-
You believe that phony? Who calls him “von Mises”?
-
Yes Bachmann winning is not as bad as it sounds. But not because she knows what names to drop to pander to free-market advocates…But because the winner of the straw poll has only gone on to win the primary once in the whole history of the poll (since 1979). (And gone on to win even only the Iowa caucus twice).
Bachmann winning (the way she won) is probably the best possible thing for Ron Paul.
It’s a lot like the 2010 elections in a way. There was a strong enough showing to win a majority in the House and get rid of Pelosi, and a strong surge in the Senate, but not enough for a majority. It was enough of a shift to make for an undeniable “Tea Party” presence, so that no one could deny the backlash against the Democrat policies, and the fact that there actually is a grassroots movement underway. But, at the same time, it’s still a split Congress. This way when things are even worse next year, there isn’t an opportunity to fall back on the predictable laurels of blaming a “Republican Congress”.
In the same way, if Paul had won the poll, all we would have heard was how the poll doesn’t mean anything, supporters are bused in to help sway to the vote, a straw poll is just a straw poll, etc. (Even though only Iowa residents are allowed to participate, as Justin T. P. Quinn pointed out in this excellent piece detailing exactly the kind of “black swanning” that is going on. Seriously, read that. It’s awesome.)
But since an establishment candidate won, they haven’t been doing that. They’ve been talking about how it shows a strong Tea Party mood in the country, the fact that there’s such a big turnout (2nd highest in its history), and that Bachmann is the (self-declared) Tea Party candidate and founder of the House Tea Party Caucus)…and they were even using it to make determinations about the future of some campaigns, such as saying it solidifies that Pawlenty’s out of the running. So you have the legitimacy of the poll supported, but at the same time, Paul came in second by less than 1 point. A difference of 150 votes in a poll of 17,000. It gets him the attention, but at the same time we’re not bombarded with the overwhelming effort to marginalize him. Plus, like I said, the winner of the poll has only gone on to win the primary once in the whole history of the poll…which isn’t so good for the winner…and would have provided plenty of ammo for those who would want to shove Paul to the side.
It seems like a loss at first, but I don’t think it could have gone better for Paul.
Moderator note: profanity removed. -Nielsio