The results of the 2011 Iowa Straw Poll are in, and two words clearly indicate the winner: TEA PARTY!
This is because the two top candidates by far are clearly and most commonly associated with the Tea Party’s general aims and goals.
Iowa-born Michele Bachmann took first place with 28.5% of the vote. Being she is the most vocal “Tea Party” candidate out there, definite win.
Second place went to Ron Paul, with 27.6% of the votes. Considering the Paulistas were out in full force for the vote, I’d be ready to say that would give him an edge to get extra votes he may not really get otherwise. Except that, in the 2007 poll, with the same bunch of tinfoil-wearing motherfuckers with the same motivation to skew the results, Paul only squeaked out 9.1%. That means he more than tripled his numbers. And that means, on the two sides of the Tea Party coin, that’s the majority of votes.
Some other notables:
Pawlenty, Santorum, and Cain got enogh votes to justify staying in.
Rick Perry got 4.3% of the votes in a write-in campaign, on the day he finally declared his candidacy.
Mitt Romney skipped the straw poll, got 3.4% for his lack of effort.
Newt Gingrich got more than 1%, so he can justify hanging on.
Jon Huntsman And Thaddeus McCotter (who?) were at the bottom. You did worse than that cockface McCain did in 2007, and his ass didn’t even show up. Bye.
For the results of now and there, here’s the results from Wikipedia.
Now, to Michele and Ron. They are two sides of the Tea party coin.
Michele Bachmann has all the style you could want in a Tea Party candidate. She rips Obama, anyone who isn’t conservative, and is a good stumper. However, she doesn’t seem to mind the state of perpetual war, which limits her independent appeal. Her questionably true statements and regular inaccuracies make Tina Fey’s impression of Sarah Palin look like a scholar of the highest order. And the fact that she is a theocratic conservative (loves them social issues) and would expand government if her religions beliefs dictated it makes her an offense to the libertarian wing of the GOP base (that’s where I’d consider myself if I were to claim to be a Republican).
Ron Paul, on the other hand has been consistent in actually working for smaller government on all fronts, and is the conservative substance I look for in a candidate. His antiwar stance is a little too much for the (and I hate to use this word) neocon elements of the GOP, but gives him a crossover appeal that could pull a chunk of anitwar candidates away from the Dems. He certainly knows his shit, but often suffers from a lack of charisma and shiny talking points in debates (the Federal reserve, for all the damage it has and will do ot this country, fucking bores the fucking shitting fuck out of the average person). And his most vehement supporters are the biggest liability he could possibly have, because the (explosively) repel the shit (literally, in some cases) out of sane people.
Having laid out those differences, and acknowledged I’m on the Ron Paul side of this divide, we have two choices. Either the GOP can narrow down the race to these two and pick pick one, which will energize the majority of the Tea Party, or they can make a serious clusterfuck of a mistake and look for that middle ground, whether that be RINO extraordinaire Romney or another Texas Governor, this time named Rick Perry (who hasn’t really been grilled enough to know for sure, but do we need another Texan in the White House after the last one?).
So there’s what I see. Of the two, I’ll be working hard for Ron Paul, I might be convinced to vote for Perry, and the RINO Romney and the theocrat Bachmann can expect me to look at a third party candidate really seriously. So let’s get some real debates on and see who dies (politically).