Mike Pence Wins Values Voter Summit Straw Poll

This one kind of surprised me. I know it's probably not indicative of how the majority of conservative voters would vote, but if you'd asked me who I thought might top the list Mike Pence wouldn't have come to mind at all. I like him, have no problems with him being up there, but still a surprise. 

Who would you vote for if the election for president happened this year? Lots of good choices on the list below.

Mike Pence Wins Values Summit Straw Poll

U.S. Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) has won Family Research Council Action's third-ever Values Voter Summit Straw Poll. Gov. Mike Huckabee finished in a close second place.

Only FRC Action members who were present at the event were allowed to vote.

Family Research Council Action President Tony Perkins released the following statement in reaction to the 2010 Values Voter Summit Straw Poll: "The results of the presidential straw poll reflect the outcome of recent elections. Those who are truly conservative, fiscally and socially, are enthusiastically supported by voters."

The following are the straw poll results:

Presidential Candidate Name Total Votes Percentage

Mike Pence 170 24%
Mike Huckabee 159 22%
Mitt Romney 93 13%
Newt Gingrich 72 10%
Sarah Palin 51 7%
Rick Santorum 39 5%
Jim DeMint 38 5%
Bobby Jindal 15 2%
Mitch Daniels 13 2%
Chris Christie 11 2%
John Thune 11 2%
Bob McDonnell 10 1%
Marco Rubio 10 1%
Paul Ryan 7 1%
Haley Barbour 6 1%
Ron Paul 5 1%
Jan Brewer 1 0%
Undecided 12 2%

Vice Presidential Candidate Responses:

Mike Pence 119 16%
Sarah Palin 112 15%
Rick Santorum 75 10%
Paul Ryan 51 7%
Jim DeMint 45 6%
Mike Huckabee 43 6%
Marco Rubio 43 6%
Bobby Jindal 36 5%
Bob McDonnell 31 4%
Chris Christie 25 3%
Mitt Romney 25 3%
Newt Gingrich 24 3%
Jan Brewer 20 3%
John Thune 15 2%
Mitch Daniels 10 1%
Haley Barbour 6 1%
Ron Paul 5 1%
Undecided 38 5%

Members of FRC Action are only allowed to vote once. For more information on the Values Voter Summit, log onto www.valuesvotersummit.org.

Don't let the polls sway you...

I've complained for years about political (and other) polls and surveys. I've always thought they were slanted, and I've always wondered why they never called our house so we could participate. It seemed suspect that all the surveys touted numbers for the average American and yet they never managed to talk to anyone in our household, or anyone I knew. (Yes, it did cross my mind that maybe we were just a strange household, completely outside the norm... ;-)

I suppose part of the reason we never got to participate could be, probably is, that once we added caller ID to our phone some years back we pretty much stopped answering toll-free calls. (duh) Now we're on the do-not-call list so there are fewer, but we still ignore the majority. Our fault we're not polled!

Today on a whim I answered a call and got to participate in a survey paid for by McCain's campaign. I gather they're calling all the registered Republicans, or maybe just the so-called "super voters" (those who religiously vote in every election).

I'll be picking up the phone from now on. It was short, sweet, fun and slanted. Very slanted.

Three questions (not exact, but close enough). Keep in mind they didn't say who was paying for the survey up front, they waited until AFTER the survey to do the legal notice. No problem on my end, wouldn't have affected my choices but I can certainly understand not wanting to taint the response by saying so up front.

Question #1 - If you were voting today who would be your number one choice for President. Press 1 for Ron Paul, 2 for John McCain, 3 for Mitt Romney.

Question #2 - Who would be your second choice. Same three candidates.

Question #3 - Which of the following issues is most important in your selection (or something to that affect): Economy, Terrorism (or war on terrorism, can't remember exactly), Immigration, character of the candidate, Values, other... I may have missed one in the mix, but the choice was between a group of hot-button issues.

Did you catch the obvious? Where was Huckabee in the questioning? He's number 3 in the national polls yet they didn't give him as a choice.

I would bet there will be a press release at some point from McCain sharing the results of the poll. It's going to put him as the number one or two choice for Republicans in Georgia.

In Georgia Huckabee has a strong following. By leaving him out of the mix it totally skews any results in any state, but particularly in a handful of southern states.

