August 12, 2007

Ames Poll Produces Winner -- And It May Not Be Romney

The Ames straw poll in Iowa has concluded in a racous day of policy and showmanship, and in the end the man who spent the most money in Iowa won the most votes. However, the real winner may be the man who spent nothing but time and effort in hopes of breaking out of the second tier:

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney emerged on top at Iowa GOP’s straw poll Saturday in Ames.

The win boosted the former Massachusetts governor’s standing as the party’s frontrunner in Iowa, although attendance at this first show of Iowa campaign strength appeared to fall short of expectations. ...

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee had said his campaign’s future depended on a strong showing in Ames. He finished in second place, with 2,587 votes or 18.1 percent. Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas placed third with 2,192 votes, 15.3 percent after campaigning aggressively to be the choice of the Iowa GOP’s influential social conservatives.

“Obviously this was an incredible day and victory for us,” Huckabee said. “What happened for us today was stunning.”

The relevance of the normally critical Ames poll waned this year when Republican frontrunners pulled out of contention earlier this summer. Rudy Giuliani, who has led all national polling since January, and John McCain both declined to participate in the Ames poll. The other top-tier candidate, Fred Thompson, has not officially entered the race and so therefore did not appear in Ames, either.

That left Romney alone among top-tier contenders at the caucus today. Romney has spent millions in Iowa trying to garner momentum in the Republican primaries, and his efforts have given him a lead among Iowans thus far. Romney was widely expected to win today's caucuses, and a falter in Ames would have been very embarrassing indeed. Romney did not disappoint, winning 31% of the reduced number of attendees this year.

This chart from Truth Laid Bear shows the vote breakouts:

ames2007.png

Mike Huckabee showed surprising strength in Iowa. Despite not buying any advertising at all in the state, he managed to capture more than half of Romney's total simply by his appearance at Ames. Huckabee was the most likely second-place finisher in Iowa anyway, simply because of the roster of the people who took the time to appear -- but his strength, and the relative strength of the nonentities that have been Sam Brownback and Tom Tancredo in this primary campaign show a real problem for Romney in Iowa.

Romney had the opportunity to bury the rest of the field in Iowa. Not only did all three people ahead of him in the national polls bow out for various reasons, but Romney has owned the airwaves in Iowa. Given the low national polling numbers for the GOP second tier -- they score roughly 22% combined, if No Opinion gets included -- Romney should have at least won somewhere upwards of 40% in Ames, and probably a majority.

Take a look at the latest Gallup poll for context. Romney gets 9%, while the other frontrunners combine for 69% of the respondents. Romney, with all of his campaigning and spending in Iowa, only takes a third of what the troika of Rudy, John, and Fred left on the table in Ames. Huckabee, at 2% in Gallup, takes almost a quarter of that 69%, and Brownback and Tancredo -- without any national traction at all -- take just short of 40% of those leftovers combined in Iowa. Given Romney's stronger national credentials, only going from 9% national to 32% in Iowa without Rudy, John, and Fred in the race seems like a weak endorsement.

And this weakness is even more pronounced when looking at the Iowa polling prior to Ames. Romney led in Iowa in May among likely caucus goers, primarily based on his aggressive campaigning. He got 30% then, compared to John McCain's 18%, Rudy at 17%, and 12% uncommitted. Of that 47%, Romney picked up all of two percentage points in Ames. Huckabee, at 4% in May, picked up another 14 points today in Ames. Brownback picked up 10%.

Huckabee proved that he can build momentum and support. If he started spending money in Iowa, he could make that top tier even more crowded than before. Romney barely met expectations in Ames, but Huckabee has provided a surprise.

