Straw Polls.

Adam mentioned a GOP Presidential Straw Poll in South Carolina that said:

McCain 164
Giuliani 162
Hunter 158
Brownback 85
Romney 80
Huckabee 21

Meanwhile Drudge reports the CPAC GOP Presidential Straw Poll results as:

Mitt Romney 21%
Rudy Giuliani 17%.
Sam Brownback 15%
Newt Gingrich 14%
John McCain, 12%,

Yes they’re Straw Polls, but they’re fun. 🙂

43 comments

  1. Brian from Ellijay says:

    Overall #2– Newt Gingrich!

    Oh btw, McCain got booed, not once by several times by entire group, pretty much everytime they mentioned his name.

  2. Brian from Ellijay says:

    Newt by far was the most warmly received.

    Walking into the “standing room only” room only after constant chants of “Newt, Newt, Newt” as God Bless America played in the background shortly after being introduced “a man who has accomplished many great things, and predicting that a man who had at least one more great thing to do.” Speaker Gingrich bounced the forum norm and chose to come in not from the stage but from the back of the capacity filled room walking up the main aisle as to shake the hands of the thousands shouting his name and trying to get a picture of the former Speaker.

    Mitt was well received, other than Newt the warmest reception. While Rudy had a strong entrance, momentum quickly shifted as you could tell the Mayor was seemingly uncomfortable or on edge. McCain, choosing not to show, when mentioned got booed each time. The other Governors running for President–Gilmore and Huckabee were both recieved warmly, but it seemed more out of respect for their past than for their future. Although minus a Newt run and assuming Mitt implodes, these guys could be players.

  3. Jason Pye says:

    There is no question that Paul and Gilmore are in an uphill battle, but I’d rather vote my principles than for douche bags one, two or three.

  4. hankreardan says:

    Jason
    It is sad Paul can not get enough votes to move up. That tells you alot about the republican party. I do not see why people love McCain. He seems like the worst of the bunch.

  5. Jeff Emanuel says:

    hankreardan:

    It is sad Paul can not get enough votes to move up. That tells you alot about the republican party.

    Yes, it does tell you a lot about the GOP. It says that the vast majority of Republicans (a) care about national security, and (b) don’t buy in to kook, Kicinich/McKinney-esque conspiracy theories such as the coming “all-out nuclear attack” on Iran which Paul has trumpeted (as soon as we “bait them into attacking us first” through a “Gulf of Tonkin-type incident”), or the kooks who propagate them.

    You’d have to be out of your mind to think that a rational Republican party would let someone like him any closer to the nomination than the Democrats do with Lyndon Larouche.

    I’m extrememly disappointed in this latest from you. You usually have much more sense than this.

  6. hankreardan says:

    Jeff
    That why I am no longer in the Republican party. I do not know much about Larouche but Ron Paul wins his US House seat win a high%. I believe, Jeff you like McCain I do not understand why? There are about three others I would put above him not including Paul.But it does not matter because of course I will be working for and supporting the Libertarian candidate.

  7. Joy says:

    For the first time in years, there is a republican candidate in the primaries I can support without holding my nose. I’m not in agreement with Ron Paul on everything, but he is closer to my principles than anyone else out there, including many of the current LP hopefuls.
    Plus, there’s the benefit of Rep. Paul actually being included in the debates leading up to the primaries, starting in NH next month.

    Ron Paul may surprise everyone there. I’ve always thought he was brilliant, but bland. Last week at the New Hampsire Liberty Forum, he was warm, funny, personable, and did a wonderful job explaining his stance on issues. And this was in front of an audience where a good third were LP members outraged by his presence. He may not have swung those hostile to his support, but he did draw the whole crowd in with what is wrong in DC today, and how things can actually be changed.

  8. Jeff Emanuel says:

    I believe, Jeff you like McCain I do not understand why?

    Where in the world have you gotten that idea?

    On Paul/Libertarian/Republican, look. Jason Pye can tell you that I am extremely sympathetic to many libertarian ideas and ideals. However, forget things like drug legalization and other less-mainstream elements of the party platform for a moment here, and just focus on one thing: national security. When you endorse an absolute kook like Paul (something I wouldn’t normally say, but his oft-articulated consipiracy theories concerning the abysmally moronic idea that we’re going to launch a preemptive all-out nuclear war in the next year have kind of solidified him as a white padded walls, Cynthia McKinney-ite loon), or have an otherwise isolationist (in a time of war, and after we were attacked here) platform, you just don’t get any closer to winning.

    If you wanted to take that side of Ron Paul away, then his getting stomped in the Presidential polling might reflect a little worse on conservatives than it does, but you can’t take that away. That’d be like trying to pump up Kucinich (the equal of Paul on the Democrat side, except far more sane, successful, and nationally electable — all of which are saying something) but saying “ignore all of that Iraq/Afghanistan/do away with the DOD and replace it with the Department of Peace” stuff. You can’t take that part of him away (just like you can’t take away the “mind control weapons in space” element of Kucinich, either).

    Like I said before, you’re usually a whole lot more rational than this. I’m surprised at you here, and am extremely disappointed.

