Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Straw Poll Results: A Win For Romney

Here are the results from the Iowa GOP straw poll:

1. Romney: 4516 (31.5)
2. Huckabee: 2587 (18.1)
3. Brownback: 2192 (15.3)
4. Tancredo: 1961 (13.7)
5. Paul: 1305 (9.1)
6. T. Thompson: 1039 (7.3)
7. F. Thompson: 203 (1.4)
8. Giuliani: 183 (1.3)
9. Hunter: 174 (1.2)
10. McCain: 101 (1)
11. Cox: 41 (.1)

14,302 ballots cast

By washingtonpost.com Editors  |  August 11, 2007; 9:24 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Straw Poll Results ... Still Waiting ... And Waiting
Next: Analysis: Huckabee's 2nd-Place 'Win' in Ames

Comments

Mitt Romney: "But I was number one - so thanks for cheating!"

http://www.iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=755

Posted by: Brian Oblivion | August 16, 2007 4:28 AM | Report abuse

Calling all Conservative Christians: Take another look at Huckabee!

Posted by: SavedbyGrace | August 14, 2007 3:28 PM | Report abuse

What's the bottom line about Iowa?

Romney wins! Romney wins! Romney wins!

Romney emerges from the pack of...who else...Huck Finn? John Brownbottom?

Posted by: Tommy | August 14, 2007 12:40 PM | Report abuse

jtood3xl yutdqxds5xc1d [URL=http://www.409158.com/734600.html] uwi188078ey [/URL] yalpimd5ok0jm

Posted by: cq7cj4xqsv | August 14, 2007 8:10 AM | Report abuse

It seems from eye witness reports that there were a lot more Ron Paul supporters than anyone else. The vote was probably that way until they had a 'problem' with the diebold machines.

They didn't even have a SAMPLE count of 1%! No paper trail -at all. Your vote is treated less than a stick of chewing gum (you get a receipt).

People love Ron Paul when they hear him.

Posted by: Mr. Strobel | August 13, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

A win?? I disagree strongly. Here's why: 1. Romney (and others) purchased 10K ringers and brought them to vote by bus for $350,000. This does not represent individual volition in the ethical construct of this 70 year old born-bred Iowa boy. Shame on them all...including all those blind,deaf & dumb crazy aunts let out of the basement.
2. If this is the best the Republican party of Iowa can do then look out for more approvals of the biggest flip-flopper of them all. All bets are off the table on this gross breacher of ethical behavior.
3. It must have been the enticement of those fat drippin' pork sausages that excited the bus rubes!

Posted by: Morris | August 13, 2007 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Well, basically what those results tell us is that the very own GOP grassroots base have gave up on any hope of win the next election. Ok, we all know that we are a country where elections are a matter of media manipulation, and that our old democracy is as dead as my old gran-granpa, besides for some necessary rhetoric from our president, altogether with some Fundamentalist Christian "Shia-like" mumbling. But, it is very sad to see that no real opposition will show up against the 2008 democrat "bulldozer-like" takeover of DC. Ladies and gentlemen, brace together for at least 4 more years of Clinton dynasty.

Posted by: RealityCheck | August 13, 2007 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Can anyone explain how a socialist like Romney (who is responsible for a law that mandates health insurance payments by everyone in Massachusetts) is so popular among free-market conservatives in the Republican Party?

It's possible that most Republicans are simply ignorant of Romney's socialistic track record.

And, consider this. Add the votes for Tom Tancredo, Tommy Thompson, and Duncan Hunter (all of whom are more fiscally conservative than Romney) to Ron Paul's votes. The result is a true conservative, Dr. Paul, would be a very close second to Romney at this stage in the contest.

Tommy Thompson has already quit the race. When Tancredo and Hunter quit, Dr. Paul will be running neck-and-neck against Romney. Dr. Paul will then have an opportunity to expose Romney for being the flip-flop neo-conservative that he really is.

In addition to socialistic health care, Romney was pro-choice before he was pro-life. Romney doesn't have a clue about federalism (the U.S. Constitution's Article I, Section 8 limitations on the powers of the federal government combined with the 9th and 10th Amendments).

Dr. Paul, in a one-on-one contest, will make Romney look like a babbling idiot.

