Saturday, September 01, 2007

Duncan Hunter Wins Texas Straw Poll

Congratulations to Congressman Duncan Hunter for winning the Texas Straw Poll.

First the numbers......

41.1% Duncan Hunter (534 votes)
20.5% Fred Thompson (266 votes)
16.17% Ron Paul (217 votes)
6.4% Mike Huckabee (83 votes)
6% Rudy Giuliani (78 votes)
4.7% Mitt Romney (61 votes)
2.2% Ray McKinney (28 votes)
.77% John Cox (10 votes)
.62% John McCain (8 votes)
.46% Sam Brownback (6 votes)
.46% Tom Tancredo (6 votes)
.23% Hugh Cort (3 votes)

For the analysis, click "Saturday" below and scroll down.


Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Once again, the mainstream media anointed "top tier" was afraid to test their strength with a group of informed GOP voters. They have been dodging contest after contest from the GOP base, and except for a couple of notable exceptions for for Mitt Romney, have been losing at straw polls around the country.

The media-selected "top tier" candidates get their names mentioned one million times in the media. Only 5% of the population is paying serious attention to the GOP race right now, but the mainstream media still conducts a poll where they ask mostly ill-informed people who they like.

The uninformed poll respondent has heard of Brittany Nicole Spears from Paris, and can tell you all about the latest drug overdose or trip to divorce court/rehab, but is stunned to find that he does not recognize most of the names on the pollster's list.

Anxious not to appear to be the ignorant oaf that they in fact are, the respondent makes his choice based on which name he has heard once or twice- relieved that he is able to recognize the name of someone on the pollster's list.

That released poll is used as ammo to tell people who the "top tier" is and the cycle is repeated ad-nauseum.

Straw poll voters are different. This is a measure of motivated support. It is a measure of informed support. These people are the activists and they know something that the average American has not been told by the establishment media: THE SO-CALLED "TOP TIER" CANDIDATES ARE ALL DUDS.

Do you understand? Duds. The activists base repeatedly rejects the choices that the establishment puts on them. THE MOST INFORMED VOTERS ARE TRYING TO TELL THE REST OF THE GOP VOTERS SOMETHING! Fred Thompson? He is just the fellow that the establishment has in reserve if they can't get the base to go for one of the other globalists. The same establishment media that is building up Rudy McRomney as your first choice is building him up as your "alternative".

The activists are mostly telling you differently. Those who want to break with Bush on the policing the world are telling you Ron Paul is the one to support, and the ones for continuing Clinton/BushII foreign policy are telling you someone like Duncan Hunter is the one to support. Hunter for example, almost got the national Federation of Republican Assemblies endorsement too. He was 2% shy of the required 2/3rds majority.

2:23 PM, September 01, 2007  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Now the Paul campaign pushed hard for this one. He finished high, but he has been doing even better at straw polls around the country. The Bush-friendly GOP establishment in Texas appeared to make an all-out effort to stop Paul. In fact, they ruined their own event in order to prevent a Paul victory.

I say that because attendance was dismal. Only 1292 votes were cast. That is because the GOP establishment limited voting to only those who had previously been delegates to a state or national convention! There are 15 million people in Texas, millions of them Republican voters, but the party chopped down potential attendees down from 15 million to 41,000!

And why was this? If they had opened it up to any citizen of Texas, or even any citizen who had voted in a Republican primary, Ron Paul would have swept that thing. Insiders are desperately trying to keep Paul out, and are willing to see attendance and money raised at their event whittled to 1/10th of what it should have been just to make sure Ron Paul does not win by bringing in "new people" to their little club. Yet this is exactly what must be done to avoid another eight years of Clinton in the White House.

The 30% that want to "support the troops" by sending them to die on endless "nation building" missions in places where people have always hated each other have simply got to let go. The ones that are comfortable with W. Bush are not going to get Thompson or anyone else like W. Bush. They are going to get Hillary Clinton if they remain obstinate and refuse to support someone who can build a coalition that can stop her.

I wondered if Paul would not be better off announcing that he too would be skipping the poll because of the way the rules are being written. I still think he would have finished third even with a low key effort. Actually, he was only 49 votes away from second, and could have gotten that if officials had not denied ballots to a bus-load of Paul supporters who showed up seconds after the 10AM deadline.

Just to make their point again, officials started the day with an emotional media display about the victims of 911 with the song "have we forgotten them?". That is designed to appeal to the emotions of those who want to keep our troops referees in the Islamic civil war in Iraq. Certainly it can have no appeal to logic, as perpetually occupying a country that had nothing to do with 911 does not honor those victims in any way.

