Columnist Liz Mair on Ames straw poll: “McCain, Rudy, Fred all have got to be pretty happy about this.”
Independent, libertarian Republican columnist and blogger Liz Mair shared her analysis of the results of Saturday’s GOP straw poll in Ames, Iowa. Her conclusion was that Mitt Romney’s 31% victory was not as impressive as that posted by George W. Bush in 1999, despite similar percentages of the overall vote.
Mair’s view is that Bush won his comparable victory, against all other Republican heavyweights. In contrast, Romney did about as well, but against a slew of second-tier, underfinanced candidates - since Senator McCain, Rudy, and Fred all opted not to compete. (The only discouraging word from Mair per McCain, was her accurate noting that McCain finished next to last, in 10th place.) Excerpts from the text of Mair’s analysis:
…Romney won with 31.5%. Mike Huckabee came second with about 18%. Sam Brownback came third with 15.3%. Tom Tancredo came fourth with 13.7%. Ron Paul came fifth with 9.1%. And Tommy Thompson came sixth with 7.3%. The rest is not worth mentioning, except to say that McCain came second from last, and Duncan Hunter, who I believe had a presence at Ames, did really, really badly.
The first thing, beyond the results themselves, that bears mentioning here is that in 1999, when (as I recall) pretty much the entire then-declared field played at Ames (unlike this year when Giuliani, McCain and Fred Thompson– i.e., 3 out of the 4 frontrunners– did not)– making a 30%+ win at Ames something very noteworthy and indicative of much greater organizational prowess and popularity in Iowa itself– George W. Bush won with 31%.
In other words, Mitt Romney, playing a field uncrowded by other presidential heavyweights, only managed to pull off the same percentage as Bush did in 1999, when Bush was competing against the likes of Steve Forbes and Elizabeth Dole (who were treated as credible candidates at that time– Patrick Ruffini notes that Steve Forbes threw millions at the straw poll in 1999, something Huckabee clearly did not do this year, and something that Romney apparently did). So, while a win for Mitt is a win, him taking 31% isn’t really that much of a big deal. In some ways, when he was competing against a number of go-nowhere candidates, you might have expected him to do better.
My friend Soren Dayton rightly notes that if you combine Huckabee’s votes and Brownback’s votes, you more than equal Romney’s votes– which can’t be a great sign for Romney. Of course, then again, that would have been true for Bush in 1999, too– but then as I’ve alluded to, that wouldn’t be such a surprising result in a year when all the big dogs played at Ames, which this year, they did not.
I also agree with Soren that Giuliani, Thompson and McCain all have got to be pretty happy about this. The way certain Romney supporters were crowing about Romney’s organization, you might have expected to see Romney pull 40%. But he didn’t, and that is significant.
Ultimately, this is a very good result for one person, and one person only: Mike Huckabee. He may not be my favorite candidate (I totally disagree with him on social issues, and he is more big government than me), but he deserves kudos for pulling off what he did today.
Hat tip to The Atlantic’s Andrew Sullivan, who originally posted Mair’s analysis on his site, here.
You can read the full text of the original post by clicking here.
You can contact The Tower at tower@campaignia.org.