Posted by: Steve | August 13, 2007 11:20 AM | Report abuse

I sent my money to Ron Paul, I put my money where my mouth is, and you have not seen the last of him. Grass Roots take time to grow, so watch out!
Keep watching, things WILL change.
I Bet Ya!!!!

Posted by: Lady | August 13, 2007 1:40 AM | Report abuse

I would like all those celebrating Mitty's "margin of victory" to remember that this straw poll was poorly attended. 30% of not that many people is still not that many people.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 12, 2007 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Romneys "scaled back" efforts still got his people there in an air conditioned bus, ferried or led to the voting booth, fed and sent home.
Ron Paul had more supporters, though indeed mostly from out of state. Romneys tent was in the middle of the campus, the others on the far side of the voting areas.

Ron Pauls tent was in the most remote corner of the campus. It was obvious to me that more people were leaving with Ron Paul lawn signs than any other.

It was very hot and muggy.

Posted by: david | August 12, 2007 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Now....If we could just get Ron Paul's
attitude and ideas implanted into someone
who can win.................

Posted by: robertful | August 12, 2007 4:02 PM | Report abuse

bob thomas can blow me!

Posted by: mike garrison | August 12, 2007 3:07 PM | Report abuse

"Because if we'd gone to Baghdad, we would have been all alone. There wouldn't have been anybody else with us -- it would have been a US occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq. Once you got to Iraq and took it over, and took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world.

And if you take down the central government in Iraq, you could easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off. Part of it...uh...the Syrians would like to have in the West. Part of the eastern part of Iraq the Iranians would like to claim, fought over it for eight years. In the north, you've got the Kurds. If the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey. It's a...it's a quagmire, if you go that far in trying to take over Iraq.

The other thing was casualties. Uh...everyone was impressed with that fact that...uh...we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war. And the question for the President in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad and took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans was Saddam worth? And our judgment was not very many, and I think we got that right."

Posted by: cheney in 1994 | August 12, 2007 2:50 PM | Report abuse

have been reading about the results. i have found that only one of five reports even show RON PAUL'S numbers. most dont even admit he was there????????? why is this???

Posted by: mike garrison | August 12, 2007 2:49 PM | Report abuse

slickwilly/zouk-- i thought you were off on sundays.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 12, 2007 2:18 PM | Report abuse

The delusional will never see reality. After scaling back his efforts in Iowa, Romney wins by the largest margin in history (percentage wise) and fools continue to say it was a disappointment. Comical.

Posted by: SlickWilly | August 12, 2007 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Normally I am quite annoyed by all the Ron Paulites but this is rather outrageous: Dan Balz' main piece on the race only gives the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 6th placements in the poll leaving Paul out completely and inexplicably.

Fair is fair, unfair is unfair.

Posted by: roo | August 12, 2007 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Dijetlo: I think everyone who reads the newspaper or wathces TV or listens to the radio or follows the blogs on the Internet are aware of the massive failures evidenced by a hoard of people in powerful positions in both major parties.

Each us interprets the information using our own personal filters but there is no doubt that our government in Washington (and elsewhere) is badly mismanaged. Since our government is a reflection on We, the People, I suppose this says a lot about Us, the Electorate.

Many of us feel that we can do better and some believe if we do well enough a Republicans can win in 2008. I understand there are many who disagree. That's what secret ballots are for.

Obviously you believe that character and competence is very important. So do most Republicans. It might surprise many folks, but so do most Democrats.

We are all Americans first! I think we should stop all the infighting and concentrate on eliminating the real enemy. Jihadist and extremists of all kinds, at home and abroad, that are our mutual enemy. If we fail to see this treat as real and work together to defeat them we will sound the death knell for this magnificent experiment in informed self rule.

What does it matter? The Iowa straw poll is one small step for a candidate on the road to the White House. They do it with words and yes MONEY. I believe that you will agree that this process is a vast improvement on doing it with fear and bullets. This is a functioning democracy at work.

That should matter to all Americans. If Americans don't like the way it's being done in Washington, Americans can change it.

I apologize to everyone who thinks this sounds like Civics 101.

