Open thread: The Florida straw poll; Update: Cain wins — in a landslide; Update: Perry camp calls it a devastating loss for, er, Romney

posted at 2:43 pm on September 24, 2011 by Allahpundit

The results won’t come ’til dinnertime on the east coast but Perry’s expected to speak shortly after 3 p.m., so here’s your chance to watch the next round of damage control. If he’d done well at the debate, this straw poll wouldn’t even be worth blogging: Romney’s not actively competing (although he’ll be on the ballot) whereas Perry’s spent a bunch of money to make a splash in a crucial primary state. A month ago, under those circumstances, it would have been a walkover for him. As it is, reporters ranging from Byron York to Stephen Hayes to Dave Weigel have been struck by the negative buzz among Floridians about Perry’s Thursday night flameout. York, in fact, thinks there might be a late surge today towards Herman Cain:

What seems to be happening is this: A lot of delegates came to Orlando planning to vote for Rick Perry. But Perry’s poor performance at Thursday night’s Fox News-Google debate gave them pause and re-opened the question of whom they will support. And many of the conservatives who were attracted to Perry will, when asked for a second choice, naturally gravitate to Cain, who, it just happens, had a particularly good debate on Thursday. So with Perry not commanding the loyalty he did just 48 hours ago, Cain appears to be picking up support…

Could Cain actually win? It seems unlikely, but it’s an outside possibility. Cain’s fortunes depend on whether the delegates here decide to vote strategically — to support the candidate they consider the most likely to win the Republican nomination and go on to general-election victory — or to vote their principles and let practical matters work themselves out later. If the delegates go the latter route, a lot will choose Herman Cain.

Imagine poor Morgan Freeman trying to make sense of the world if Cain pulls an upset. As for Perry, it’s too late to lower expectations: He’s said publicly that the Florida straw poll is “very important,” so if he does poorly, the headlines tomorrow will be brutal — especially if Romney, despite exerting no effort, does surprisingly well. I think Perry wins, but keep your eye on the final margin. Here’s the livestream.

Watch live streaming video from p5live at livestream.com

Update: Not only did Cain pull it off, it wasn’t close. The numbers: Cain 37%, Perry 15%, Romney 14%. A total embarrassment for Perry, and it actually could have been worse. Here’s what Florida state representative Matt Gaetz tweeted before the vote:

Romney campaign is having their #Presidency5 delegates vote for Cain to skew results. #dirtytricks

If that’s true, and no one knows if it is, then Romney’s supporters might have pushed Mitt to second and Perry all the way down to third simply by sticking with their guy. More from Weigel:

“It shows you something,” said Gov. Rick Scott. “The road to the White House is right through Florida. It pays to be here.”

Of course, Perry had shown up — he was here from Thursday night to Saturday morning, working over delegates personally. By failing so convincingly, Perry’s ensured that the weekend’s “trouble for frontrunner narrative” will be plated in gold and frozen in amber…

Multiple delegates told me that had been undecided between Perry and Cain, especially after the debate, but decided to boost Cain because he could use the boost.

That boldface part will be Perry’s spin. Everyone else will take the results as a thumbs down on the current frontrunner’s performance to date.

Update: Perry wanted this bad:

Gov. Rick Perry is betting big on a non-binding straw poll Saturday in Florida, where conservative activists were rattled by a shaky debate performance and his moderate views on illegal immigration.

Perry told delegates at the GOP “Presidency 5” convention in Orlando that Florida is the state that “picks presidents.” Noting Florida’s decisive role in the 2000 election — and in turn in his own elevation to the Texas governor’s office — Perry said he was counting on a victory in the Florida Straw Poll to give him a boost.

“Here we are 11 years later and I’ve got all my hopes on Florida again,” Perry said. The stakes (and expectations) are high for Perry because he has spent a lot of time and money trying to win the contest, while his top two rivals, Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann, are not actively competing.

Update: Spin, Perry camp. Spin like the wind!

The Perry campaign cast their disappointing finish as a resounding victory over Romney, Perry’s top rival for the GOP nomination.

“It’s a devastating loss for Mitt Romney, who has been campaigning for president for the last five and a half years,” said Perry spokesman Mark Miner. “We have only been in this race for five and a half weeks. Mitt Romney still cannot resonate with conservative voters, especially in Florida.”

