“If you have courage and convictions, your new soulmate will be Steve Deace. He delivers.” —Mike Huckabee

Radio shows

Caucus Surprise?

by Jen Green

A listener to The Steve Deace show who is also associated with an Iowa tea party group contacted us about his recent experience at a tea party caucus held in southern Iowa. Here is his story:

I attended a 'Tea Party Caucus' last Saturday in southeast Iowa. There were many in attendance from all over southeast Iowa. Leaders are very interested in tea partiers coming to a consensus on a candidate to support in the Iowa Caucuses. Tea party leaders are concerned with the splintering of the members among several candidates and how this fracturing could make Mitt Romney the de facto winner of the caucuses on January 3. 

The organizers of the tea party group in my area agreed to attend the caucus, although other groups were the ones to make the ground rules. Before the voting began, the organizers outlined the ten characteristics of a tea party candidate, most of which dealt with adherence to small government ideals and fiscal conservatism. However, one of the characteristics on the list was that the candidate must be able to beat Barack Obama. Personally, I think almost anyone can beat the current president, but I took issue with this being a “necessary” condition for a tea party candidate. I think we should focus on the candidate who most closely aligns with our values and worldview.

As with the ground rules, the format for the Tea Party Caucus was also written by outside groups. They chose to include Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum. They excluded Romney and Huntsman due to their inability to meet the standards of the Tea Party. Each candidate had a representative that was given five minutes to speak about their candidate.

We cast several ballots during the event; the lowest "vote getter" was removed from the ballot and their supporters were supposed to go to a viable candidate until there was just one candidate left. While this was a lot of fun, I do not believe that it was an accurate depiction of the Iowa Republican Presidential caucuses. As most people know, in the format of the Iowa caucuses, you vote only one time. 

The results were very interesting. After the first round, Michele Bachmann had 16 of the 39 votes that were cast. The second highest vote getters were Cain, Gingrich, and Santorum with 8 votes or fewer. Perry had one vote, so he was the first eliminated. Next eliminated was Paul, then Cain, followed by Santorum. It was down to the final two candidates: Bachmann and Gingrich. Bachmann was ahead in every ballot to up to this point. On the final ballot, Gingrich edged out Bachmann by one vote, 20-19.

The results of this event tell me two things: that Newt Gingrich is a lot of people's second choice and that Michele Bachmann has a solid 30 plus percentage of the vote in the tea party in southeast Iowa. The biggest surprise to me was Ron Paul's lack of support in the area.

I continue to believe that this race is wide open. If the reflection of the first ballot was a proper indicator of what the vote will look like come January 3rd in southeast Iowa, it confirmed what my suspicions have been all along: Michele Bachmann has pockets of support that are not registering in polling. Take it for what it's worth, but I believe that there will be a surprise and an upset in the Iowa Caucus on January 3rd.”

  • Watertater

    We had a very same Tea Party Straw poll at our last meeting and it went about the same way with Bachmann in the number two spot and Ron Paul coming in First here in Western Iowa.
    22 to 17

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Trevor-Benson/100003040118980 Trevor Benson
  • bbailey

    It’s not so much whom the tea party favors and votes for, it’s how many democrats change party affiliation to attend a republican caucus and pick the candidate Obama wants to face.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profg Bill

      And according to the only polling that took those voters into account, Ron Paul wins with a solid 25% of the vote: http://bit.ly/rOhh3m

  • Big deal

    So 39 voters/votes at this meeting and also 39 at one in western IA according to a commenter — only getting that much participation from “all over southeast IA” is just sad — with so few people you can’t put much stock in these results

    • http://www.facebook.com/daveelfers Dave Elfers

      agreed, which is why Jen’s conclusion was not very…conclusive
      a larger sample size would have been ideal

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1481354920 Craig Bergman

    We did this same thing at the Republican Assembly convention, but that was over 100 leaders from the 50 states, not just Iowa.  They choose Santorum.  Such “texas” ballots are meaningless, because on Jan 3rd, you get one vote, one time and we are stuck with the results.  So, look at your first ballot, that is what will happen on Jan 3rd.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profg Bill

      Come on, Craig. Tell the whole truth: at the Republican Assembly convention, Santorum got 69 out of 94 votes for endorsement; but in the actual Straw Poll at that convention, RON PAUL won the Iowa-voters-only count. This time it was 430 people voting, and Ron Paul won with 82%. (Of course, Paul happened to also win the tally of non-Iowans voting: 101 total votes, with Paul winning with 26%).

