The Values Voters' straw poll results are in, and Romney takes a narrow first with 1595 votes and 27.61% over Mike Huckabee's 1565/27.15%, with Ron Paul in third place with 865 votes for 15%, Fred Thompson winning 564 votes and just under 10%. The rest trailed "undecided."
Interestingly, Huckabee won a majority of the votes cast at the site, but they were only 952 - less than 20% of the total cast, and a surprisingly small portion of the over 2500 registered participants. One would expect more of those attending would have voted, especially with "undecided" an option. After all, these are political activists. Either many decided to vote online and left the venue, or the nature of the gathering has been misinterpreted by most political observers (including me).
Permalink | Send To A Friend | Linking Blogs | Digg this!
Filed under:
2008 Presidential Race, Huckabee, Paul, Primaries, Republican, Romney, Special Interest Groups
Tags: presidential campaign, primaries, Republicans, straw poll, Values Voters
Comments (4)
Talk about skewing the vote... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Shawnie | October 21, 2007 11:23 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Talk about skewing the vote results!
There are three facts that are being left out that spins the story.
The on site voting polls were closed down after Romney's speech and opened back up after Huckabee's speech the next day. That means those who came to support and listen to Huckabee were able to vote on site. Those who came to listen to and support Romney the day before were not.
There were many more attendees at the event than voted on site. A lot of folks who attended voted online with their laptops and other electronic hand helds. The non-progressive folks waited in line to vote.
The organization that sent out the emails urging people to vote online was the community "Evangelicals for Mitt". Romney's own campaign did not do that, duh he has an 80,000 donor base, if he had solicited online votes the would have blitzed the online voting.
1. Posted by Shawnie | October 21, 2007 11:23 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 21, 2007 11:23
2. Posted by kim | October 21, 2007 1:01 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
If so, Shawnie, do the crossing torsions even it out, or make it meaningless or, at least, difficult to interpret? Any idea?
===============================
2. Posted by kim | October 21, 2007 1:01 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 21, 2007 13:01
3. Posted by COgirl | October 21, 2007 3:09 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
A lot has been made of this on the news shows today. I like Huckabee, but he can't win against Hillary. Romney strikes me as being wooden and well rehearsed. He can't beat Hillary. I love Thompson, but he's got to campaign hard if he wants this.
Can any "values" candidate beat Hillary? What happens if there's a 3rd party values candidate? We get Hillary. Where are our values then? On hold for 4 to 8 years, I fear.
So all of this is interesting, but we should not lose sight of what is at stake.
3. Posted by COgirl | October 21, 2007 3:09 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 21, 2007 15:09
4. Posted by kim | October 22, 2007 11:19 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Well, I'm not too worried. All of them can beat Hillary, especially when they start working together.
====================================
4. Posted by kim | October 22, 2007 11:19 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 22, 2007 11:19