So should Paul have made the push? After all this, I still don't know the answer on whether or not this was the right move for the Paul campaign. Some of it depends on factors beyond my knowledge, such as how pig-headed some of the part insiders in Texas are. If they are reasonable Ron Paul can reach out to them and say, "look, I tried as hard as I could to make your event a success. I can put together a coalition that can beat Hillary. Even though I don't feel that my supporters were treated fairly, I respect you. Those top tier guys don't respect you. I want you to re-consider being a key part of a winning coalition".

If they are not reasonable, he is going to have to save them from themselves in spite of their best efforts to elect Hillary Clinton.

2:48 PM, September 01, 2007  
Anonymous Rick Candler said...


Are you a political hack for the Ron Paul Campaign? For someone from Texas I don't think Paul did that good. He should have won going away. Why do you favor Paul over the other candidates, if thats the case?

3:28 PM, September 01, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


I was in agreement with you down to the last paragraph of the first post. Then I really didn't understand what point you were making. It kind of looked like you were saying that Duncan Hunter is an "establishment" globalist supporting Clinton foreign policy.

Then the second post lacked the logical flow that is typical of you. I mean really, if you lose a good Rollye James listener like me in the midst of your conspiracy theory, then you might want to back up and try again. Except this time dumb it down for us abit and take it slow.

Oh wait! Brittany is from Paris? I soooo didn't know that! Please tell me more.

5:53 PM, September 01, 2007  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

I did sort of switch gears there. The point was the informed GOP activists (a tiny slice of the total electorate) are disenchanted with the media-anointed choices. That informed slice falls into two groups. One (the smaller segment) sees government growth as the biggest threat to our freedom and wants the foreign policy Bush ran on in 2000- a humble one that is less interventionist. The larger group is conservative on social issues, think they are conservative on fiscal issues because they want to borrow and spend rather than tax and spend, and are vested in "winning" in Iraq.

Ron Paul is the candidate of the first segment of informed voters and Duncan Hunter the main one supported by the second, though even this tiny group is split on several candidates, including Tom Tancredo.

These informed voters see loss of national sovereignty to supra-national organizations as a looming threat. No CFR guys for them.

On that second post I went from looking at the whole thing to questioning whether the Paul campaign might have made a mistake putting so many chips on what they should have known was a rigged game. I just wanted readers to understand that Paul in Texas with only GOP-insiders voting would be like Jim Holt in Arkansas with only GOP insiders voting. I wanted them to have some details about what Paul was up against.

8:53 PM, September 01, 2007  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...


I don't know about "hack", because to me that means someone who will follow someone without regard to principle. I do intend to vote for Ron Paul, and he is the one guy in the GOP field I would be willing to work for if the call came.

As for why, well, why shouldn't a fellow who was so strong for Jim Holt support Ron Paul? Ron Paul and Jim Holt have similar positions on virtually every issue, and for the same reasons. Ron Paul is the logical choice for people who supported Jim Holt to go to.

Do you remember in 04 when the GOP left Holt to twist in the wind against Lincoln (kinda like in 06)? Well, Ron Paul sent Holt $1,000 that year. I should write up a list of the things they have in common.

To me supporting Paul is just a matter of being intellectually consistent with the principles I supported before.

Now I would be comfortable with Tancredo (as long as he kept his finger off the red button) and Hunter (as long as he realized he can't keep us in the red and hope for a strong nation). All three of those guys, whatever their policy differences, are not part of the establishment and will put the interests of America and her citizens first. I can't say I believe that about the rest.

9:02 PM, September 01, 2007  
Anonymous Rick Candler said...

I wasn't aware Paul was a supporter of Jim. That is certainly a plus.
I am aware the GOP left Jim twisting in the wind in '04 but not so sure they did in '06.
This election cycle is trying for a lifelong Republican like myself. I have always voted pro-life and none of the front runners have a solid pro-life record. The driving force for me in the '08 election is who can beat Clinton, who I believe will get the Democrat nomination. I see only Giuliani being able to do that. So that is who I am supporting.
Do you think its possible for Ron Paul to win the general election? It does no good to win the nomination if you can't win the general. Agree?

5:47 AM, September 02, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is better to lose the war fighting the pro-abortionist than surrender. That is why I will never vote for Giuliani. Never. Sometimes it is better to lose one small battle and keep your principles and self respect than it is to surrender your principles and ultimately surrender the entire war as well.

I think there are a number of candidates that could beat Hillary. None of them are current front runners. Guiliani can't. Romney can't. McCain can't.