      THOSE votes took place FIRST; so, I agree with you: look at your first ballot, that is what will happen on Jan. 3rd. :-)

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1481354920 Craig Bergman

        Tell the truth?  OK.  The RP campaign bought more tickets than any other campaign and won another straw poll. They have proven a dozen times they know how to do that trick.  B F D

        • http://www.facebook.com/daveelfers Dave Elfers

          and you could therefore argue that Paul can mobilize people to caucus as well

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1481354920 Craig Bergman

            Having been there and done that, I submit that NO he cannot.  There is zero chance he can get above 20% max and that means 80% will vote for someone other than Ron Paul.

  • hatefalseweight

     
    Mike Huckabee urges tea party to vote for Mitt Romney
    Read more: http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/mike-huckabee-urges-tea-party-to-vote-for-mitt-romney/#ixzz1eSgNq300
    Can you imagine Ron Paul ever saying something like this?   Boys, Steve and BVP, you sure know how to pick’em. 

  • Jason Freeman

    Americans have such short memories.

    It was only what 2009 when Newt endorsed Debe Scozzafava only to have her to turn around and endorse a Democrat!

    But let’s get back to 1994. To me that’s not history.  That’s part of what makes me who I am.

    We really, really worked hard that year to get our candidates elected and it an unique election in that where in the past Congressional elections were mostly about local issues, the Republicans that year “nationalized the election”.  Gingrich himself did that. He was up front and center and so when we took over the House it was because the people of America endorsed our vision.

    But then what happened?  How much of our agenda really got passed.  I for one had the feeling that many did back then that we were betrayed by Gingrich.

    The title of Deace’s Book is “We won’t get fooled again.”.  Well I honestly and deeply feel betrayed by Gingrich.  So, he fooled us once… shame on him but if we are now to allow him to fool us again…

    Look, forget 1994, 2009, for those of you who believe we should only look at what a candidate has done over what, a few months?  Okay, let’s play the forget the guy’s whole political career (especially the part when he was actually in a position not just to talk but to actually DO SOMETHING) game and talk about Gingrich for the last few months.

    Didn’t Gingrich actually attack Paul Ryan’s conservative proposals.

    Look Gingrich can talk a good game in “Campaign Mode” (to steal a term from Scott Brown) but when governing (and in the end that’s what’s important right?)  he knee jerks to the liberal establishment.

    Gingrich IS ESTABLISHMENT.  His Freddie Mac thing might not have been illegal (but then again neither was Nancy Pelosi’s “insider trading” stuff) but it shows “which side his bread is buttered”. It shows where his allies are and where he would turn in pressure moments in his administration.

  • Christopher Gray

    How old were you in May?

    I mean that was such a long time ago, who can even remember what it was like back then. Wow, those were days.  You shouldn’t really hold any of us accountable for what we were doing or saying back then should we?

    We need to be CURRENT.  Not talk about stuff that happened way that far back right?

    The reason I bring this up was that in May, May 2011 Newt Gingrich was quoted on “Meet the Press” as supporting an individual mandate.

    http://blogs.marketwatch.com/election/2011/05/16/gingrich-criticizes-parts-of-ryan-budget-plan-in-republican-rift/

    But again, that was so, so long ago. A whole Seven MONTHS ago. Surely there’s a statute of limitations on such stuff.

    Gosh, to think of all the stuff I did in my youth (of seven months ago) yeah, it would be pretty unfair to hold him accountable for that.

Deace on TV