UPDATE: Iowa Voice has a good roundup. He says that the low turnout has prompted speculation that the Republicans are in trouble in Iowa, Brian thinks the heat kept a lot of people at home and in air conditioning. Not having the three top national candidates in the event took a lot of the meaning and enthusiasm from the event, too. I'd call the turnout meaningless.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/tabhair.cgi/11196

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ames Poll Produces Winner -- And It May Not Be Romney:

» Ready, Ames, Fire from Nate Nelson
The Ames straw poll ended up being a bit more interesting than I thought it was going to be. Given that Giuliani and McCain both decided not to participate in the straw poll, I expected that Romney (who has thrown considerable money at this poll) would... [Read More]

» Straw Poll Round-Up from Iowa Voice
As promised, here is round-up of blogosphere reactions to yesterday’s straw poll. You already … ... [Read More]

» Straw Poll Round-Up from Iowa Voice
As promised, here is round-up of blogosphere reactions to yesterday’s straw poll. You already … ... [Read More]

» Iowa Straw Poll from Hennessy's View
The only lasting impact of the Iowa straw poll will be the removal of Sam Brownback. Brownback bussed in supporters by the bushel at $35 a head. He bet the farm on Iowa, and he lost. Mike Huckabee scored more votes than he paid for, which, as Time m... [Read More]

» Huckabee is the Story from The Debate Link
The Ames Straw Poll has concluded, and the results are in. Mitt Romney won, but that was to be expected. What took many people by surprise (all but the most insightful political observers) was a strong second place showing by former Arkansas Governor... [Read More]

Comments (40)

Posted by Amusis | August 11, 2007 11:47 PM

Mitt Romney won because of his fine angular jaw, full head of hair and taut buttocks. Surely you don't imagine it was to do with policy?

Be further enligtened on this very issue at Amusis.com

Posted by brooklyn | August 12, 2007 12:29 AM

I dunno Captain....

Romney proves he can win something.

Even with a light meaning, the poll has some merit.

As we used to say on the playing field, a win is a win.

If Romney DID NOT WIN, in this solid manner, then the expression which downplays the victory might make sense, but he did, and it doesn't.

Sorry, Huckabee is not going anywhere, he seems more like a Democrat, didn't he raise taxation?

His expression regarding the battle for Iraq in the GWOT is severely challenged (very weak).

Romney just proved he can compete in a contest.
Even a trial run is a something to put in the pocket.

Votes are indications, and Romney will stay in to compete, which is good for the GOP, Conservatives, because he is a capable, sharp, impressive Candidate.

The big sign of those who did not try, no guts, no glory.

The fashion regarding Tompson is looking very tired, very quickly.

Very strange to see Rudy not able to compete here, and the strategy game will be interesting to watch.

As for Newt's overt rhetoric, what did he do to stop Illegal Immigration in 1990s?

Nothing...

He is sounding more and more, as if he never served as Speaker, and left the scene in disgrace.

Posted by Rose | August 12, 2007 1:26 AM

14 thousand bothered to vote???

Fox News polls get a bigger response.

Yeah, Romney won, but so did Bob Dole.

Bob beat his Primary contenders easily.

And the GOP preened over him like he was their very best ever pet peacock.

That just didn't happen to translate into making Conservatives be able to hold their nose - even with Bill Clinton and Ross Perot for the sticks.

Posted by Adjoran | August 12, 2007 1:35 AM

It would carry more weight if you had set these benchmarks before the vote.

All I was hearing before the vote was he needed 25% to justify the effort, and his goal should be to match Bush in '99 - which he did in %.

Your position is essentially that Guiliani and McCain refusing to compete (because they knew Romney would beat them) made Romney a loser unless he won an unrealistic proportion. Bush was the GOP golden boy in 1999, had raised (and spent) huge (for then) amounts of money, and won with . . . 31%.

Huckabee does earn a ticket to the Round of Five with his performance. Time for Fred to quit jerking us around, and join the fray, and for Rudy and McCain to show up again to face Romney.

The rest of them need to accept the lovely parting gifts and our best wishes and get the hell out of the way.

Posted by Clyde | August 12, 2007 4:12 AM

Like Rose, I reverse-engineered the percentages and came up with around 14.300 people participating. Considering that Iowa has a population of around 2.9 million, that means that less than one-half of one percent of Iowans were involved.

Is that any way to choose a candidate?