10:27 AM, September 02, 2007  
Anonymous Rick Candler said...

Giuliani has a record in N.Y. that is unmatched by anyone. He balanced the budget, turned a deficit into a surplus, reduced crime, and lowered the amount of abortions. He says he will nominate judges to the Supreme Court like Alito, Roberts and Scalia.
Giuliani will appeal to Independents more so than any candidate we have running as a Republican. He will put into play states like Pennsylvania and New Jersey while causing Clinton to spend money in N.Y. No other candidate can do this.

10:39 AM, September 02, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Those same type of liberal lies came from the liberals when the mainline denominations were being taking over by liberals. All with promised of being more "inclusive" and "growing the numbers in the pews" promising that there will be more to reach with the Gospel if we get them into church. They were really Trojan Horses that destroyed those denominations and turned Christian assests and money against the Gospel. Ultimately, even the promises of increased numbers were a lie. Look at which denominations are declining the fastest and which are growing.

Rudy Guiliani is a Trojan Horse that will lead to the ultimate downfall of the Republican Party if his is not stopped now.

I will never vote for Rudy Guiliani as long as he is pro-abortion and anyone that would is not my political ally anyway.

I saw this on another blog, substitute Mr. Guiliani for Mr Burr:


If I may steal a quote from Alexander Hamilton:

"If the party shall, by supporting Mr. Burr as President, adopt him for their official chief, I shall be obliged to consider myself an isolated man. It will be impossible for me to reconcile with my notions of honor or policy the continuing to be of a party which, according to my apprehension, will have degraded itself and the country."

Dear readers, Alexander Hamilton understood very well that sometimes it is better to lose the battle, and yet maintain the discipline in the ranks required to win the war. We have to keep our eyes upon the fact that we are battling for principles and ideology. If we gain power but have lost our ideology and compromised our principles, then what have we gained?

11:56 AM, September 02, 2007  
Anonymous Rick Candler said...

Again, I am only supporting Giuliani on the promises he has made to nominate judges like Alito, Roberts and Scalia.
I appreciate your argument but I don't agree.
It reminds me of the conservatives here in Arkansas who stayed home and refused to vote for Tim Hutchinson in a U.S. Senate race with Pryor because of some moral problems Hutchinson had at the time. So what was accomplished?
The election of a liberal Democrat who is pro abortion that will serve in the U.S. Senate until he dies or retires. Thats like cutting your nose off to spite your face. If the race ends up being Clinton vs. Giuliani I would hope Giuliani gets your vote.

12:58 PM, September 02, 2007  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...


I guess if I told the whole tale of what I know about 06, nobody would look good, maybe me included. Still, there is zero doubt that the GOP did not help Holt like the Dems helped Halter once they realized that Lt. Governor was the only race that was in play going into September. It is a tale I choose not to tell in the hopes that some of the players will do things differently next time.

Giuliani might win the election, but he will destroy the GOP in doing it. There is precious little difference in their policies, and of the two, it could be argued that Hillary is the one who has led the more moral personal life.

There is also the risk that some people, like me, simply cannot bear to pull the lever for a pro-abortion candidate and that Rudy would lose more votes than he gains. His personal life would be dredged up until a significant segment of the population is too disgusted with him to vote for him.

Here is why I think Ron Paul is the best chance at stopping Hillary. He has tremendous cross-over appeal but is still strongly pro-life. He is the one who won't alienate the pro-life, pro-gun base like Rudy would, yet he has a strong appeal to young people who tend to be swing voters. He trumps Hillary on the occupation of Iraq issue. She can try to run away from it, but at heart she is a globalist/interventionist and THAT is what the swing voters are sick of.

Paul's personal life is above reproach, so reminding people of how sordid the news was when the Clinton's were running the country is back on the table. Personal character can be a GOP issue with Paul on the ticket, but not with Rudy (or Thompson for that matter). That is not a card the GOP should throw away lightly. Voters will remember Clinton fatigue.

Right now there is Bush-fatigue, and the Republican brand is tainted, but Paul manages to be the anti-Bush, and GOP outsider. He is the only one that can be the GOP nominee without having to carry all the GOP baggage.

1:00 PM, September 02, 2007  
Anonymous c.b. said...

Someone has obviously been drinking the Gulianni koolaid & probably listens to his Chief of Hacks, Sean Hannity, a little too much also.
We can't trust Rudy to appoint the right judges even as much as we could Bush Sr. or George W.(the latter had to have his arm twisted to get what we got.) Rudy is hopelessly liberal......enough said.

