The question for me is why is this poll so important? It has been a very good predictor of past Presidential races. Since it's inception in 1979 the winner of the straw poll has gone on to win the Republican nomination just twice and one was after a tie (in 1996 Bob Dole and Phil Gramm tied in the poll. Dole would go on to win the nomination). A poll that so far has only gone on to predict the nomination only one 1/3 of the time does not feel or sound like something that should give a huge boost to the winner. It may even be the reason why Romney skipped the event.
Information taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ames_Straw_...
Then again the MSM loves to tell us what we are supposed to be thinking and what we are supposed to accept, so maybe they are right. Maybe this is a huge boost to the Bachmann campaign. Shoot maybe it even means that the nomination is already over and that the next year is just a waste of time. We shall see.
Speaking of Rick Perry, someone is going to have to explain the logic that this man is seriously being considered as a viable presidential candidate when he suggested secession for the state that he governs (Texas) after the Stimulus was passed and then asked the federal government for those stimulus monies and used them to balance the budget in his state. A better way to put this is where does the logic state that a governor that suggested his state secede from the Union, then turn around and run for the President of that same Union.?
He has several policy question he must answer as the race heats up. I do not see him as a serious candidate but we shall see.
Showing most recent comments first
[Show in chronological order instead]
Respond to this blog
Posting a comment requires free registration:
And Now for Something Completely Different
- Blog RSS feed
- Comments RSS feed