Posts Tagged ‘FRC’

“I am seeing a lot of conservatives out there buying some ridiculous spin about this weekend’s straw poll,” writes a cranky Charles Mitchell in a transparent attempt to spin the latest Romney debacle titled, petulantly, YOU GUYS DON’T GET IT

Given the state of the Huckabee campaign, I don’t think they can get the credit; more likely, all Governor Romney’s rivals are deploying their press teams to try and deny him a victory.

Basically, people are saying that Governor Romney got swamped by the people who actually attended the FRC conference. Now, in point of fact, I do not contest that Governor Huckabee did get more votes from the people with whom we spent this weekend. But some folks are blowing this way out of proportion, claiming that the published margin of “on-site” votes invalidates Governor Romney’s victory in the total margin …

… I’d bet you a jelly donut that a disproportionate number of Romney voters clicked over from that e-mail and voted right away. Why? Well frankly, I saw the folks at this conference, and many of the folks who were voting for Huckabee weren’t exactly computer savvy. That’s not a slam on them–good for them for not spending all their time on blogs!–but it would contribute to more Huckabee votes being cast at the event … etc., etc.

Huckabee supporters are computer illiterates argues Mitchell? Let us set aside the desperation, dejection, and ugly tone of condescension that taints this bizarre claim. (Way to reach out to Huckabee supporters, you super-geniuses!) The confound in the data that Mitchell argues for makes Huckabee’s online numbers—almost as many as Romney—even more significant. Erick of Redstate writes:

In the online poll that the Romney campaign pushed hard to win, he only managed to get thirty more votes than Mike Huckabee — 1595 to 1565 or 27.62% to 27.10% … etc., etc.

The consensus is that Huckabee ruled the event—you can read about it here:

David Brody on Romney’s performance at the FRC value voters summit: the people [who] actually heard the speeches thought Huckabee was the best candidate there

Conclusion: We think we do get it. We think we get it all too well. Which is precisely why Charles Mitchell has a problem with “[us] guys.”

yours &c.
dr. g.d.

P.S. How would the so-called Evangelicals for Mitt know about the Huckabee supporters and their variable levels of computer literacy?—by their own admission they got “banned” from the event for their unseemly behavior! Way to front for Romney, dudes.

Advertisement

“You don’t try to win straw polls as proof of your national success among a group of voters,” writes the estimable Romney sycophant, young Justin of the Heart-Land, in a petulant and hectoring complaint titled This is why you win straw polls.

You don’t try to win straw polls as proof of momentum. You don’t try to win straw polls as solid proof of your chances at victory.

You DO try to win straw polls to gain free press to accomplish all three of the above. In other words: straw polls are a means to an end and not the end itself.

The all-caps are a nice touch, Mr. Hart. Are you having a bad morning?

Yes, we get it, even without the all-caps shouting: you win straw polls as proof of momentum. But it necessarily follows that an equivocal win constitutes a dubious proof, right?—the whole point is that Romney’s so-called win is contested. See:

David Brody on Romney’s performance at the FRC value voters summit: the people [who] actually heard the speeches thought Huckabee was the best candidate there

Young Justin of the Heart-land begs the question, i.e. he assumes in advance the premise that Romney won when precisely what is at issue is whether, and to what degree, Romney won. This is yet another example of Romney or a surrogate attempting to blur the distinction between claiming to have established a claim and actually establishing a claim:

Dickerson: [Romney] “seems to be hoping that if he plays the role of the most conservative, people won’t question his qualifications for it”

yours &c.
dr. g.d.