Miner admitted that “we still have work to do and we are going to get better.”

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 12 13 14

Gohawgs on September 25, 2011 at 9:44 PM

Nope. Never was my #1. Every cycle I always have several favorite candidates. That’s because I’ve been a political junkie (and Republican) since I was 13 and all our Republicans have always been better than Dems. In ’96 I liked Keyes & Dole; in ’00 I liked Keyes, Bauer, Forbes, and W. Of the early announced candidates this cycle, I liked Santorum best but also liked Cain and Bachmann, and even Gingrich. Then Cain annoyed me with his walkback of his Muslim remark and he had no idea what “right of return” meant in Israel, so he went off my favorites list. Then Trump flirted with jumping in. Trump was my first #1. But he dropped out. I couldn’t keep supporting a guy who declared he wasn’t running, could I? So then it was down to Santorum and Bachmann for the longest time, always with me holding out hope for someone else to jump in. That guy did in August. Perry has been my #1 since he was rumored to run in July.

The long debate season shows negatives and positives. Bachmann used to be high on my list — then she jumped on the crazy train and makes stories up. Santorum used to be high on my list, then he became rude and interrupting. Romney used to be someone I thought I could tolerate if I absolutely had to. Now, I can’t stand him. Gingrich I thought I could never get over his AGW stuff, now I find that his debate performances have made me reconsider. Cain, who had annoyed me earlier, has been impressive to the point that I like him all over again. That’s what debates and primaries are for. To sift and sort.

Just because Santorum acted like a jerk the other day doesn’t mean that he acted like a Neanderthal several months ago. One does not prove the other.

One last thought: I can’t help but find it a little creepy that someone here keeps tabs on all the candidates I support or don’t support. Although, since you got it wrong thinking that Santorum was my #1, maybe it’s not that creepy afterall.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on September 26, 2011 at 1:25 AM

Gohawgs, I just saw your post where you stated that anyone who changes their mind on candidates is doing so because it’s all about Palin. Huh. Explain then why I supported several in ’96? Explain why I supported several in ’00? Was Palin running in ’96 and ’00 and I missed her? Wow, I’ve been an ABP since I was a teen in the ’90s and I never knew! Nope, the world does not revolve around Palin. Has nothing to do with a non-candidate like Palin. By your logic, the reason I supported several in ’96 was because I was an ABQ (anybody but Quayle).

Changing candidates is a normal thing to do in primaries, because afterall, that’s what primaries are for. It’s just that Palinbots have been so loyal to one person that they think that’s what’s normal.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on September 26, 2011 at 1:31 AM

Gov. Rick Scott‘s prediction.

TALLAHASSEE — Gov. Rick Scott , appearing on Fox and Friends Monday morning, predicted that whoever wins the Florida GOP’s straw poll will be the party’s eventual nominee for president.

“So I believe whoever wins this straw poll on Saturday will be the Republican nominee and I believe the Republican nominee will be the next President,” Scott told host Gretchen Carlson who was broadcasting from The Villages.

Scott noted that former Presidents Ronald Regan and George Bush, plus 1995 GOP nominee Bob Dole all won Florida straw polls.

“I really believe whoever wins this is going to be the next President,” he said.

For what it is worth. :)

Brass on September 24, 2011 at 3:39 PM

So, by Gov Scott theory, Herman Cain will either win the primary and perhaps the general.

Brass on September 26, 2011 at 1:58 AM

Aslans Girl on September 26, 2011 at 1:31 AM

What did I “misrepresent” now?…

Gohawgs on September 26, 2011 at 3:34 AM

Nevermind, AG. I read your two revisionist posts…

Gohawgs on September 26, 2011 at 3:37 AM

Distinction without a difference. Pompous ass.
ddrintn on September 25, 2011 at 11:23 PM

NO IT’S NOT. Think before you hit the keyboard lest one get the impression you’re an ignorant dunce. The words aren’t in any way synonymous. ‘Fringe’ groups are extremists as in the “lunatic fringe” which describes people with fanatical views. And stop putting words in my mouth. I have never used the words “fringe” or “insignificant” to describe Palin or her supporters.