If the McCain camp paid for the poll simply as a fact-finding mission, they are being steered in the wrong direction by their pollsters.

Regarding the choices in question three. What would you answer? Is the war on terror less important to you than immigration? Do you discount values or place them lower on the scale when making a decision than the economy? I had a difficult time with that question. My choice for the Republican nominee is not based on one factor, it's a mix of factors. Again, I suppose people will do like I did and just punch one.

For those out there who are making their choice for the Republican candidate based on polling that shows one person has a better chance of beating the Democratic winner, beware. You have no idea who's conducting those polls and what kind of questions they're asking.... and what they're leaving out when they poll. How many of those polls are sponsored by the media? How many are made by Democratic leaning groups? What if we're being steered like a herd of cattle toward the candidate of choice? What if it's true that Republicans win when they stick to their conservative values when voting? What if fear of Hillary and Obama leads to a choice that gives us heartburn for four years or longer?

I would suggest that you think long and hard about why you're making the choice you're making.
Look carefully at the candidates, their beliefs, values, past actions, character, stances on the issues and other factors but don't let the press bamboozle you into thinking that the results of their polls should factor into your decision. If you like the candidate in every other way and those erratic polls are not a factor, great, vote your conscious.

Note: I wrote a blog a while back on an on-line political poll I took. Same problem, choices that left you no choices. I'll see if I can find a link and will post it for those who have signed on since then and may not have read it!

Quick notes on Republican side...

Duncan Hunter bowed out the other day, haven't even heard it mentioned in the news, but maybe I missed it. I wonder if he's going to endorse anyone? The Ron Paul contingency has asked him to endorse their candidate. I can't see that happening!

Of all the candidates I would think he might be most like Fred Thompson on the issues.

However, it's a sure bet that Thompson will be out of the race fairly soon. Word has it that he's pulled out of the next debate. The only reason to miss a Presidential debate is if you're not going to be running.

Chuck Norris made some comments about John McCain's age at a Mike Huckabee fund raiser. Norris said that each year as President aged them three years. McCain is 72.

McCain came back with a cute quip saying he was going to have his 95-year old mother wash Norris' mouth out with soap.

While I like McCain and think he's up to the challenge, I also think his age is a consideration worth discussing. Being President does age a person more-so than normal. Also, if he's 73 when he takes office, 77 at the end of his first term, would he be able to run for a second term? (I might be off a year on his age in office depending on where his birthday falls.)

That's all for the night. I'm not even sure if I'm stringing sentences together than make sense! Gotta spend more time snoozing!

South Carolina Republican Debate

The candidates spent less time attacking each other tonight and focused more on their ideas. It was a pretty good debate given the limited time the candidates had to answer the questions.

Ron Paul is always interesting and I find myself agreeing with him in areas. We split dramatically when he brings everyone home and closes up shop. We can't ignore the rest of the world. It's not an ideal world, we're not going to stop people from hating us just because we leave them alone. Especially if we take our money when we walk away. I've gotten into an area that deserves a full rant and my drooping eyes won't stay open long enough for two topics, thus I'll move back to the debate and my thoughts.

If Fred Thompson had performed in other debates like he did tonight he'd probably be the front runner. Unfortunately, he's been a bit too laid back, unfocused sounding and definitely uninspiring. Tonight I swore he'd been reading my blogs and gotten the message. He was on point, his quips were timed perfectly and he came across strong and knowledgeable. This is the first time I've liked him.

Mitt Romney didn't lose any points with me, but he didn't gain any either. His performance wasn't as good as in the past. I had the feeling the weight of all the constant attacks was getting to him. Just a personal thought, not one based on anything he said. He just seemed a bit flat and there was a tightness to his expressions that I haven't noted before. Could be just the stress of campaigning.

John McCain tied with Thompson as a winner in my estimation. He was sharp, gave good answers, was strong in areas he needed to be and showcased his depth of commitment to cutting spending, lowering taxes, protecting the country and closing the borders.