Posted by: VSteven | August 12, 2007 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Does it matter? Do you really think we've forgotten about all the death, debt and corruption the republicans have created or endorsed in their brief and tragic reign as the majority party? I seriously doubt their is enough cool-aide left to get a republican elected president.
Be realistic, we have a president that lies so often and so outrageously that even the republicans don't listen to him anymore. A Vice president who is the craziest old coot to ever hold a public office (name one other pol who got drunk, shot a 70 year old man in the face and then made HIM apologize.). They break the law and then use their puppet AG to stonewall any investigation. In short, they are hopeless tools of the wealthy and powerful and we all know it. They simply suck. I know it's hard to believe but they are so much worse than the democrats that most folks have started missing Bill Clinton. I mean, yeah he screwed us, but he only did it one citizen at a time, starting with the chubby interns. At this point I think we'd be OK with that....

Posted by: Dijetlo | August 12, 2007 11:26 AM | Report abuse

For those of you that are having trouble with the math:

1999 STRAW POLL

George W. Bush 7,418 31.3%
Steve Forbes 4,921 20.7%
Elizabeth Dole 3,410 14.4%

TOTAL 15,749 Total Vote: 23,685

2007 STRAW POLL

Mitt Romney 4,516 31.5%
Huckabee: 2,587 18.1%
Brownback: 2,192 15.3%

TOTAL 9,295 Total Vote: 14,302

On total percentage of the votes cast, Romney 31.5% to Bush 31.3%.

On total vote count: It sure looks to me like the Giuiani and McCain folks didn't show up. This is reflected by their combined LOW vote total. If they had shown up the vote count, I am sure, would have been much closer to the 1999 straw poll totals. Romney still would have won but the no shows decided not to cast a wasted vote.

Posted by: VSteven | August 12, 2007 10:59 AM | Report abuse

If Mitt Romney is a bunch of hot air that belongs to a so called "cult", why are so many of you writing about him in a negative way? He may not have convinced you that he is the right man to lead our nation - yet, or maybe never will convince you, but he has convinced many out there. I'd say he is doing pretty good considering he is not well known - that is slowly changing and the Iowa Straw poles are just one more step to help that happen. My advice to you is that you hide and watch - or if you prefer, kick and scream like you are - I personally feel there are enough us of out there that truly know true leadership despite what you dirt you try to bring out about Romney or what direction you try to spin his past experience, religious beliefs or his all too perfect demeanor.
The best man will win, I just happen to believe that he is Mitt Romney.

Posted by: Wayne in Texas | August 12, 2007 10:58 AM | Report abuse

If Mitt Romney is a bunch of hot air that belongs to a so called "cult", why are so many of you writing about him in a negative way? He may not have convinced you that he is the right man to lead our nation - yet, or maybe never will convince you, but he has convinced many out there. I'd say he is doing pretty good considering he is not well known - that is slowly changing and the Iowa Straw poles are just one more step to help that happen. My advice to you is that you hide and watch - or if you prefer, kick and scream like you are - I personally feel there are enough us of out there that truly know true leadership despite what you dirt you try to bring out about Romney or what direction you try to spin his past experience, religious beliefs or his all too perfect demeanor.
The best man will win, I just happen to believe that he is Mitt Romney.

Posted by: Wayne in Texas | August 12, 2007 10:58 AM | Report abuse

The image that keeps coming to mind when viewing articles about the Republican pack is that of the Seven Dwarfs. I have my own picks for Bashful (Fred Thompson) Grumpy (John McCain) Happy (Mike Huckabee) and Doc (Ron Paul). Any of the rest could fill in for Dopey, Sleepy or Sneezy. Can't the GOP do any better than this?

Posted by: Daniel | August 12, 2007 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Perspective: In the last three election cycles in which Republicans had competitive fights for the nomination, the eventual nominee finished among the top three in the straw poll.

1999 STRAW POLL

George W. Bush 7,418
Steve Forbes 4,921
Elizabeth Dole 3,410

TOTAL 15,749

1995 STRAW POLL

Bob Dole 2,582
Phil Gramm 2,582
Patrick Buchanan 1,922

TOTAL 7,086

1987 STRAW POLL

Pat Robertson 1,293
Bob Dole 958
George H.W. Bush 864

TOTAL 3,115

AND NOW ...

2007 STRAW POLL

Mitt Romney, 4516
Mike Huckabee, 2587
Sen. Sam Brownback, 2192

TOTAL 9295

Source: Republican Party of Iowa

Does anyone believe that money and organization has nothing to do with the results? How does an unknown get known? Do you bloggers think TV ads are free? Setting up state organizations is free?