As for Palin’s supposed dig towards Perry, she didn’t use his name — people assumed and ran with it…
Gohawgs on September 25, 2011 at 9:44 PM

Initially, in her Iowa speech she used innuendo to taint “GOP candidates” for raising “mammoth amounts of cash” , but later took on Perry specifically on Hannity (or was it Greta) for his alleged ‘crony capitalism’ deals with Merck.

Buy Danish on September 26, 2011 at 8:16 AM

right2bright on September 25, 2011 at 2:08 PM
It is hard to find a better example than your comment of choosing form over substance. I suppose you support Ron Paul because he has had the fire in his belly for so long.

GaltBlvnAtty on September 25, 2011 at 8:38 PM

Only if you are so stupid that you think one retort in a post represents the total thoughts of a candidate…but at least Ron Paul is fighting the good fight, and standing up for what he believes in the public arena, and not hiding out behind Facebook or Twitter…

right2bright on September 26, 2011 at 9:03 AM

Bizarro No. 1 on September 26, 2011 at 12:36 AM

You’re not a “precisionist”. If you were you wouldn’t be arguing with me over my objection to commenters writing that Perry “said”, ‘We are racists’, when what he did is “imply” we are racists. To write, “He said _______” er, implies that it is a direct quote, something which was expressly stated.

FTR, I do not support Perry’s statements on this topic, whether implied or expressly stated.

And no, I did not argue with you about the meaning of the word “mandate”.

Buy Danish on September 26, 2011 at 9:25 AM

right2bright on September 26, 2011 at 9:03 AM
So now you are name calling. That is classy. Bye

GaltBlvnAtty on September 26, 2011 at 9:41 AM

right2bright on September 26, 2011 at 9:03 AM
So now you are name calling. That is classy. Bye

GaltBlvnAtty on September 26, 2011 at 9:41 AM

Let me get this straight, someone can attack, but I can’t defend?
And I have to use a lengthy intro to ensure that I don’t offend the person who attacks.
So I should have said….
I understand your displaced resentment, and I understand your example, which is not only wrong but insulting. One post, which is retorting to a specific post, does not represent the totality of what I would want to express. In posting it is important to be precise, but at times that “precision”, that is using the fewest words, is often wrongly mistaken as a complete policy statement. Most people understand that, that one post does not comprise of someone’s political platform. You apparently think that one post does that and you falsely insinuate that I am a Ron Paul supporter.
…..
Or I could has just said, “Only if you are so stupid that you think one retort in a post represents the total thoughts of a candidate.”
Notice I didn’t call him stupid, so learn to comprehend, I stated if you think one post is the summation of ones belief than you are stupid…I am sure you agree.
He can answer “No, I don’t believe one post represents…” or he can say “Yes, I believe one post totally represents your complete philosophy on politics”…which would be stupid.

You are welcome for your education on Posting…

right2bright on September 26, 2011 at 10:13 AM

right2bright on September 26, 2011 at 10:13 AM
You do provide entertainment. It is your logic, if that is what you call it, that would suggest that you are a Ron Paul supporter, for he has demonstrated for years his desire to be president and his willingness to get out there and fight for it, which you indicate is a key factor in your decision-making. I don’t believe you are a Ron Paul supporter, because I don’t believe there is any logic to what you said.
Bye bye.

GaltBlvnAtty on September 26, 2011 at 11:03 AM

I don’t believe you are a Ron Paul supporter, because I don’t believe there is any logic to what you said.
Bye bye.

GaltBlvnAtty on September 26, 2011 at 11:03 AM

You think that one post defines a totality of someones policy?
Speaking of Palin, and that is who I was referring to, a person who can’t make up her mind what to do…that is an asset to you?
Like I stated this isn’t a chalk board monitor job…
Each candidate has a weakness, each one, Palin’s weakness is her inability to make a decision, what I consider a major problem…now someone else’s weakness is that they make rash decisions, without thought…get it now?
Opposite problems, but still a problem…one other candidate may have a problem with flip flopping, I may point that out…that doesn’t mean I support someone who never changes their mind.
Is that so hard to understand? Apparently for you it is…bye, bye.

right2bright on September 26, 2011 at 11:46 AM

But no matter what measure is used, it is difficult to find evidence to support the argument that things are very different in Texas than in the rest of the country for the native-born population.

