agreed
Straw Poll Results: Ron Paul wins online (49%); finishes third in "in-house" poll (15%)
- Thread starter malkusm
- Start date
agreed
cdc482
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Messages
- 2,046
RideTheDirt
Member
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2008
- Messages
- 1,988
Herman Cain
Who's that???
not worried about this
Who's that???
not worried about this
AlexMerced
Member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2007
- Messages
- 7,373
I'm glad they seperated the two polls, I think it would honestly piss off people who bothered to attend if they hadn't and actually make other supporters more negative towards poll cause his "online" crowd is robbing a straw poll of an actual event.
We did good, If you've heard Herman Cain talk, it's easy to see how he could win over the crowd, the thing is when Herman Cain drops out of the primaries who do you think those votes will go to? Who else in the list of candidates pays any lip service to the gold standard. I figured Cain would appeal to a lot of non-rp tea party crowd which may work to our advantage later cause he weakens huckabee/palin and hopefully gets enough steam to prevent them from even entering a race which makes an Iowa caucus win MUCH more likely.
The only thing that really bothers me is how well Pawlenty did... he's really boring and has nothing to offer. That's probably why the establishment is behind him cause he's so damn boring and unoffensive.
We did good, If you've heard Herman Cain talk, it's easy to see how he could win over the crowd, the thing is when Herman Cain drops out of the primaries who do you think those votes will go to? Who else in the list of candidates pays any lip service to the gold standard. I figured Cain would appeal to a lot of non-rp tea party crowd which may work to our advantage later cause he weakens huckabee/palin and hopefully gets enough steam to prevent them from even entering a race which makes an Iowa caucus win MUCH more likely.
The only thing that really bothers me is how well Pawlenty did... he's really boring and has nothing to offer. That's probably why the establishment is behind him cause he's so damn boring and unoffensive.
RonPaulFanInGA
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2007
- Messages
- 12,749
Splitting it certainly gave the media the excuse to throw Herman Cain's name in there, even though...
Despite the "HERMAN CAIN! and ron paul won...." headlines; Paul was the actual, real winner. But the media is giving them equal space. Losers.
Last edited:
AlexMerced
Member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2007
- Messages
- 7,373
lol... how many straw polls allow people to participate online, give Herman Cain his due, he had his supporters there in the flesh. Be glad it wasn't someone Gingrich or Palin who won, a boost to Herman Cain will mainly edge out supporters of other candidates like Romney and Huckabee, and I rather the race be more split up. The move divided this race, the better our chances especially in Iowa.
MelissaWV
Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2008
- Messages
- 17,200
You are contending that, with as little notice as was out there, and with the confusion over ticket prices (I've now heard you could have gotten tickets for $20 rather than $125), people would have taken more time off of work and gone to Arizona in order to vote in a straw poll that, in the grand scheme of things, is pretty meaningless?
Would you have seriously gone?
RonPaulFanInGA
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2007
- Messages
- 12,749
Plenty here plopped down good money to travel to Washington D.C. to vote in CPAC's meaningless straw poll, so why not?
MelissaWV
Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2008
- Messages
- 17,200
CPAC makes national headlines regularly, and that doesn't refute my point. Those same people just got back not long ago. The same donors who sent some of them there do not have the spare cash to fund another trip so soon. Right after that, you're telling me that hundreds of supporters would have grabbed more time off of school/work and gotten trips planned and funded, with very little advance notice, then paid the ticket prices and gotten in to vote?
Maybe, but I personally doubt it.
sailingaway
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2010
- Messages
- 72,103
Actually, it is more likely that in order to just be in an online poll announcement some wouldn't have given their emails to a lobbying group, plus paid $10 plus monitored a really at times excruciatingly patronizing program because they were not letting us know in advance when the window for voting would be.
I'm pissed, but I've moved on.
I'm not going to go to them and challenge the cost, but they sure don't have good will with me, and if they send me anything or put me on any lists, I'm unsubscribing. I don't think they played fair. Whatever. We wouldn't have cared at all about this except that Ron spoke there. Who even had it on their horizon, two weeks ago?
That Cain is trying to pretend he is any sort of tea party candidate is ludicrous, however.
Plebeian_of_the_Republic
Member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3
Greetings everyone, I hope that this reply finds you doing well. Below is pasted an email that I sent to those involved in the Summit in question. I think it explains my take on the matter, so decided to share it rather than type up something new here.
To whom it may concern:
Hello, my name is (name here), and I participated in the “Virtual American Policy Summit” that you organized as part of your “Tea Party’s American Policy Summit,” held in Phoenix between February 25th – 27th. I appreciated the opportunity to access parts of the summit that you made available for those who could not attend in person. It allowed a glimpse into the concerns and at the possible solutions that are expressed by your membership base that was represented; as well as many of the state Tea Party organizations that were in attendance.
