Randi Rhodes Forums

My impression is that this "straw poll" is merely a MINOR attraction at the Iowa State Fair - sorta like the Tilt-A-Whirl ... except that it's by and large the people who DON'T ride that experience the nausea.

Firstly, unlike any other primary, caucus or what have you, there's no attempt to hide the fact that this game is pay-to-play. It costs $30.00 to cast a vote!

Apparently, each candidate sets up a tent, and do their best to get people to come into their tents - air conditioning, food, music, etc. I heard Ms. O'Bachmann (I love that Letterman is calling her this, even if it's indirectly stolen from T-Paw's ObamneyCare) even had a petting zoo for the kiddies! And, once they get you in, they actually GIVE YOU the $30 (possibly more - no confirmation on that, but no denials either).

I heard that the eventual winner of the straw poll, the fag-hag from Minnesota (my apologies to the gay contingent here on the message board) , purchased over 6,000 voters, meaning that she actually received a commanding 82% of the votes that she BOUGHT!

All the candidates set up in a "hall" - a barn-like structure, and they bid on the various spaces available. The highest bid (Ron Paul this year, with $31k) gets a big spacious area immediately inside the doorway, and so on down the line to the smallest, darkest and dankest space in the back.

Beyond that, the value as to an indication as to how the candidates are being received, and how they're even being ranked in Iowa, is exactly zero.

If Randi allowed every RRMBer to cast a single vote on a special "election thread," and charged $20-$30 per vote, it would have every bit as much value as a weather vane for candidates.

key-ryst, the Golden Globes have more credibility, and those are crooked! But just like the GGs, the media loves it, and declares it is some kind of indicator as to the election/Oscars, and so they cover the hell out of it.

Even the Iowa Republican party has been brutally honest on this point. The "straw vote" results are indicative of absolutely nothing - save perhaps who spent the most and got "ballots" into the hands of the greatest number of folks paid to "vote" for the paying candidate, and it raises an enormous amount of money for the state chapter of the party.

August 13, 2011

S & P Downgrades Iowa's IQ
Straw Poll 'Alarms' Ratings Agency

AMES, IOWA

Calling the results of today's
Iowa straw poll "alarming," Standard and Poor's
took the unprecedented action of downgrading Iowa's IQ.

While the effects of such an extraordinary
measure are hard to predict, experts say the IQ
downgrade could result in Iowans having
difficulty completing sentences or operating a television remote.

"This downgrade would be very upsetting to
Republicans in Iowa," said an S & P
spokesman. "Fortunately, there's no way they'll understand it."

The winner in the straw poll, Rep. Michele
Bachmann (R-Minn), gave a rousing victory speech
that was simulcast in English across the state.

But there may be tough sledding ahead for Rep.
Bachmann, as a new poll shows her losing support
to Texas Governor Rick Perry among voters who describe themselves as morons.

Gov. Perry kicked off his presidential campaign
today in South Carolina, unveiling a new stump
speech in which he promised to repeal the twentieth century.

(Borowitz report)

It's interesting, Ron Paul's followers were trumpeting his 2nd place finish at Ames, but it fits a constant pattern.

Even Jon Stewart bought into the stupid meme "maybe we should take Ron more seriously". Well, of course, the only thing the Straw Poll really shows is who can buy the biggest tent and basically buy the most straw votes. It means nothing.

RP generally does well at things like the straw poll, or in caucuses, or in online polls. Because it is absolutely true that his followers are a mile thick but an inch deep - they're intensely passionate, and will "freep" caucuses and online polls, and RP will sometimes win them.

But in a state primary, where you're really getting a cross-section of the general (Repub) population, he never gets more than around 5-10%. Why? Because once you get past the devoted and fanatical, everyone else realizes how much of a whackjob he is. Ron, we're not going back to the gold standard, and "Austrian" economics is crankery.

Interesting, though, that Gallup has an indicator called a Positive Intensity Rating which is based, it seems, on how many respondents to their polls choose the 'very' options in regards to their support for their favored candidate. Their data puts Perry on top and Bachmann close behind, but Paul with a score just better than half of Bachmann's. Could just be voodoo but they have Gingrich at the bottom which seems right.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/148790/repub ... -july.aspx

Look at the 2008 primaries.

Iowa caucus - 10 percent, 4th place.
NH primary - 8 percent, 5th place.
Michigan - 6 percent, 4th place.

Here were his BEST showings for Super Tuesday.

Montana - 25%
North Dakota = 21%
Alaska - 17%

His overall percentage for Super Tuesday, averaging all the states, was 4%.

Jon Stewart asked "why is the media ignoring Ron Paul?"

Well, they shouldn't ignore him completely, but personally I see no reason why he'll do better in 2012.

And yes, his followers will yell that there is some conspiracy of silence on his views that's the cause of his low numbers, but I would say that's bullshit.

If anything, I think few people know about some other matters, like his racist affiliations and "Ron Paul Survival Report".

The media loves the straw poll because it's the first time they have something they can "count" - therre are real numbers associated with it.

We can think of it as sorta like a preliminary leg of the Tour de France ... in the big picture, it doesn't really matter who "wins" this, except in that the media can say that someone "WON".

I gotta defend Stewart on this one, because I thought he did a brilliant job with the straw poll.

I think he first showed the utter uselessness of the whole thing, and how the results are a meaningless joke. From THERE, he effectively said, "But, OK, media, if YOU want to pretend this has some kind of value, look at how hypocritical you were with it."

The straw poll results were meaningful enough to promote and announce Bachmann as the "winner," then you noted how Pawlenty did so badly that he was just forced to drop out. But at the same time, you are painting as a powerhouse Santorum - who finished further back than the guy who dropped due to a poor showing, and you are alternately ridiculing and ignoring the guy who ranked second."

Bachmann = Straw Poll means something
Paul = Straw Poll means nothing
Pawlenty = Straw Poll means something
Santorum = Straw Poll means nothing

That's what Stewart was demonstrating - it's just that his comments on Ron Paul made up the clip that was circulated everywhere.

I especially loved their naked hypocrisy in ripping Bachmann for supposedly having "bought" the win, by noting her camp paid for the voting tickets of supporters. Articles and comments whining about that shit were all over the web the day of and after. But they found it unworthy of mention to include that "Senator Doctor Paul" outbid all the other campaigns to get the prime location at the front of the hall, paying $31,000 of his campaign money to get the first (and largest) space inside the door where voters entered to cast ballots.

They are whiny children.

Their enemy paid more in bribes than they did, so it's all so unfair.

You are correct, sir!

just left my house where i go at lunch, having some work done, one of the workmen's pu's has a ron paul 2002 sticker on it, but also a sticker about saving something, whales, trees, whatever

mixed bag these guys - seeing all this talk of ron paul made me think of it