As for Ron Paul, Mark, the one thing won't carry hardly any conservatives who are concerned about national security/terrorism because of his (real or perceived) "head in the sand" approach to foreign policy.
And his biggest drawback is that even when he is 100% right on any issue he can still manage to come across as half lunatic. His carrige, demeanor, mannerisms, & vocal patterns alone render him totally unelectable, even if correct on the issues & I have yet to hear that addressed by his supporters.

By the way, I was & am a diehard, proud supporter of Jim Holt.

It does not take a radical anti-war Republican to be able to distance theirself from Bush enough to win the swing voters. When soeone goes as far as Paul does bashing Bush, it alienates the base almost as much as a liberal.
All we need is someone to step up and say, as Newt does, that the system is broken & we need real transformational change that we are not seeing in this or previous adminisrations.
None of us wants a Bush clone(or anything even close), but Bush-bashing will turn the base off.

9:18 PM, September 02, 2007  
Anonymous c.b. said...

Hey, One thing I noticed about the Texas Stawpoll....... guess who came in ahead of the "top-tier" candidates even though he didn't show up?

That's right, our very own Ex-Governor.
He came out on top of the no-shows without even participating like Hunter & Paul did.
The Huckster is making waves!

9:27 PM, September 02, 2007  
Anonymous Rick Candler said...


May I ask who you are supporting and why?

5:05 AM, September 03, 2007  
Anonymous c.b. said...

Sorry if my earlier comments came across as an insult, I'm saddened by how many of the good people in our camp who have been led to believe that Rudy is our only hope when I think he's not only a weak candidate but will destroy our party if he was elected.

To answer your question;
I have been watching Newt Gingrich for some time and I believe he is the only true, reliable conservative with the charisma to be electable, and he is the only one I hear laying out the specific kind of change we need. I don't know about you but I'm tired of voting for politicians, like Bush, who talk right, but realy stand for the status quo.
To save me some time I went back to a previous post & copied/pasted my thoughts on Newt, so if any of you have seen this before I apoligize.

"We need to take a serious look at Newt Gingrich.
Please do your homework & check out what he has been doing & advocating.
In terms of ideas, no one even comes close. The man is brilliant & he is one of the last (if not the best) statesmen left.
In terms of strategy here's what I see shaping up.
I think Newt is painting them all into a corner with his American Solutions Workshop.
From the public's perspective, what Politician gives all of his opponents(GOP & Dems) his platform and says "please use this, if you will, I won't run"?
From all the other candidates perspective, who can afford to run a campaign on "hey, what Newt said!"? It makes them look like they're not their own man. It's a catch 22.

He is also setting the stage with his Lincoln-Douglas debates. He is getting some powerful Democrats & media figures on board supporting his debate proposals.
And if he is the nominee, he will CREAM any of the Democrats in that format.
My first reaction was "No democrat will ever agree to that", but they refuse at the risk of being perceived as a coward. He will be able to remind people that he was advocating them long before he "considered" running for President. Another Catch 22
Here is a quote Newt is sure to use again; "Any candidate that is unwilling to agree to a series of debates where they sit down for an hour and discuss, with no rules, no moderator, no mickey mouse, just two adults describing their vision for the country, cannot be taken seriously as someone who is ready to serve as President."

When I see what he is doing(with the Solutions Workshops & the Debates) I think it is a strategy, & I think he may outfox both the other GOP hopefuls in the primary & the Dem nominee in the general election. That is assuming that he wants to be President. I think if he wants it he could make it, that's why I don't want to count him out just yet."

7:41 AM, September 03, 2007  
Anonymous c.b. said...

Oh, and I think that Huckabee would make a great V.P. pick, strategy-wise.

7:45 AM, September 03, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Newt the coward who left his wife on her cancer bed to run off with his mistress."

THAT will be what voters know/remember about Newt on election day.

He is unelectable on that fact alone.

10:09 AM, September 03, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

so many great politicians...
so many wasted opportunities...

Newt Gingrich
Tim Hutchinson

10:54 AM, September 03, 2007  
Anonymous Rick Candler said...


I was not insulted by your comments. I welcome your thoughts.
I believe Newt is a very smart man and someone I would like to see as policy advisor in an administration but his negatives are to high to get elected.
I believe this race is going to come down to two candidates, Giuliani and Romney. I listened to Romney at last years Governors dinner and was very impressed, so,I wouldn't have a problem supporting him if he were to get the nomination. With that said, the Republican Party has to stop starting each election giving away states like California.
I am not a one issue voter. I look at the package. With Giuliani as our nominee the red state / blue state map is totally turned upside down.
I realize polling is just a snap shot in time and most aren't paying attention this far out but here are the results of a poll taken a couple days ago. Notice Rudy's numbers among evangelicals.

