A Rebuttal to Romney’s FRC Spin

*The following is an extended rebuttal to the comment posted by Shawnie in my previous post*

With all due respect, I think it is you who is being spun. Your first counter-argument is that the people who came to support Romney were denied a vote because the polls had closed by the time Romney was finished speaking.  This presents two errors on your part.First, this was a value voter’s summit where a number of people (the real participants!) came to hear from a variety of speakers and spend the weekend with likeminded individuals.  If the Romney folks only decided to show up to listen to their candidate and then leave, I question their credentials as real participants in the summit.  Sounds more like a Romney campaign bus trip, bought and paid for.

Frankly, I see time and time again where the Romney campaign simply buys a bus of supporters to flood an event they have no real desire to be a part of only to act as a “swat team” of sorts while their candidate is on the ground.  Then they pick up and leave, never demonstrating any empathy for the event that was just crashed.  Amazing what money can buy.

The second error of your first post is that it contradicts your second point that all the “intellectually superior” (my words, your inference) Romney supporters simply voted online rather than waiting in line at the event.  You can’t have it both ways.  You can’t say all the real Romney people voted online and then complain that they weren’t allowed to vote during the two hours they were at the event the previous day! 

More on your second point.  When all is said and done, following the level playing field that was presented, Mitt Romney only won by 30 votes.  After spending millions upon millions of dollars he was only able to beat little Mike Huckabee by 30 votes?  That must make you sick.  I think it illustrates perfectly who actually has traction.

Furthermore, just do the math and you’ll find that your theory about attendees for Mitt voting online doesn’t really support your case unless you want to suggest that a disproportionate amount of online votes from attenders voted for Romney. 

Total votes: Romney – 1595, Huckabee - 1565
In person votes: Romney – 99, Huckabee – 488
Online votes: Romney – 1496, Huckabee – 1077

Now, according to FRC itself, there were 585 people who attended the event and yet voted online at home or from their hotel rooms rather than wait in line.  Fair enough.

Since the difference between the in person votes for Mitt and Mike is 389 (488-99), you would have to claim that 66.5% (389/585) of the attendees who voted online voted for Mitt just to tie Huckabee for on site support. (389+99=488).  Considering that the total online vote was 4741, and Mitt received 1496 votes, or 31.5%, it seems rather aggressive to assume that he garnered 66.5% of those on site who voted online.  I’d give him 31.5% of those 585, or 184, keeping it consistent with the online vote as a whole.  That still is only 283 compared to Mike’s 488…and I haven’t even added the Huckabee supporters present who voted online yet!  Remember, some of those 585 belong to Mike too!

Perhaps it was closer than the 51.26% to 10.4% blowout, but Huckabee clearly still had more onsite supporters, by a pretty good margin.

It was also obvious to those in attendence that Huckabee was the most popular.  He had much better audience reaction during his speech. There was barely a squeak out of the crowd when Mitt was declared the winner.  All his bussed in supporters had left. 

Again, the most important thing here is, ending the spin from both sides, Romney only won an even contest by 30 votes against someone considered an unknown candidate who can’t raise money.  That in itself must scare you to death about the future of the stagnant Romney campaign.  I like him, I really do.  I just know too many people in both business and politics like him, and have learned not to trust them.