Overall, not much, hence it must be the economic policies of other States that pushed TX’s numbers up.

sharrukin on September 25, 2011 at 5:06 PM

Is that specific enough?

HTL on September 25, 2011 at 7:41 PM

That would still mean that 16.1% of net new jobs in Texas went to illegal immigrants and 37.6% went to legal immigrants, while just 46.2% went to native-born workers.

steebo77 on September 25, 2011 at 8:29 PM

When you factor these things into the equation, the numbers just don’t look all that troubling.

HTL on September 25, 2011 at 8:56 PM

Consider the following by comparison:
* ST = State
* Est Pop = Unable to find stats for other States like CIS’ “Native + Immigrant Working Age Population”, so I’m using Census estimates for 2000 – 2009 and the 2010 Census P1 Table
* No. NE = Number of Natives Unemployed
* NU % = Native Unemployment Rate
* NE % Native Employment Rate
* No. IE = Number of Immigrants Employed
* Tot = all 50 States & DC Totals
* _ used in lieu of extra spaces to prevent table distortion

Period | ST| Est Pop| No. NE | NU % | NE % | # IE
————————————————–
Q2 2007| TX|_23,837k|__8,771k|__4.4%|_70.7%|_2,247k
Q2 2011| TX|_25,145k|__8,900k|__8.1%|_66.6%|_2,397k
Diff__ | TX|_+1,308k|___+129k|_+3.7%|_-4.1%|__+150k

Q2 2007| OK|__3,612k|__1,588k|__4.7%|_69.5%|____83k
Q2 2011| OK|__3,751k|__1,543k|__5.5%|_65.5%|___102k
Diff__ | OK|___+139k|____-45k|_+0.8%|_-4.0%|___+19k

Q2 2007| AZ|__6,362k|__2,394k|__3.0%|_69.9%|___531k
Q2 2011| AZ|__6,392k|__2,352k|__9.8%|_62.8%|___499k
Diff__ | AZ|____+30k|____-42k|_+6.8%|_-7.1%|___-32k

Q2 2007| CA|_38,067k|_11,267k|__5.4%|_69.0%|_5,998k
Q2 2011| CA|_37,253k|_10,490k|_11.9%|_61.2%|_5,539k
Diff__ | CA|___-814k|___-777k|_+6.5%|_-7.8%|__-459k

Q2 2007| DC|____586k|____251k|__5.6%|_68.8%|____50k
Q2 2011| DC|____601k|____246k|_12.1%|_65.1%|____58k
Diff__ | DC|____+15k|_____-5k|_+6.5%|_-3.7%|____+8k

Q2 2007|Tot|301,579k|123,099k|__4.5%|_71.3%|22,939k
Q2 2011|Tot|312,471k|117,874k|__9.0%|_66.1%|22,066k
Diff__ |Tot|+10,892k|_-5,225k|_+4.5%|_-5.2%|__-873k

Consider the following facts:
In 2007, OK “ran off” all the illegal immigrants; supposedly the majority moved south into TX, while some moved into neighboring States and the rest scattered thru-out the US or even returned home. Furthermore, OK doubled down on H 1904 and added a new one similar to SB1070 and also imposed a tax withholding on out of State wire transfers which hits Mexico. In 2010, AZ passed SB 1070 and there were reports that some immediately packed up, while the rest awaited the outcome of the lawsuits. Cali is notoriously anti-business and pro-illegal

Given all the above, observe the disparate differences in outcomes in unemployment, immigrant work et al. Incorporate the rest of the 50 States and you’ll see erratic results from each State’s unique handling of the issue.

Bottomline, illegal immigration is a complex issue, but it is not the hot issue, or even in the top 5 that threaten our economy. As long as the candidate is not advocating a blanket amnesty, we should be alright, especially since it is Congress that should be dealing with this, not POTUS by EO or what have you. The onus is on us to send folks to the US Congress to fix illegal immigration — and not kick the can again, nor short-circuit the process by a stupid amnesty first, then fix the border.

AH_C on September 26, 2011 at 3:13 PM

Comment pages: 1 12 13 14