Iowa Straw Poll - Yawn

Lets see... 1 2 3 and A B C ...

1. Its non-binding. That ultimately means its meaninless.

2. Guiliani, McCain sat it out. And Thompson was not allowed a completely level playing field (grass-roots supporters trying to travel there form out of state ran into some difficutlties) - not to mention Fred's campaign isnt official yet and as such cannot spend money there.

3. Its "pay to play", meaning you have to pay in order to vote. And estimates are that 85% of people there were bussed in, and woudl not have been there had a campaign not been paying their way.

So, 1 2 3 its easy to see it is bogus as a gauge of sentiment, only cash spent.

A. Turnout was 46% BELOW 1999. Thats almost HALF the people not showing.

B. Marginal candidates like Tancredo and Paul each drew FAR larger percentages than they do in normal scientific poll. Whish shows that these are (As above) an indicator of who has thrown enough money at what is essentially a beauty contest with bribes, and definitely NOT an indicator of conservative backing.

C. Romney won about 31% of those attending - which is the same percentage as Bush, but barely HALF what Bush got there in 1999, meaning idiots like Hugh Hewitt claiming this as a victory are smoking the funny stuff.

So - A B C means Romney didnt really do that well. Factor in the large sums of money and time he and his campaign spent there, and it is bad for Multiple Choice Mitt to do all that and still come out with less than 1/3 of the vote and barely half of what Bush did there against Forbes in 99.

Sorry Romney, you can't buy credibility as a conservative by buying the Iowa straw poll. We can smell a fake a mile away having been burned by GW Bush. And Mitt, you smell.