Steve Forbes is richer than Romney, and do you believe that Bush (both of them) won in Iowa on a shoestring budged? Guess which year the least amount of money was spent (clue: 1987).

Romney raised the money to spend in the primary and he did. And he put his own money where his mouth is.

Do you really think Ron Paul wouldn't have spent more money if he had raised more money? His supporters sent almost nothing, he spent almost nothing, and his campaign now means almost nothing.

Posted by: VSteven | August 12, 2007 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Callahan, some should pray for you as well as Mr. Romney--do your homework--Mormonism is a cult in the classic sense when viewed in light of historical orthodox Christianity.

Anyway, here's my view. Romney was the only so called front runner (mainstream, has a chance to win, establishment picked candidate, etc.) in the race. This allowed him to concentrate the establishment base (continue the current course of intervention, nation building, bleeding the US dry republicans), instead of spitting it with principled republican base. Now consider the principled base by summing Huckabee, Brownback, Tancredo and Paul's votes--that equals 8045 out of 14302 for 56% of the total.

This was a classic case of split the vote by running a pseudoconservative like Romney v. more appealing and sincere, what I've called here "principled" candidates. If either of the other establishment favorites were here the they would have split Romney's vote and voila, Huckabee would have likely been a winner.

Classic manipulation, it's been done more often than not.

This experience also points to the main problem of electronic voting--no paper trail! We need to demand that our congressmen address this issue and insure that our votes are counted!

Posted by: Brian Picard | August 12, 2007 8:21 AM | Report abuse

What a ridiculous way to choose a President. 14,000 circus attendees who stop by to vote in between bbq and corn dogs. The whole political establishment is hanging on what these 14,000 hired guns will do.

Posted by: SouthFlorida | August 12, 2007 1:02 AM | Report abuse

Well all you people saying that he spent an exuberant amount of money on 4500 votes. It was also 100+ degrees out with the heat index. I have a feeling that none of you that are making these comments have ever been to Iowa. He had the largest point spread in the history of the Iowa straw polls. That is huge. As for the gentleman calling his faith a cult. I pray for your soul. By the way I am a Catholic. As for the "Super Volunteers" post, seriously grow up and stop your whining so what if he pays people for gas and such to help with events that are not in the immediate area, and to make some phone calls, he is building the economy by giving more jobs. Anyway I'm out.

Posted by: David Callahan | August 12, 2007 1:00 AM | Report abuse

In a nutshell:

Huckabee's 2nd place showing was not unexpected. He is a far better candidate to carry the Christian conservative mantle. Not Sam Brownback. If his fundraising takes off, he will be a major threat to Mitt Romney.

Tommy Thompson is history. So is Duncan Hunter.

McCain's last place showing (no, John Cox doesn't count) is an outright embarrassment.

Romney's victory is a Pyrrhic one.

Tancredo shows that immigration is not going away as an issue anytime soon.

Read more here:

http://theseventen.blogspot.com/2007/08/ready-ames-fire.html

Posted by: The 7-10 | August 12, 2007 12:47 AM | Report abuse

How many of Romney's votes came from fellow Mormons? According to a WaPo story, around 20,000 Mormons live in Iowa, and Romney courted them vigorously. If only 20% of the Iowan Mormon population showed up, that would constitute the majority of Romney's support. Not very deep support.

The real story here is that, after all his investment in Iowa, Romney only mustered a few thousand votes. Romney's support is thin, and this can only be construed as a loss. Where's the critical media analysis?

See WaPo on Mormons in Iowa:
Iowa isn't exactly Mormon country, with an estimated 20,000 members of the LDS church out of a state population of about three million. But as one Romney supporter and LDS member told The Post in an interview this spring, if even a fraction of those 20,000 were to come out for Romney at the straw poll, it could give Romney a measurable boost, given that the poll isn't expected to draw much more than 40,000 attendees.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/08/10/post_11.html#more

Posted by: Junkie | August 11, 2007 11:29 PM | Report abuse

Mitt Romney spent MILLIONS for 4,516 votes. These must be the most expensive votes in the history of U.S. politics. The only way this man wins is by buying the election (which is certainly possible in this country). Check out his expenditures, according to a WaPo story:

One candidate, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, has assembled an unrivaled operation for the event: a statewide corps of 60 "super-volunteers," who have been paid between $500 and $1,000 per month to talk him up; a fleet of buses; more than $2 million in television ads in Iowa; a sleek direct-mail campaign; and a consultant who has been paid nearly $200,000 to direct Romney's straw poll production, which will include barbecue billed as the best in the state.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/09/AR2007080902379_pf.html

Posted by: Junkie | August 11, 2007 11:17 PM | Report abuse

Romney's paid-for win rings hollow... and the sparse turnout sounds a bell tolling for a GOP brought low by Boy George and his nasty neocons.

Maybe this is the final straw for Tommy Thompson who vowed to quit if he didn't place second.... not even close.

Surely Duncan Hunter will call it a day too. Tancredo should be happy with his 4th place finish, and illegal immigration will continue to gain momentum as an important voter issue.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | August 11, 2007 11:09 PM | Report abuse

If America would wake-up and think for themselves instead of the media telling them what to think RON PAUL is the only choice for 2008.

Posted by: Don | August 11, 2007 10:48 PM | Report abuse

Everybody underestimated Huckabee and his ability to get actual votes, the straw poll proves he has a little bit of staying power and his ideas just might catch on. Ron Paul on the other hand has maxed out his support. He talks a good game like most of them, until you ask about security and then he loses it! The Republican party is not going to choose a nominee (for President or VP) who thinks it is our fault that muslim extremists want to kill all of us.

Posted by: Jessica | August 11, 2007 10:40 PM | Report abuse

Huge win for John Cox!!

41 people in Iowa ACKNOWLEDGED HIS EXISTENCE!

This far exceeded anyone's expectations. His, too, I bet.

Posted by: Michael | August 11, 2007 10:18 PM | Report abuse

Good news for Huckabee and (my man) Ron Paul. Paul got 4.5 times as many votes as he gets in the telephone polls. There's still a lot work to be done. But when people learn about Ron Paul, they love him.

Posted by: Jive Dadson | August 11, 2007 10:16 PM | Report abuse

The blog posting nailed Ron Paul. His loud band of lunatic followers were from out-of-state, and Iowans prefered to vote for someone who was just a *tad* more sane, and actually had a chance of winning.

Big night for Huckabee.

Posted by: Stephen | August 11, 2007 10:14 PM | Report abuse

It seems that most of you missed the fact that Mitt Romney considerably scaled back his efforts in this straw poll after Guiliani and McCain announced they would not attend. He announced that soon after they announced their pull out. They pulled out only after Romney was whipping them in the polls by double digits, so he knew he did not have to channel nearly the resources into winning this (easily) as he would have if there had been competition. Wake up guys!!!!! Romney is an unbelievably qualified candidate. He'll be your President someday. I can't believe all the Ron Paul cry babies on here.... wahhhhhhhh!!!!

Posted by: Bob Thomas | August 11, 2007 10:14 PM | Report abuse

The media says there were problems in the voting machines...

those words speak for themselves...

Posted by: nick | August 11, 2007 10:10 PM | Report abuse

The media says there were problems in the voting machines...

those words speak for themselves...

Posted by: nick | August 11, 2007 10:10 PM | Report abuse

There is hope for Gov. Huckabee. ..who is from Hope, Arkansas. I guess if you are from Bill Clinton's hometown..there is hope for you.

Posted by: Brian | August 11, 2007 10:06 PM | Report abuse

Imagine if Rudy "20 wives" Guiliani showed up and if John "no chance" showed up tonight? The votes would have been even more diluted and Romney's investment would have been even worse off! I don't know much about this Huckabee guy but I'll at least tune in to Face the Nation to check him out.... Thanks for the heads up.

Posted by: Harv | August 11, 2007 10:03 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans would push a mass murderer forward if they thought he would help them win the White House. Right now, in Iowa, the party of Christian family values is behind a member of what is the weirdest cult ever to gain prominence in America. Later they'll pick a thrice divorced, pro-abortion, pro gay rights self-aggrandizing loser from New York. The hypocrisy of these people knows no bounds.

Posted by: GRG | August 11, 2007 10:00 PM | Report abuse

How much money did Mitt Romney spend to get only 4500 votes? If an average business were run like thi; he'd certainly be fired.