Posted by starfleet_dude | August 12, 2007 6:59 AM

Clyde, it may not seem fair but the first event where people choose who they support for President is going to get more attention than it would seem to otherwise deserve.

An interesting fact is that while 24,000 GOP faithful showed up in 2000 for the straw poll in Ames, only 14, 000 came this time. So in a way, "None Of The Above" came in first yesterday, and Newt Gingrich could be thinking "why not me for President?" a little more seriously now.

Posted by Gianni | August 12, 2007 7:25 AM

It was quite obvious Romney bought the poll. He spent a lot of money for that win. The top three that bussed in people got the highest amount. Tommy Thompson also bussed in a lot of people, was kind of surprised he was that far down.

Ron Paul had a lot of supporters there too, and they were very loud, but most of them were from out of state or too young to vote. It was obvious they considered him placing fifth place a win. They were very obnoxious all day, I tried to stay away from them.

I was surprised Tancredo did that well, he didn't seem to have that many supporters there. It just shows how important immigration is to us Iowans. I think Hunter would have done better if he'd been campaigning more. People just didn't seem to know much about him. I've only been hearing ads for him the last couple of weeks, not enough to get peoples attention. I got to talk to him and listen to him talk a lot while I was there. He's a very likable guy and has some good ideas, just wish he would get them out there more. He's been busy in congress lately, and hasn't skipped votes in order to campaign like some of the others have.

The biggest ovations came with the announcement of McCain and especially Rudy's numbers. They were the one thing all day that all of the groups agreed on.

Posted by RBMN | August 12, 2007 8:32 AM

Romney's Iowa visits and advertising had two purposes: To impress Iowans, and to convince Rudy & Fred that they had other obligations this weekend. If you can't bluff as weak, bluff strong.

Posted by Goldwater | August 12, 2007 8:41 AM

Let's dismiss Romney because WINNING means nothing in politics.

Strong organization means nothing in politics.
Liquidity means nothing in politics.
Fundraising means nothing in politics.
Motivating people to vote means nothing in politics.

Everybody knows it is much better to run like a scared little girl from the fight, put off joining the fight as long as possible or coming in second in the fight.

We are Republicans and WE DON'T NEED TO NO STINKIN' WINNERS!!!!!

Posted by athingortwo | August 12, 2007 8:47 AM

Ho hum ..... zzzzzz

Posted by llee | August 12, 2007 9:15 AM

Huckabee is doing well, but I believe it is because lots of people have no idea how he reallly governs. He portrays himself as a strong moral leader and Christian (which is important in Iowa). He may be just what he says, but there are a lot more aspects to also look at when picking a candidate. Remember, Jimmy Carter was a good Baptist too. I am from Arkansas and let me tell you, Huckabee is no conservative when it comes to government. He is a big government guy. Take a good look at how he governed here, you'll see what I mean. Increasing taxes, increasing government programs, trying to take education out of the hands of the people and putting it in the hands of political bigwigs. Give me Romney.

Posted by llee | August 12, 2007 9:17 AM

Huckabee is doing well, but I believe it is because lots of people have no idea how he really governs. He portrays himself as a strong moral leader and Christian (which is important in Iowa). He may be just what he says, but there are a lot more aspects to also look at when picking a candidate. Remember, Jimmy Carter was a good Baptist too. I am from Arkansas and let me tell you, Huckabee is no conservative when it comes to government. He is a big government guy. Take a good look at how he governed here, you'll see what I mean. Increasing taxes, increasing government programs, trying to take education out of the hands of the people and putting it in the hands of political bigwigs. Give me Romney.

Posted by starfleet_dude | August 12, 2007 9:26 AM

Brian thinks the heat kept a lot of people at home and in air conditioning. Not having the three top national candidates in the event took a lot of the meaning and enthusiasm from the event, too. I'd call the turnout meaningless.

Ed, the University of Iowa poll that came out last week said that 33% of Iowa Democrats are happy with their slate of candidates while only 13% of Iowa Republicans are. So it seems to me that it's not just a lack of air conditioning in their cars that kept Iowa Republicans away from Ames last weekend, but a lack of interest in the menu.