Diageo/Hotline GOP National Primary (Results)

Rudy Giuliani 27% (20%)
Fred Thompson 17% (19%)
Mitt Romney 15% (8%)
John McCain 12% (17%)
Mike Huckabee 4% (1%)

Second Choice

Rudy Giuliani 22%
John McCain 20%
Fred Thompson 16%
Mitt Romney 13%
Mike Huckabee 6%

Among Evangelicals

Rudy Giuliani 26%
Fred Thompson 16%
Mitt Romney 14%
John McCain 13%
Mike Huckabee 5%

Among conservatives

Rudy Giuliani 27%
Fred Thompson 20%

Among those who believe that “abortion should not be permitted at all”

Rudy Giuliani 26%
Fred Thompson 20%

Who do you think has the best chance to beat Hillary Clinton if she is the Democratic nominee for president?

Rudy Giuliani 42%
Mitt Romney 13%
Fred Thompson 12%
John McCain 8%
Mike Huckabee 1%

Giuliani's favorables are in the upper 70%. There is a huge difference between Rudy and any Democrat running and I see no reason that he can't be trusted with what he says.

12:58 PM, September 03, 2007  
Anonymous c.b. said...

Those numbers are meaningless for a multitude of reasons, many of which Mark has articulated many times in his posts.
Those are snapshots of literally ignorant people who give Rudy high favorables because they are not looking closely yet & the only thing that they know about him is his 9/11 performance & even that is not as impressive upon closer inspection.
He is total media hype.
Thwe reason you believe that it is between Rudy & Mitt is you've fallen prey to the constant drumbeat of the media that TELLS you those are your choices & cite these worthless polls to back it up. Two years ago at this time you would have had to conclude that John McCain had a lock on it.

Why does Rudy, who tops every national poll, trail in 5th or 6th place in almost every state or county straw poll?

And if Romney is the nominee, Hillary can start picking out the drapes. Can you imagine what the Dems will do with his opportunist/flip-flopping past.
Check out this video & imagine the commercials............

1:28 PM, September 03, 2007  
Anonymous Rick Candler said...

I agree Romney can't beat Hillary. My support of Rudy has nothing to do with the media. I know how the media works, my carrer for the last 10 years has been in a newspaper.
I support Rudy because of his record in N.Y. plus the fact I see no one else defeating Hillary.
If there is anyone in this race that you think can win the general please tell me who and why. Newt isn't running as of yet so he can't be a consideration.

1:42 PM, September 03, 2007  
Anonymous c.b. said...

Anonymous said "Newt the coward who left his wife on her cancer bed to run off with his mistress.
THAT will be what voters know/remember about Newt on election day.
He is unelectable on that fact alone."

I am always amazed at the people that believe that concervatives will hold thier noses & vote for a morally flawed AND socially liberal candidate like Guiliani, but automatically dismiss a true conservative that has made moral mistakes. Ironic huh?

I don't condone anyones mistakes or sins, but if you base your vote on a politician's total purity in their personal life, then you better run yourself.
I prefer that they keep theirself above reproach, but personally, I base my vote on how they affect policy & their stand on the issues I feel are important.

1:42 PM, September 03, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You may as well bark at the moon. There are millions who find/will find his behavior repulsive and inexcusable, and you won't change enough of their minds in this lifetime for Newt to ever be a U.S. president.

He, like Time Hutchinson, had his shot, and he decided to squander it on poor personal decisions. And I doubt Newt would call what he did a mistake, but rather his own choice-- at the expense of everyone who worked to get him where he was at the time.

2:36 PM, September 03, 2007  
Anonymous c.b. said...

You are entitled to your opinion, but I disagree.
Fact is, He has shed most of his negative baggage with time & he actually does call it a mistake, even told James Dobson he had asked God's forgiveness. That's a far cry from Rudy's "it ain't none of your business" attitude.

Besides if your theory is correct how did Bill Clinton ever win an election or how does Hillary even have a prayer.

One question, If he were running against any of the Dem hopefuls in the general, would you vote for him?

5:01 PM, September 03, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now, now, cb, you know the bar is set much lower for the liberals. What Clinton got away with and what Newt can get away with are two entirely different things.

As for whether I'd vote for Newt, probably not. But don't mind that, as I represent about a .01% slice of the voting populous.

However, I can usually predict what the majority of the remaining 99.99% are going to do.

Newt will never survive your party's primary.

5:35 PM, September 03, 2007  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home