Help Me Understand What This Year’s CPAC Straw Poll Means
I’m really not sure what to make of Ron Paul’s victory in CPAC’s straw poll. And, make no mistake, it was a pretty big victory.
But the most revealing result from CPAC 2010, one that didn’t surprise me but ought to wake up national political reporters, is this one: Ron Paul won this year’s CPAC straw poll with 31 percent. Next best was Mitt Romney with 22 percent. Amazingly, Paul’s support was more than that for Sarah Palin (7 percent), Tim Pawlenty (6), Mike Pence (5), Newt Gingrich (4), Mike Huckabee (4), Mitch Daniels (2), and Rick Santorum (2) combined. Yes, that’s right–combined. By compare, just a year ago, Paul tied with Palin for third at 13 percent, with Romney winning and Bobby Jindal (who dat?) second at 14 percent.
I’m kinda wondering if Sarah Palin’s snub of CPAC resulted in her dismal performance. Of all the results, Mitt Romney’s is the least surprising – that guy is destined to take second place. Thoughts?
Tags: CPAC
What does this year’s straw poll mean? It means we should banish CPAC to Canada – so that the rest of us don’t have to threaten to move there:
http://bit.ly/ahQTbl
(satire)
I wouldn’t look too much into it. most of Ron Paul’s supporters are uninformed privileged young white kids who think they’ve had to work hard on their own their whole life and don’t realize they were propped up by mommy and daddy’s money and health insurance. I know that is pretty harsh, but the Ron Paul supporters I have met (and a few of whom i am friends with) think that the government shouldn’t help out anyone and all people need to be happy and successful is work hard. They think this because they have indeed worked hard and have good jobs, or have done well in college or what have you, but they never needed to worry about how to pay for any of that. They are ignorant to the fact that not everyone has all the bases covered (food, clothing, health care) and are fortunate enough to be able to put a lot of energy into other needs.
How does this translate to a straw poll win for him? 31% of the crowd didn’t have to worry about taking a few days off to go to a rally.
In a primary, he will get 6% of the entire vote and his rLOVEution will be another shot at trying ot grow grass roots in cement without any water at night time
But that’s what I find interesting. I don’t think Paul stands a shot at being President, but CPAC chose him – overwhelmingly. Now, either there’s massive groups of hidden Paul supporters nationwide (doubtful) or the Tea Party is basically filled with Paul supporters (probable, read 538 for analysis of this).
Or… given the dismal line-up of potential R Presidential candidates Paul was considered the best among the worst.
And I’m still just guessing.
I don’t pretend to understand CPAC but I am guessing voters were split between “Who’s the craziest rightwinger” and “Who has a shot at winning.”
I think the analysis that Paul supporters and Tea Partiers are correlated is a good one. They are, and I suspect that a lot of those people decided to make the trip this year because they sense a change in the air. Whether or not there is really change in the air is not relevant.
To tell you the truth, I think Paul has a shot at the nomination. Given the dismal options in the Republican party, there is a shot that there won’t be anyone particularly energizing except Paul. If he gets some traction, he could actually surround himself with some talent and steal the nomination in the first few primaries/caucuses.
However, if he did so, he would be very damaged by his opponents with charges of racism, lunacy (particularly about the gold standard) and general unsuitability to be President. Probably too damaged to effectively challenge an incumbent President Obama. But it would make for some interesting debates.
the balloting was set up to favor the most organized supporters, those have always been the ron paul maniacs. the people who went through the rigamarole of voting were a very small minority of the attendees.
If he gets some traction, he could actually surround himself with some talent and steal the nomination in the first few primaries/caucuses.
If that happens I think the remnants of the Republican universe would come together in a powerful “Anybody But Ron Paul” movement to deny him the nomination. Actually that might be the best hope for some of their other candidates.
“he could actually … steal the nomination in the first few primaries/caucuses.”
It’s a long leap from 6% to 51%.
By the way, the under-reported story here is the discrepancy between the stated attendance of 10,000 and the mere 2,395 who cast straw poll ballots. Whenever I tuned in I saw lots of empty seats. This “Republican revival” is looking like the usual trumped-up MSM horse manure.