From the Opening Ceremony and Evening Session on Friday evening; the Morning/Afternoon/Evening Sessions of Saturday; and finally the Morning Session/Straw Poll/Closing Session of Sunday, we were treated to a fairly organized production. While there were moments during all three days of the event that the feed became choppy, they did not take away from the overall online presentation. There were many quotations cited by the Founding Fathers; interviews with Tea Party members at the grassroots level; calls for support for conservative artists; and presentations and debates by many articulate and engaging speakers. I found many of the discussions frank; and the messages on many of the topics being discussed to be messages I could agree with, at least in part.
Sadly, it initially appears that the Tea Party members who organized the event do not agree with the guests or the messages that they conveyed. This stand is most unfortunate, as this disregard for the overall message being discussed over and over the entire weekend may well reflect poorly on those party members, as well as the Tea Party organizations that this event represented. If you would allow me a moment to explain what my concerns are, perhaps you will be better able to respond to me, and with an answer that will relieve my disappointment.
No matter if it was in the form of a debate (as seen on Saturday, involving a four man debate between fair and flat tax) or presentations about the philosophy and practices that currently exist in Washington (as touched on by Herman Cain on Friday night), there were certain messages being presented: Honesty; accountability; higher standards, and listening to the people. I find that these overall messages are positive ones, and I agree that their practice is often not visible in politics today. I must point out, however, that these are the same messages that all politicians have touched on in the past as well as the present. The summit was your opportunity to discuss ways to implement these messages. It was also your opportunity to lead by example, by practicing these messages yourselves. I must inform you that you have failed to practice the very things that you demand that those in Washington must do.
When I signed up for the “Virtual Summit” for $10, I was sent an email confirming my registration. In that email, I was informed that I would be allowed to participate in the Presidential Straw Poll that you were hosting with the event. I later received an email titled “Come vote in the American Policy Summit Straw Poll.” After opening the email, I did vote in the Presidential Poll. When the results of the “Poll” were announced on Sunday, I was surprised to discover that there were actually two Straw Polls; one for those who attended in person and one for those who attended virtually online. Mind you, there was never an indication of separate polls on your website, nor in any of the three emails that I received from you.
Since there was no mention of separate polls in any of the online material I was given to view, I must then conclude that this lack of detail was intentional. For you to intentionally omit the fact that there were two Polls shows that you were not honest about what it was that you were offering. As there was no mention during the presentation of the results of the two Polls concerning this omission, I must then conclude that this lack of communication demonstrates a lack of accountability. Your lack of honesty, as well as your lack of accountability for this, is a standard that is all too familiar in politics. I must then conclude that your personal standard is no higher than those whom you spent the entire weekend belittling, so in the end you have no higher standard than they do. For you to divide the vote of the people that paid to participate in your summit indicates that you are not interested in what the overall vote says; you are more interested in dividing the vote into separate groups which actually skews the results of the Poll for ALL candidates and voters. I must conclude from this action that you are therefore not interested in listening to the people.
I have already seen it put forth that the reasoning behind separate polls is that there were two tiers of voters; those who paid the full price for admission to the entire event and those who paid the virtual price for the more limited online content. This line of reasoning does not take into account the fact that much of the content of the summit was not available to online participants. There were 41 scheduled breakout sessions that ranged from 45 minutes to 60 minutes in length, presented by several engaging hosts that were not covered. There were book signings by three distinguished authors who were guest speakers at the event that online participants could not attend. There was a Sunday morning prayer session not available to virtual participants. In different parts of the complex, there were displays of many products from different artists that were for sale. There were also booths set up that offered a wide range of material from sources such as the Heritage Foundation. These things were not available to online participants. The point being made here is that there was far more offered (rightfully so) to those who attended in person. Because of this, I find the idea that there should be separate polls based on live and virtual attendance to be in error.
This event, in my eyes, has been tarnished. You have taken nearly two of every three votes and placed them into a separate category. You have taken the already low numbers represented by the entire voting population of the Poll, and divided them into two groups that now represent even lower numbers. You have also given the impression that there is a rift of opinion within the summit. Many times during the three days of the event, you took the time to single out those who joined you online and thanked them for their participation, and had the members who attended in person cheer and clap for those online participants. You then turned around and separated their voice from those who were in attendance in a display that indicates that while you were happy to collect their ten dollars, you were not content in letting them express their opinions in the ONLY way that you provided for direct interaction outside of monetary donations. I must ask you in all sincerity, how can you expect me to donate money to the Tea Party when you mislead me and limit my participation?
I thank you for your time.
Cordially,
(name here)
To whom it may concern:
Hello, my name is (name here), and I participated in the “Virtual American Policy Summit” that you organized as part of your “Tea Party’s American Policy Summit,” held in Phoenix between February 25th – 27th. I appreciated the opportunity to access parts of the summit that you made available for those who could not attend in person. It allowed a glimpse into the concerns and at the possible solutions that are expressed by your membership base that was represented; as well as many of the state Tea Party organizations that were in attendance.