Posted by Captain Ed | August 12, 2007 9:34 AM

SFD,

Well, I think that's what I said. When the three most popular menu items are known to be unavailable, it probably discourages people from eating dinner at the restaurant.

Posted by starfleet_dude | August 12, 2007 9:38 AM

I dunno Ed. Consider this from earlier in the comments:

The biggest ovations came with the announcement of McCain and especially Rudy's numbers. They were the one thing all day that all of the groups agreed on.

It would seem that there is a distinct lack of enthusiasm for some candidates, period.

Posted by gianni | August 12, 2007 10:06 AM

Let's dismiss Romney because WINNING means nothing in politics.

Strong organization means nothing in politics.
Liquidity means nothing in politics.
Fundraising means nothing in politics.
Motivating people to vote means nothing in politics.

Everybody knows it is much better to run like a scared little girl from the fight, put off joining the fight as long as possible or coming in second in the fight.

We are Republicans and WE DON'T NEED TO NO STINKIN' WINNERS!!!!!
Posted by: Goldwater at August 12, 2007 8:41 AM


Romney's win didn't prove that much to me. The social con vote was very split, those that showed up that is. They weren't where Mitt's supporters came from. Those are the voters that will decide the Caucus, and I doubt they will be as split then.

I don't think you can say Republicans are in trouble yet, just because of the poll. There is a lot of disillusionment right now, and it was really hot, but I think that people will come around as the Caucus gets closer.

Posted by MaryT | August 12, 2007 10:21 AM

Lots of talk today on will people vote for a Mormon. Has anyone polled members of the mormon church to see if they will vote for one.
Also lots of questions re 5 sons not in uniform. Is Chelsea in uniform, are Rudy's kids in uniform, how about Edwards kids.
Why doesn't the media ask these other guys the same questions.
One guy today made a remark re multiple wifes when talking about Mitt. How many wives have Rudy, Fred and Newt had. How many affairs did Clinton have. Has Hillory been asked, would you have respect for the Oval office, would you be faithful etc.
The media should ask all candidates the same questions, and jump on their answers the same way.

Posted by patrick neid | August 12, 2007 10:26 AM

iowa? i mean who really cares these days. i'm more concerned about all that ethanol they are drinking!

Posted by brooklyn | August 12, 2007 10:32 AM

"Let's dismiss Romney because WINNING means nothing in politics."

Posted by: Goldwater at August 12, 2007 8:41 AM

-------------------

Goldwater says it well...

The reaction to the Romney win, seems to be misguided.

Here is Mr. Hewitt, with a very interesting insight:

"Mitt Romney laid out a plan for winning the GOP nomination months ago, and it included, raising the most money, winning some or all of the debates, and winning the Ames straw poll as the key steps to setting up strong showings in Iowa and New Hampshire, which would at a minimum keep him in the race through the big February 2 showdown, and which might allow him to land a knock-out blow in South Carolina or Florida.

The plan is rolling out, just like previous Romney plans to turn-around scores of companies, stage a successful Olympics, win the Massachusetts governorship, or reform the health insurance system of the Bay State. Over and over again in Romney's professional life you see the goal identified, then the analysis followed by the plan followed by implementation in a disciplined and ultimately successful fashion. When I wrote the book and focused on his career for a year, this pattern is ghard to miss: Get a good plan. Stick with it. One day at a time, one milestone after another.

Yesterday's Ames vote falls exactly into this pattern as a crucial milestone reached..."

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/5baf3987-e533-4e1f-8d24-d98ca353fc88

Posted by abw | August 12, 2007 10:44 AM


The non-votes are an important factor to consider and I think the Captain's percentage analysis become meaningless.

Rudy, Fred and John's supporters had no reason to vote and so it's not surprising Mitt didn't increase his support. If this were an actual election and something was on the line at least some of those missing thousands would have shown up.