  9. NH says:

    I have always voted Republican even though many of them behave just like liberals (Bush) with PC legislation, and tax and spend policies and war mongering. Ron Paul is the only R of late who really has stuck with the principles of the party both R and L. But the nice thing is, even liberals have said they will vote for him.
    He has wide support and is the most popular candidate on the internet.
    He raised quite a bit of money here in NH weekend before last.

  10. Jason Pye says:

    Jeff,

    Paul is one of the most fiscally conservative members of the House and he is an originalist on Constitutional issues.

    I don’t agree with the guy on everything, but he is the most conservative guy running under the GOP banner.

  11. Joy says:

    Ron Paul may have voted against the war, but he helped draft the legislation authorizing action. I’m paraphrasing, but his argument was that he didn’t think the US should be going into Iraq, but if going, congress had better follow the proper procedure. I don’t think the war is where he’ll get nailed. Ending the war on drugs, ending the popular vote for senators, abolishing the federal reserve…

    Paul will lose people on the federal reserve & gold standard. He’ll win some of them back with his reminder that US citizens are not allowed to print extra money whenever they can’t pay the rent, and the US Govt. shouldn’t be allowed to either.

    I’m really looking forward to the debates in April.

  12. Jeff Emanuel says:

    Jason, I understand where you’re coming from, but, as I said here, it’s not so simple as separating out portions of a man and saying “that’s good enough.”

  13. Jeff Emanuel says:

    Decrying the administration for an impending (completely imagined) act of “lying the country into a nuclear war” is hardly an example of “honoring the Constitution.”

    That’s the kooky part. The “honoring the Constitution” is the part I wish others would emulate.

  14. Jason Pye says:

    Jeff,

    I could just as easily turn the tide and that Paul has reasoning for an accusation because Bush brought us into a Iraq saying there were WMD’s, when in fact, there weren’t.

    Paul has one very valid reason for his stance on the war because it wasn’t properly sanctioned by Congress (ie. the act of declaring war).

  15. Jason Pye says:

    Jeff,

    I’m not saying I agree with it, I’m simply saying that I could say the President has a track record of “lying” and Paul has evidence to back it up.

  16. Jeff Emanuel says:

    “lying” — or being wrong, eh? Because if you click the link I included above, you’re calling Bush a liar for not calling a whole lot of folks who drew the same conclusions long before him liars.

    Which is very strange, and takes quite a big reach to do.

  17. rugby_fan says:

    And by the way — what in the world does “Bush brought us into a Iraq saying there were WMD’s, when in fact, there weren’t” have to do with accusations of a nuclear sneak attack on Iran?

    Well, we would be attacking Iran for their attempts to acquire a nuclear weapon, so I am guessing that has something to do with it.

  18. rugby_fan says:

    Potential for a WMD/nuclear attack. Sounds similar to 2003.

    Don’t get me wrong though, I am a proponent of American military might. However, attacking Iran at this juncture would be such a strategic disaster and I hope there are enough realists in the White House who realize this.

  19. Jeff Emanuel says:

    Again. What is the basis for thinking that we’re going to (or are seriously considering) attacking Iran?

    I’ll tell you the only places I’ve heard it: from the left. It’s a pretty pervasive meme which has never been reinforced in any way by Congressional or administration action.

  20. Jeff Emanuel says:

    And the argument Ron Paul made wasn’t that we were going to be attacked with nuclear weapons, but that the Bush admin. was going to use a “Gulf of Tonkin type incident” as an excuse to launch a full-scale nuclear attack on them.

    Which is absolutely absurd for a whole host of reasons, not least of which the US has had a policy for years of supporting the Iranian people against their government — something a nuclear attack on them would do just a little to undermine.

  21. rugby_fan says:

    I see what you are saying.

    No there has not been an official indication from the White House that we would be attacking Iran.

    And this is where I am hesitant to continue (for fear of being perceived as a conspiracy theorist “kook”), but I do believe that serious discussions have occurred about potentially attacking Iran. I am fairly confident they are simply options of how to potentially deal with Iran and will never be acted upon, but I do believe that attacking Iran remains an option.

  22. Jeff Emanuel says:

    You’re right on one count, but not exactly on the entire thing. Any nation with a responsible military has developed at least basic contingency plans for military conflict with any potential foe, regardless of the likelihood of actually carrying those out. Have we had “discussions about potentially attacking Iran”? Probably. We also probably have plans on how to deal with a Canadian invasion gathering dust somewhere, as well. It’s only responsible to be prepared for – and to have considered – even the most unlikely of scenarios.

    I’d wager that any serious discussions about possible military action in Iran – outside of the obvious necessities of planning to deal with Iranian invasions of, or strikes on, Israel, Iraq, Saudi, or the US – primarily consist of ways of knocking out nuclear capabilities, though, rather than actually spinning up ideas of how to launch a preemptive nuclear war on that nation, for the obvious, potentially catastrophic reasons.

  23. ConservativeCaucus says:

    Erick,

    What was your take on Romney? I just can’t get excited about McCain or Guiliani and I think the media has done its number on Gingrich.

    I want to believe that Romney has “grown” into a social and economic conservative. Please comment…

  24. Demonbeck says:

    The big bad wolf can blow a straw poll down. We should move onto brick polls – he has more trouble with those.

Comments are closed.