Althouse: "Romney Wins New Hampshire Republican Party Committee Straw Poll."

January 22, 2011

"Romney Wins New Hampshire Republican Party Committee Straw Poll."

With 35% of the 276 valid ballots cast. Ron Paul took 11%. Tim Pawlenty 8%. Sarah Palin, 7%.

26 comments:

mariner said...: Straw polls for straw men.; 1/22/11, 6:22 PM
Bartender Cabbie said...: Never trust a man with a "kiss me quick" haircut.; 1/22/11, 6:26 PM
campy said...: Might as well cancel the presidential election and save the $.; 1/22/11, 6:43 PM
rhhardin said...: The MSM hasn't made its choice yet.; 1/22/11, 6:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Of course they know Romney very well in New Hampshire. Apparently they voted for him anyway.; 1/22/11, 7:00 PM
Anonymous said...: RomneyCare = ObamaCare; 1/22/11, 7:11 PM
Pastafarian said...: It isn't bad enough that tiny New Hampshire has to have a disproportionate say in presidential nominations.

Now we have to give this absurdly small sample in New Hampshire 1000 times the influence it should have, two years before the election, when half of them haven't even yet heard of the guy that will win. (John Thune).

How do I know this? A highly scientific straw poll that I conducted, that included me, my wife, and my cat. Thune carried the day with 66% of the vote; Cthulhu took 33%. (He's a cat, after all, so he's allied with the dark forces of the underworld).; 1/22/11, 7:17 PM
SteveR said...: The last time people felt so ready to bash Romney we ended up with McCain getting his ass kicked. If you really want to advance conservative causes, work on the senate races.; 1/22/11, 7:27 PM
Christy said...: Raise your hand if you think New Hampshire Republicans are representative of Republicans in flyover country. Lovely people, but not typical IMHO.; 1/22/11, 8:02 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: My moderate Dem roomie said he'd vote for Romney.

Just sayin'.; 1/22/11, 8:06 PM
Unknown said...: How many Mass-holes trying to replicate Operation Chaos in reverse, I wonder?; 1/22/11, 8:11 PM
Big Mike said...: So 107 people -- essentially 40% -- said "none of the above.

Seems about right to me.; 1/22/11, 8:22 PM
Jason (the commenter) said...: Sponsored by ABC news! I guess we know whom the Democrats hope runs against Obama.; 1/22/11, 8:28 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: Oh, no, not Ron Paul again. Please, no.; 1/22/11, 8:53 PM
section9 said...: Palin people are extremely happy with the result. In a fixed game straw poll like this, Mittens should have scored north of 45%. Meantime, a TEA Party person walked away with the chairmanship of the NH state party.

Meantime, Tammy Bruce reports that Palin's underground organizing in Iowa is proceeding along nicely.; 1/22/11, 9:02 PM
bagoh20 said...: How come the Democrats can nominate and get elected a candidate that is virtually unknown, completely unqualified, and totally unaccomplished, yet the Repubs can't get behind anyone who hasn't already thoroughly jumped the shark already.

I'm not saying we need an unqualified candidate like Obama, but some qualified fresh blood would be tasty.

The campaign itself gives you name recognition so, why is that needed. Surely there are organizations with connections to startup money that can put forth someone strongly qualified and respected in leadership and the ideology that's wafting through the electorate these days like a fresh breeze in an outhouse.

A hard turn will need to be made no matter what. Where we are headed is unsustainable and everyone knows it.

Fiscally, Romney is like Bush, who was like Bush Sr., who are all perfectly nice people who are completely incapable of taking the steps needed. Romney simply won't do it.

We can't afford to wait another term to make the turn, or we are blowing it in a way that will go down in history as one of the greatest tragedies ever born of weakness and lack of will. This is the Achilles heel of democracies. We are going to be famous one way or another, people.; 1/22/11, 9:32 PM
Ambrose said...: Sacrificial lamb needed for 2012. Obama has it sewed up; might as well be Romney; could be anyone. The real action is 2016.; 1/22/11, 9:54 PM
bagoh20 said...: This is always the problem for Repubs. The candidate the nation needs is unelectable and the candidate who can win is worthless.