Posted by Mark | August 12, 2007 11:27 AM

Ed,

Be honest. All you are doing is filling in the blank in "Romney's win is meaningless because ______".

Posted by Captain Ed | August 12, 2007 11:31 AM

I'm being honest. Why would you presume I'm not?

Winning 32% of a straw vote where the top three candidates did not participate when polling 30% with the top three candidates considered is not much of a victory. It tells me that Romney's attraction in Iowa is limited.

Posted by Jim | August 12, 2007 11:43 AM

Is it just coincidence that Huckabee did so well or was it because that FairTax had a big rally going on too? (and the FairTax tent was air conditioned) FairTax needs more exposure during this election cycle. Huckabee may not win the nomination but he lives and breaths FairTax!

Posted by The Real Sporer | August 12, 2007 11:54 AM

Good insight. The crowd enthusiasm for Huck grew during the day. He certainly gains some press time from his second place finish in ithe week or so ahead.

However, the impact for Romney is also huge. Caucuses aren't like primaries and organizational strength is enormously important for success in January.

Mitt inspired the voters to turn out for him on a 100 degree day so that says someothing for a message as well.

Posted by firedup | August 12, 2007 12:07 PM

Good for Huckabee. I hope this gives the F. Thompson people pause. Huckabee as a factor in the race is good for Republicans.

Due to his over-spending ways, however, would not want to see him in the top slot... maybe the VP. Also, he could not best Hitlery as R prez nominee.

Romney is good for the party. I'm glad we have a strong field, wish more of you would look at it this way instead of the petty catty bickering.

Per brooklyn's comments... Yes, Romney is the man with a plan and that is how he has succeeded thus far in his career. However, as we know, the presidency is filled with unplanned events. What then? Is he the best man to address those?

Or, is Giuliani, who has proved himself in contingencies?

It'll come down to Mitt vs. Rudy, with Huck a strong contender for veep.

Sad to see the Hunter campaign doing so poorly. He is really the best man.

Posted by Goldwater | August 12, 2007 12:34 PM

Ed, How can you say the others were not participating? NOBODY kept their supporters from going to Ames.

If somebody wanted to vote for Rudy, they could have.

They chose not too. And they chose not to in great numbers.

Posted by Mwalimu Daudi | August 12, 2007 1:45 PM

I am shocked - shocked! -to see that Ron Paul's supporters are not here in full force crowing about their spectacular 5th-place finish. It was the biggest upset in American political history since (pick one or more of the following) Dewey defeated Truman, Kerry walloped Bush in a 50-state landslide, and Ned Lamont won a three-way contest to become a US Senator.

The numbers tell it all. A titanic 9% voted for Paul against a puny 91% who voted for someone else. Why, Paul's percentage is on par with Harry Reid's approval ratings!

Paul had better start working on that inaguration speech. Next stop: the White House!!

Posted by David M | August 12, 2007 3:48 PM

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 08/12/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention updated throughout the day…so check back often. This is a weekend edition so updates are as time and family permits.

Posted by FT | August 12, 2007 6:38 PM

Ed, your LDS commenters are never going to accept anything but a fawning report on Mr. Romney.

I agree with your analysis.

Posted by Goldwater | August 12, 2007 6:46 PM

Hey FT,
I am not LDS and I do not understand why every republican is not giving a "fawning report" of Mitt Romney today.

He won the Iowa straw poll by the largest margin in its history and folks like Ed here are trying to spin that mediocre.

Mitt Romney did what every single other candidate wanted to do and he is being bashed for it.

Posted by Rose | August 12, 2007 7:00 PM

Fox News' Chris Matthews reveals that polling shows only a ptotential 19% of Conservatives are happy with their candidate of choice - opining that this means in real terms that a Primary win does NOT necessarily translate to a happy White House run.

Looks like OTHERS also remember Gerald Ford and Robert Dole.

Some of these GOP leaders do look good and talk good - but I haven't been impressed by "star qualities" since I was 5 yrs old, and found that all that glitters is not gold.