Posted by: Chris | August 11, 2007 9:57 PM | Report abuse

The Romney "win" will be scrutinized very heavily. How many millions of dollars did Romney spend to get only 4516 votes? How much money will have been spend per average voter? I think that this will show Romney is not as strong as people believe and that Gov. Huckabee's campaign was given new life tonight.

Posted by: David | August 11, 2007 9:55 PM | Report abuse

The votes are in, and it's unanimous: Romney is a flip-flopping pro-abortionist!

Posted by: Jill | August 11, 2007 9:53 PM | Report abuse

From a cost/vote analysis:

Romney spent the most amount of money per vote.

Paul spent probably 1/3 of what Mitt Spent per vote.


It's funny that Mitt spent all this money for only 31percent of the vote and Giulani, Thompson, and Mccain didn't even participate in the process.

Posted by: Brian | August 11, 2007 9:51 PM | Report abuse

23,000 votes were cast in 1999, but only 14,000 this year. Sounds like the Republican party isn't very motivated this year.

Posted by: Gerard | August 11, 2007 9:49 PM | Report abuse

So how many votes did Mitt Romney buy in order to win the Straw Poll. I'm guessing atleast 25%-35% of the votes.

John Kerry's nickname of flip-flopper has been officially retired and passed on to Mitt.

Hey, atleast Ron Paul got about 10% of the vote.

Posted by: Brian | August 11, 2007 9:48 PM | Report abuse

How many millions of dollars did Mitt Romney spend to get only 4,500 votes??? Tis has to be a huge disappointment to him. Mike Huckabee sure came out of left field, didn't he??

Posted by: Steven | August 11, 2007 9:48 PM | Report abuse

Romney's vote is unimpressive, per dollar spent.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 11, 2007 9:47 PM | Report abuse

Hey Huckabee!

At least he's not as scary as Brownback who has the glazed eyes and gosh, who me? manner, while his sycophantic anti- christian zealot hatchetmen make enemies throughout the country. "Good," naive cop/anti-christian, closet-case bad-cops.

Posted by: Alex | August 11, 2007 9:46 PM | Report abuse

penis

Posted by: jim | August 11, 2007 9:46 PM | Report abuse

Too bad Huckabee's one of the three Republican presidential imbeciles who doesn't believe in evolution or universal health insurance. Other than that, great.

Posted by: JGG | August 11, 2007 9:46 PM | Report abuse

Gov. Huckabee will be on Face the Nation on Sunday morning to discuss his solid showing in the Iowa Straw Poll.

Posted by: Lucy | August 11, 2007 9:46 PM | Report abuse

I agree that Diebold cannot be trusted. How is it that their ATMs handle millions of transactions daily, and provide receipts with each one, but cannot reliably produce results in a simple vote counting mechanism? Very suspicious. Why are we even letting private companies handle public elections anyway?

Posted by: D | August 11, 2007 9:45 PM | Report abuse

Gov. Huckabee may be finally getting some new life in his campaign. I saw him speak in February & was impressed with his competence and ease in which he spoke.

Posted by: Norris | August 11, 2007 9:44 PM | Report abuse

Any word on what the expected numbers were? I am sure Huckabee beat expectations, at least

Posted by: Anonymous | August 11, 2007 9:40 PM | Report abuse

Don't believe the outcome. I will never trust the results of any election or voting that is done with Diebold machines. People need to start writing their congressman and representatives right now to assure us that there will be paper trails for all electronic voting machines.
Diebold machines are by far the most questionable because Diebold themselves have fought so hard against making their machines verifiable.

Posted by: fishingriver | August 11, 2007 9:39 PM | Report abuse

Only 14,000 votes cast, what happened to upwards of 40,000. How does this compare to other years?

Posted by: Gerard | August 11, 2007 9:34 PM | Report abuse

I agree that this is a big win for Huckabee, and Romney's win was commanding enough that he probably won the expectations game.

Posted by: Eric | August 11, 2007 9:33 PM | Report abuse

This may give Huckabee new life........I think that his personality and charisma may match him up well against just about any democrat. Especially since he has lost a lot of weight and seems to have a sane marriage and a pragmatic religious personable humorous cnadidate.

Posted by: FJG | August 11, 2007 9:28 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company