Because of this, Althhouse's approach last time is tempting to a conservative, but we can never afford to do that again, and probably can't afford the last one.; 1/22/11, 10:03 PM
bagoh20 said...: "Obama has it sewed up"

Remember a guy named George Herbert Walker Bush. He had approval ratings in the 80s at this point in his term. Now THAT looked sewed up. Beat 2 years later by a small state Governor with an eccentric way of enjoying a cigar.; 1/22/11, 10:12 PM
David said...: Mitt Romney and the Seven Dwarfs.; 1/22/11, 11:09 PM
Bob Ellison said...: Romney can't win. He's tactical bacon.; 1/23/11, 1:09 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: The problem with Romney that I see is that he is the best candidate for the last election. Whatever Obama had, Romney had it more, except for being half-black. He has, not one, but two Ivy League degrees. He believed in health care "reform". And he has probably forgotten more about financial markets than the rest of the candidates combined did know last time around.

The problem is that we don't need another tall thin guy with an Ivy League graduate degree or two. At least he doesn't smoke - but that opens up the next can of worms - his religion.

He is not a populist, and that is what I think will ultimately win this time around.; 1/23/11, 5:33 AM
Saint Croix said...: It would be kinda interesting to know what Republicans in New Hampshire think.

I have no interest in what the party bosses think. I already know they're afraid of Sarah.; 1/23/11, 9:25 AM
Cargosquid said...: Two words.

Closed Primaries.; 1/23/11, 12:52 PM
Saint Croix said...: Thune carried the day

Yeah. Currently he is running behind Donald Trump, who got three votes.

half of them haven't even yet heard of the guy that will win.

Cause he's shy?

People who have a really good shot at beating Obama are the people who have been fighting back already.

Sarah Palin
Paul Ryan (not running)
Chris Christie (not running)
Jim DeMint (not running)

What we need, what we have to have, is somebody with a strong personality, a fighter, somebody who offers voters a clear alternative.

Somebody the Tea Party likes.

And the Democrats do not like.

Now I've been a Palin fan since day one. I liked her immediately. I've already seen how she responds to trouble, how she bounces back, how she's always smiling, happy, uplifting. She's awesome.

I'm not saying vote for Palin. It's too early. But what I am saying, is keep an open mind. Do not let the media frame her for you.

I personally dismiss every poll I see of her "negative Q rating," or whatever. The media has been hostile to her forever. Of course that drives down her popularity. They have been campaigning against her.

Reagan had strong negatives too. "Reagan is stupid, Reagan is senile, Bedtime for Bonzo."

You want to win? Ignore the media. And excite the base.; 1/23/11, 3:56 PM
Saint Croix said...: Sarah Palin targets specific Democratic officials for defeat in the mid-term elections. She uses crosshairs.

A few months later, a madman shoots in a crowd, killing several people.

The New York Times runs a story about how Palin's "political rhetoric had helped create a climate for political violence."

So what does Tim Pawlenty do? He gives an interview to the New York Times.

"I wouldn't have done it."

Thanks, Tim. Wasn't sure what kind of leader you would make. Now I know. The kind of leader who would spin the death of a 9-year-old girl to his political advantage.

"I wouldn't do it."

I don't know what's worse, the political calculation in the time of tragedy, or the stupidity in the face of an attack on free speech.

If I had a pie, I'd hit him with it. Violent pie metaphor, Timmy.

Try not to be frightened.

I literally had no opinion on him before this. Now I wouldn't vote him for dogcatcher.

Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty (R) said Tuesday morning that he wouldn't have used crosshairs on a map of targeted districts as former Alaska governor Sarah Palin's (R) political action committee did during the 2010 midterm campaign.

Pawlenty, who embarks this week on a national book tour ahead of an anticipated 2012 presidential bid, was doubling down on remarks he made to the New York Times that the crosshairs were "not a device I would have chosen to do." Palin's aides have said that the images were never intended to be crosshairs or incite violence.

"I think Gov. Palin is a remarkable leader; I think she brings a lot to the debate and the table, both nationally and within the Republican Party as well," Pawlenty said on ABC's "Good Morning America. "As to the New York Times quote, you know, it wouldn't have been my style to put the crosshairs on there. But again, there's no evidence to suggest that that had anything to do with this mentally unstable person's rage and senseless acts in Arizona."

Pawlenty also urged restraint in speculating about the political motivations of the alleged gunman, Jared Loughner.

"There's no reason to believe at this point that there's any motivating factor tied to a particular politician or a particular show or a particular act," Pawlenty said. "It appears to be the rage of a mentally unstable person, and sometimes they do irrational and senseless things."

He said that the incident "clearly" changes the political climate in the country, adding, "we could all benefit from a more civil and thoughtful discourse in this country."

You are a pompous twit.

Pawlenty is slated to appear on ABC's "The View" later Tuesday.; 1/23/11, 8:36 PM