I'll be voting for CHARACTER, and NOT "the best of the field" or others' opinions of "electability".

I've never considered Dah Ahnold Man's elections to be a WIN for California, in their best interests.

Posted by firedup | August 12, 2007 7:02 PM

On the contrary, FT, this non-Mormon wonders why you and Capt. Ed are knocking Romney.

Do we want a Republican victory in 2008 or not?

Just askin'.

Posted by Rose | August 12, 2007 7:25 PM

We are Republicans and WE DON'T NEED TO NO STINKIN' WINNERS!!!!!

Posted by: Goldwater at August 12, 2007 8:41 AM
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Sorry, Goldie - some of us are more Conservative than we are Republican, and WE don't feel the need for a WIN who is more DEMOCRAT than he is GOOD FOR AMERICA.

A wolf in sheep's clothing isn't going to get my stamp of approval.
Color me UNIMPRESSED!

Totally.

You canot tell me they couldn't find a good Conservative to back if they wanted to.

Funny, when the few excellent ones come along these days, he just doesn't garner any attention. Too boring.

Posted by Rose | August 12, 2007 7:35 PM

Another tidbit on this straw poll from Huckabee to Chris Matthews - the straw poll votes cost $35 each - and Huckabee says HE made a decision to plumb the depths of his base by NOT BUYING VOTING CARDS FOR OTHERS, as is apparently de rigor.
He claims to be thrilled with the knowledge he gained by this procedure.

Posted by Rose | August 12, 2007 8:02 PM

On the contrary, FT, this non-Mormon wonders why you and Capt. Ed are knocking Romney.

Do we want a Republican victory in 2008 or not?

Just askin'.

Posted by: firedup at August 12, 2007 7:02 PM
******************

NO!!!

We want a CONSERVATIVE win.

A RINO WILL NOT DO, particularly one that instituted homosexual marriage in Massachusets on the say-so of SOCIAL ENGINEERING JUDGES who overstepped their Constitutional boundaries, instead of on the say-so of MURDERERS.

If you aren't going to help us get a CONSERVATIVE into office, why should we bother helping one Liberal Socialist over another gain that prestigious and vital seat?

WITH OUR NAME on the endorsement?

No, you cannot have OUR name on this fiasco.

Posted by Matt Wilson | August 12, 2007 8:52 PM

IN reply to Brooklyn

The reason Huckabee raised taxes in Arkansas was because he was under specific mandates from the Arkansas Supreme Court. (Also, the state constitution has a balanced budget amendment.)

Beyond this, he did push for a bond issue to repair the roads in the state; however, this was four years after he had opposed a more expensive project proposed by Gov. Tucker.

Posted by firedup | August 12, 2007 9:49 PM

Rose, readers here are already overly familiar with your "POV".... there is no one in sight who is "conservative" enough for you... your repetition is what's known as spam.

Come back when you have a candidate who suits you and then demonstrate why he has met your stringent criteria.

In the meantime, sensible people will face reality and look forward to pulling together for a REPUBLICAN victory.

And get a clue, we Republicans don't all share your narrow socon demands, never have and hopefully never will.

So, by all means, stay home or whatever. It's still a free country.

Posted by Kelley | August 12, 2007 9:57 PM

The turnout and the results were both meaningless. The greyhound races in Ebro Florida have as much significance as Romney's ability to sell Iowa straw poll bus tickets.

If straw polls mean something, lets focus on Fred's first place wins in WA, CA, GA, IA (an earlier straw poll of 90,000 voters) and PA.

Posted by Spec Bowers | August 13, 2007 5:12 PM

Another winner was Fred Thompson - not because he won a lot of votes - but because Tommy Thompson dropped out.

When Fred Thompson announces there won't be any name confusion between the two Thompsons.

Posted by Spec Bowers | August 13, 2007 5:16 PM

Another winner was Fred Thompson - not because he won a lot of votes - but because Tommy Thompson dropped out.

When Fred Thompson announces there won't be any name confusion between the two Thompsons.

Post a comment