Mike Huckabee had one of the best lines of the night when talking about the incident the other day with the five small boats menacing our ship. You're going to hear the quote a hundred times over the next few days if you listen to the news. Although he had some good responses overall I would make Huckabee my personal loser. He was definitely the one in everyone's sites. I think everyone lobbed an attack or two in his direction. He didn't defend himself very well. He left some of the barbs unanswered. Fred Thompson in particular targeted Huckabee, rather successfully overall.

Who's left? Ah, I almost forgot Rudy Giuliani. I wanted to like Giuliani tonight and I wanted him to perform well. In the past I've felt that he might be the best candidate to face Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. I'm losing faith in that premise and tonight didn't help his cause. I haven't had a chance to look at the tax plan he's proposing, but I'm glad to see he's presenting some ideas rather than simply talking about his past.

I'll be glad when we can whittle the field down a bit. I'd like to have debates that allow the contenders to flesh out ideas rather than have to squeeze as many words as possible into a short minute or two at most.

Aside from Ron Paul, I'll say again that I'd be happy with any of these guys leading our country. There is so much strength of character and passion on that stage!

By the way, I don't know the criteria for choosing the candidates to include in the debate, but I did not like it that Duncan Hunter was excluded. He at least has won a delegate. I'm sure we'll be losing him as a candidate sometime in the near future. When the media ignores you it's just a matter of time.

Unfortunately, it looks like I might be right...

For years one of the soap boxes I climb onto periodically is the popularity box. I can wax barely-eloquently on the history of elections in modern times. It has become a popularity contest.

It's not what a candidate will do, it's not their record, it's not much of anything to do with substance. It's how well you come across on television and whether people like you.

Mike Huckabee is moving up in the polls across the country. Yet folks like Rush Limbaugh are trashing his past performance as a governor and the stances he's espousing.

It's those cute dimples and engaging smile. It's his sense of humor. It's his comfortable personality.

Barack Obama? He's likable, speaks well, and again, he has a comfortable personality.

Remember the polls asking people "who would you most like to sit down to dinner with", "invite to your home" and similar in past elections? We know who'd win those contests in this election.

I think the reason popularity plays such a large part in who we elect is that we discount the attacks (just politics), we get overwhelmed with all the facts being tossed at us if we're paying attention, and, for many, all they see is an occasional snippet about the various candidates on television.

A large percentage of voters will never visit all of the candidates websites for comparison. They will never do an in-depth look at a candidate. All they'll see are commercials as the time gets closer to vote, a sound bite or two on a news program and maybe a mailer (which may go straight into the trash).

It's become all about connecting.

Yes, popularity can be fleeting. If our intrepid well-liked candidate makes a bad misstep and it's a slow media day, they're toast. Candidates have lost their popularity simply by climbing on a vehicle and putting on a helmet that made them look dorky. Or screaming.

I know, I know, there are other gaffs they can make that have to do with policy, with things that matter. Substance can take them down on occasion. But it's tough to do that if the media likes 'em. If the media isn't willing to disseminate the info, we may never hear about it.

We'll see what happens as the election process continues.

FOX News Debate Impressions

Much to my surprise, Mitt Romney came out on top in my estimation. He handled himself well under pressure. He was calm, he spoke clearly, he knew his stuff, he didn't back down. Each time I see him in an interview or on a debate I like him a bit more.

Huckabee? He danced around the issues tonight. You could hear it when he switched on the candidate-speak, the tone of his voice changes. At the beginning of the debate he was winning back some of the high regard I lost for him during last night's ABC debate. But the more he came under scrutiny, the more he talked, the more he rubbed me wrong. Again. He tossed out a lot of platitudes and feel-good statements.

Giuliani? Flat. He didn't win, he didn't lose. I suppose by not winning he lost to some degree. He had some good lines, made sense but his sparkle is gone.

Thompson? Liked some of what he had to say, but if he'd just speed it up a little he'd be able to say twice as much. Maybe he stretches it out so he doesn't have time to go into details. He comes across as plodding... or calm... depending on whether you like him or not. I think he'd handle himself well under pressure, don't think anyone would push him around. BUT, I think listening to a State of the Union address would be torturous.

McCain? I thought he did really well. Great on foreign policy. He had some fun, came across strong where he needed to, deflected the negative and outlined his positions very well. He's right up there at the top of the heap.

I wasn't impressed with the questions chosen by FOX. I wasn't really impressed with the debate.