From the Opening Ceremony and Evening Session on Friday evening; the Morning/Afternoon/Evening Sessions of Saturday; and finally the Morning Session/Straw Poll/Closing Session of Sunday, we were treated to a fairly organized production. While there were moments during all three days of the event that the feed became choppy, they did not take away from the overall online presentation. There were many quotations cited by the Founding Fathers; interviews with Tea Party members at the grassroots level; calls for support for conservative artists; and presentations and debates by many articulate and engaging speakers. I found many of the discussions frank; and the messages on many of the topics being discussed to be messages I could agree with, at least in part.
Sadly, it initially appears that the Tea Party members who organized the event do not agree with the guests or the messages that they conveyed. This stand is most unfortunate, as this disregard for the overall message being discussed over and over the entire weekend may well reflect poorly on those party members, as well as the Tea Party organizations that this event represented. If you would allow me a moment to explain what my concerns are, perhaps you will be better able to respond to me, and with an answer that will relieve my disappointment.
No matter if it was in the form of a debate (as seen on Saturday, involving a four man debate between fair and flat tax) or presentations about the philosophy and practices that currently exist in Washington (as touched on by Herman Cain on Friday night), there were certain messages being presented: Honesty; accountability; higher standards, and listening to the people. I find that these overall messages are positive ones, and I agree that their practice is often not visible in politics today. I must point out, however, that these are the same messages that all politicians have touched on in the past as well as the present. The summit was your opportunity to discuss ways to implement these messages. It was also your opportunity to lead by example, by practicing these messages yourselves. I must inform you that you have failed to practice the very things that you demand that those in Washington must do.
When I signed up for the “Virtual Summit” for $10, I was sent an email confirming my registration. In that email, I was informed that I would be allowed to participate in the Presidential Straw Poll that you were hosting with the event. I later received an email titled “Come vote in the American Policy Summit Straw Poll.” After opening the email, I did vote in the Presidential Poll. When the results of the “Poll” were announced on Sunday, I was surprised to discover that there were actually two Straw Polls; one for those who attended in person and one for those who attended virtually online. Mind you, there was never an indication of separate polls on your website, nor in any of the three emails that I received from you.
Since there was no mention of separate polls in any of the online material I was given to view, I must then conclude that this lack of detail was intentional. For you to intentionally omit the fact that there were two Polls shows that you were not honest about what it was that you were offering. As there was no mention during the presentation of the results of the two Polls concerning this omission, I must then conclude that this lack of communication demonstrates a lack of accountability. Your lack of honesty, as well as your lack of accountability for this, is a standard that is all too familiar in politics. I must then conclude that your personal standard is no higher than those whom you spent the entire weekend belittling, so in the end you have no higher standard than they do. For you to divide the vote of the people that paid to participate in your summit indicates that you are not interested in what the overall vote says; you are more interested in dividing the vote into separate groups which actually skews the results of the Poll for ALL candidates and voters. I must conclude from this action that you are therefore not interested in listening to the people.
I have already seen it put forth that the reasoning behind separate polls is that there were two tiers of voters; those who paid the full price for admission to the entire event and those who paid the virtual price for the more limited online content. This line of reasoning does not take into account the fact that much of the content of the summit was not available to online participants. There were 41 scheduled breakout sessions that ranged from 45 minutes to 60 minutes in length, presented by several engaging hosts that were not covered. There were book signings by three distinguished authors who were guest speakers at the event that online participants could not attend. There was a Sunday morning prayer session not available to virtual participants. In different parts of the complex, there were displays of many products from different artists that were for sale. There were also booths set up that offered a wide range of material from sources such as the Heritage Foundation. These things were not available to online participants. The point being made here is that there was far more offered (rightfully so) to those who attended in person. Because of this, I find the idea that there should be separate polls based on live and virtual attendance to be in error.
This event, in my eyes, has been tarnished. You have taken nearly two of every three votes and placed them into a separate category. You have taken the already low numbers represented by the entire voting population of the Poll, and divided them into two groups that now represent even lower numbers. You have also given the impression that there is a rift of opinion within the summit. Many times during the three days of the event, you took the time to single out those who joined you online and thanked them for their participation, and had the members who attended in person cheer and clap for those online participants. You then turned around and separated their voice from those who were in attendance in a display that indicates that while you were happy to collect their ten dollars, you were not content in letting them express their opinions in the ONLY way that you provided for direct interaction outside of monetary donations. I must ask you in all sincerity, how can you expect me to donate money to the Tea Party when you mislead me and limit my participation?
I thank you for your time.
Cordially,
(name here)
AlexMerced
Member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2007
- Messages
- 7,373
I honestly wouldn't find any online straw poll to be super advantageous cause again if it's online they'll always dismiss it. The only way to gain more legitimacy is feet on the ground and in person. I'm surprised people thought they were going to combine this, I figured they'd be two separate poll from the beginning... it kinda makes sense.
speciallyblend
Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2007
- Messages
- 20,351
I would include if anyone trusts the tea party or gop leadership. then that is where the fault lays!!
Adolfo Mena Gonzalez
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2010
- Messages
- 101
the other dark meat
Similar threads
