Straw Polls: What They Are, What They're Not
Salon's Republican chronicler, Michael Scherer, dug in to several South Carolina county Republican conventions, and concluded, in an article about dirty politicking in the state, that, yes, Gov. Mitt Romney's South Carolina field operation is probably paying for delegates to state conventions in the hope that said generosity (and a healthy dollop of Mitt Love, Mitt appearances, and Mitt mailings, ) would help Romney win the convention straw polls.
Scherer was unable to convince Romney aides to admit the obvious -- of course they're paying -- and in doing so, seems to have trapped a Romney organizer in a bit of a verbal bind.
In the past, Romney aides, speaking on background, have acknowledged to the Hotline that they've engineered the purchase of tickets for delegates. Proudly, even. Romney's South Carolina strategy is predicated in part upon the positive press that straw poll wins generate, and the social pressure that those wins create among Republicans in targeted counties. No one forces anyone to vote for Romney.
Straw poll victories show, at a minimum, that Romney's SC team is capable of organizing. That's an important ingredient for victory. At a maximum, they demonstrate that a wide sample of Republican activists are comfortable with Romney.
In Iowa, the biggest event of the year requires candidates to pay for delegates to attend, to pick up their transportation costs to Ames, and to bribe them with food, drink and merriment.
The straw poll victories do not demonstrate grassroots support, if grassroots is defined as "natural," or endemic to a certain population of Republicans. One cannot artificially produce a straw poll victory and then claim that one's popularity is spreading like a funny joke. It's kind of like a movie studio paying for theatre-goers to show up at a new movie, however thumbs-uppy that new movie might be.
(Note to CNN: we don't mean to pick on you, especially because Romney's campaign sent this clip around, but choose your nouns carefully). [MARC AMBINDER]
Romney is trying to buy votes for some artificial victories. Let Mitt spend his fortune on these fake victories while the other campaign try to build the grass root support. The only asset Mitt had was his $$$ and if he starts wasting it on buying votes then his opponents are going to love it. Mitt can't win anything based on his convictions since he changes then so often, so he is trying to buy it through his millions.
Shades of Rockefeller in 1964.
Speaking of waisting money, at least his campaign isn't going "green" :)
Million$Mitt,
Saying that all Mitt has is money is ridiculous. Any candidate on either side would love to have Mitt's resume. Even Mitt's money demonstrates support and excitement about his campaign that other candidates could not generate.
Same strategy as other successful candidates have used. Romney is implementing it well. Just another example of his managerial and organizational skills. I see a Romney/Bush ticket coming!
Mitt was not buying votes, but his local consultant was playing within the rules to generate some good press.
I was at the Greenville convention, I paid my own way, and I voted for Romney. Why? Because he gave the best speech, his message and leadership resonate with me, and because I want to be involved. If he was "buying votes" why were so many people walking out with Mitt Romney yard signs.
Romney has a lot of grassroots support here in South Carolina--they just haven't been inspired by the political process until now. So his campaign comes along and says, "Here's how you get involved" and a bunch of us do.
As far as the money goes, I don't know whether or not the campaign--or some other individual--helped pay to sponsor delegates, but Mitt Romney did pull in the most GOP money in South Carolina in the first quarter (by a large margin) so it's not like he needs to come down here and buy support. It's already here, the campaign just made it easier for individuals to voice that support--something all campaigns try to do.
What we have here is a case of campaign envy. Romney has better organization, more enthusiasm, and better grassroots support than any other GOP candidate in South Carolina.
No way, McCain will not lose twice in South Carolina!!
McCain/Giuliani 2008
This article is so biased and erroneous that it made me laugh. Trying to discredit one of the strongest organized grassroots campaing in order to help other candidates, who come next february will not even be in contention. Romney is solid, ethical, and a solid candidate. If this is all that you can come up with, best of luck slowing down this movement. People are signing up by the thousands to help Mitt. Why? Because unlike McCain, who is struggling and Guiliani, who has no morals- Mitt has a plan.
Mitt Romney is getting support primarily because he focuses on what these delegates want: food, pampering, and the true leadership for America in the coming days of challenges and problems for the U.S.
Mitt Romney stays focused on clarifying and expanding his plans, idea's and vision for America. He has a PROVEN record of accomplishments that no other candidate in the top tier has.
He has bold, innovative, forward-looking proposals for fighting Islamofascism, fighting high taxes, finding new sources of home-grown energy and transforming our military into a 21st century fighting force.
It seems that those who find it easy to ridicule Mitt Romney are the ones who seem to want a perfect candidate who never changes his mind, or evolves his thinking.
Ronald Reagan used to be a pro-abortion Democrat. Many leftists who are now conservative have had a progressive change to the right.
Naturally, if a candidate likes conservative ideas more and more, he will be receptive to changing long held views to fall in line with new information learned.
Such is life.
Go Mitt Go!
Shallow thinking individuals (like Million$Mitt's comment above) will try to discredit Mitt because he has become more conservative over the years.
Truth be told, becoming more conservative IS A GOOD THING. Maybe he's changed. So what? As long as that change is in the Right direction, that's good enough for me.
I would be scared to vote for someone who is too stubborn to change, or incapable of learning and growing. And I challenge anyone to name a single relevant issue on which Mitt has changed his stance more than once. In all most every instance, his so-called "flip-flops" have simply been incorporating his personal stance into his political stance. The very term "flip flop" implies changing back and forth. This is emphatically not the case with Mitt.
Perhaps you are intimidated by the fact that he believes in individual enterprise, intelligence, integrity and fiscal responsibility, and you have none? Or his Mormonism? In which case you are truly ignorant and/or bigoted.