Chris Wallace, the moderator, was tough on all of the candidates, almost baiting them. I thought he focused a bit much on Romney, Huckabee and McCain. Probably because they are currently the front runners.

It was like watching the Sunday morning political talk show, which I like. But I wanted to hear something new, to hear something I haven't heard before. After watching the debates the night before and watching the talk shows this morning I felt like I was watching a re-run to some degree.

I'm ready to hear them outline a clear position on issues. I wasn't interested in whether Romney's ads were attacks or not, how Huckabee and McCain felt about them.

Wouldn't it be interesting to just give the candidates a question about an issue and just have them tell their position, not worry about contrasting it with the other candidates? "What's your plan to deal with illegal immigration?" "What are you going to do about Social Security? Welfare? Health care? Tort reform?"

Tell them they CAN'T refer to other candidates at all, can't contrast their plan, can't make any digs at their opponents or the other party (and for the Democrats, they can't mention George Bush or refer to him in any way during their answer).

I have until Feb. to lock in on the candidate who'll get my vote... I guess I'll keep watching and reading. Although I pick on all of the candidates in my columns, I like ever one of the Republican candidates in tonight's debate and I wouldn't have a problem supporting whoever gets the ultimate nod to run against the Democratic nominee.

Thoughts on Huckabee & Obama's win in Iowa

There's a lot of hype about the pair that took Iowa. On the Democratic side Obama was a clear winner, Edwards followed with Clinton in a technical tie in regards to delegates, although she's a percentage point behind Edwards.

On the Republican side it was Huckabee. Then, with a wider margin that most thought there would be between top and second, came Romney. Behind that duo McCain and Thompson are still battling for 3rd place. As I type they're both at 13%.

Iowa is one state. New Hampshire is right around the corner and the outcome there could throw all of tonight's results out the window.

I think it's a little clearer on the Democratic side. There are really only three contenders. Dodd dropped out tonight. Richardson only had 2% of the vote and of course everyone is speculating that he'll follow Dodd's lead and bow out soon. Clinton put on a good face tonight but Obama is gaining steam. I heard the breakdown of the voters earlier. Clinton is pulling the older vote, Obama is grabbing the younger voters. Both had about the same percentage of women who voted, which could be partially due to the Oprah factor. Who knows.

If the outcome stays the same in New Hampshire Obama could take all.

On the Republican side it's still in complete flux.

I really like Huckabee as a person. When he was here late last year I had the opportunity to talk with him, do an interview. I did an short interview with Huckabee after doing one with his wife, Janet. After talking with them we went into a private meeting with maybe 30 or so people. We ate lunch, then Huckabee answered questions and talked with everyone. I wouldn't have a problem if Huckabee won.

There are things I like about all the candidates. There are things I dislike. I'm like many who're watching the race as it develops ---- I couldn't tell you who I'm going to vote for on February 7th (Georgia) yet.

The field will probably be a little narrower, or at least the choices may be a little clearer, by the time we head to the polls next month. There's no telling on the Republican side who will be in the top three at this point.

Giuliani is concentrating on states that won't come into play until later in the process. He's banking on Florida and other states to put him back in contention for the top spot.

Iowa helped McCain. It helped Thompson. Huckabee's win took some of the wind out of Romney's sails. The money Romney spent in Iowa didn't put much of a dent in his pocketbook though. Yes, he spent a lot, but he's got a lot more at his disposal.

If McCain takes New Hampshire or comes in a strong second then it's all topsy-turvy in the race again. If Romney takes a few states, Huckabee takes a few more, Giuliani takes some, Thompson takes some then the Republican nominee could win in a squeaker.

Some say that not having a clear choice on the Republican side shows the party is in trouble, that it shows the weakness of the candidates. I think it shows the strength of the GOP. We have so many good candidates it's difficult to choose.

For political junkies tonight was more exciting than a NASCAR race! The future of our country is up for grabs. There are strong views being espoused on both sides. There are sharp divisions within the two parties.

If you're not registered to vote, it's time. Get involved, start keeping up with the elections. The deadline to register for the Feb. 7th Presidential Primary in Georgia is Monday, January 5th.

I think I'm really tired and I'm heading to bed.... after I take one more look at the latest Iowa numbers.