The other side of Ron Paul supporters.
And another look at the other side of Ron Paul supporters.
This isn’t all of them — and a.price gets the general typology, but this guy also attracts some of the most toxic elements around.
the people who went through the rigamarole of voting were a very small minority of the attendees.
Which means the winner was “None Of The Above.”
You almost have to feel sorry for the CPAC straw poll voters. Their choices were so crappy.
Well, the leap between 6 and 51 is immaterial. Paul would need a plurality. In a 6 way race, I think 30% does it. And since it is a caucus in Iowa, it favors well-organized, energizing candidates. Paul has a lot of the energized supporters, but today lacks anything beyond a motivated bunch of fellow loons. If get were organized in Iowa and New Hampshire, he could easily assume the mantle of “the guy to beat” which changes all of the math.
I was following this on Twitter, Dave Weigel at the Washington Independent is really the expert on this. From my understanding, here’s what happened:
Student fees at CPAC were $25
Most of Paul’s support came from college students
When the results were announced, people booed
Kristol says we should ignore the results because of the young people’s votes
Ron Paul was born in 1935, that makes him 74 yrs. old right now.
Geezer’s right that the Republican revival doesn’t look reality right now. Also, it appears Palin is popular in the media and with her base. Everyone else, not so much.
Gotcha, LG. Although after NH, the field will narrow to three people, and Ron Paul is pretty much guaranteed to finish third in any Republican three-candidate field.
anon: Is a 24% voting rate typical of CPAC?
Remember CPAC is not a caucus for candidate selection. It is like a wingnut poetry slam where each speaker tries to be crazier than the one before. Its strategic purpose is to move the goalposts further to the right each year, set the standards by which the actual GOP caucuses will select candidates, and provide colorful soundbites to control the media narrative.
Geezer – yes, that is probably true. However, like I said, the math changes after you win one of those contests. Paul has been ineffective because he hasn’t won shit. If it is down to Huckabee, Paul, and a still winless Romney I say it is a toss-up.
“By the way, the under-reported story here is the discrepancy between the stated attendance of 10,000 and the mere 2,395 who cast straw poll ballots. ”
Both numbers are right, and that’s how Ron Paul won. The voting wasn’t just everyone who attended was given a ballot. In order to vote in the straw poll, you had to seek out the designated booth, in a sea of booths in a convention center, and then vote there. Each candidate had his separate designated booth; there wasn’t a centralized voting area or standardized procedure. That’s why the vote favors the most enthusiastic, motivated, and organized supporters–Ron Paul’s maniacs. If you try to read anything into this off year presidential straw poll, then you are wasting your time.
I’ve heard about this from some friends who attended. Apparently the conference let in college students at no/low cost. Ron Paul took advantage of this by urging his college-aged supporters in the area to attend.
So drop Ron Paul back to about 3%. Bump Romney up to about 35%, Palin to about 15, and the others up a point or two as also-rans.
And as a reminder — McCain didn’t win the CPAC straw poll in 2007 or 2008.
Or the election in 2008. As a reminder.
I’m commenting, of course, on the possibility of winning the GOP nomination. If Barack Obama had been included, he would have under-polled Rick Santorum — something that I don’t think anyone would suggest would be the outcome in an actual election.
Yeah, but this a Republican thing. So Obama isn’t really a factor.
BTW, Romney doesn’t stand a chance in hell. I learned that to my surprise when I suggested to my R neighbors that he might be the VP pick in 2008. Seems those god-fearing christians don’t trust religions beginning with “M”
They don’t like Mennonites?
Exactly!
I think that segment is extremely small in the GOP.
And I think you’re wrong.
Glenn Beck follows the same religion as Romney… just saying.
I think I probably know more Republicans than you do, and interact with more of them on a daily basis.
And given the choice between a moderately conservative Republican who is not a Christian and a liberal Democrat, I can’t imagine many of the folks of the ilk you mention voting for the Dem.
6 in 10 Texans think that man coexisted with dinosaurs.