2012 Tuesday: The Ames Straw Poll and Michele Bachmann’s executive non-experience

We’ve had a couple of debates, but the 2012 campaign will be truly under way next month when the Iowa Republican Party holds its famed Ames Straw Poll. Like the Iowa caucuses themselves, the straw poll has only limited predictive value when it comes to the GOP nomination: George H.W. Bush won the inaugural straw poll before the 1980 election, when he didn’t wind up with the nomination, and finished just third before the 1988 contest, when he did. Bob Dole tied for first when he ran and won the nomination in 1996, but John McCain captured the 2008 nomination despite finishing a miserable tenth in the straw poll. The only person to win the straw poll and the presidency was George W. Bush in 2000.

So why does the straw poll (which takes place 15 months before a presidential election in which there’s no incumbent Republican president) get so much attention? For the same reason the Iowa caucuses do: It provides a focus for the campaign in its early stages, and it can give a candidate momentum — which can then be seized or frittered away.

And going into next month’s contest, Michele Bachmann holds both the campaign’s focus and its momentum.

The Iowa native, who represents Minnesota in Congress, has surpassed Mitt Romney among likely caucus-goers in a poll conducted for the Iowa Republican. At 25 percent to 21 percent, her lead is just within the poll’s margin of error. But among the “most attentive voters,” she has a commanding 14-point lead over Romney (who, among those voters, also has Herman Cain and Tim Pawlenty nipping more closely at his heels). She also has, by far, the largest spread between her favorable and unfavorable ratings at a whopping 65 percentage points.

All of which means she’ll probably be taking more shots from her opponents over the next 31 days.

Pawlenty began — with a noticeably less strident criticism than the “Obamneycare” line he famously uttered and then retreated from a day later — by noting that Bachmann hasn’t been very successful in Congress at getting legislation passed and doesn’t have executive experience.

The first criticism is a little unfair. Until this January, Bachmann had only served in the minority party while Nancy Pelosi and Co. ruled the House of Representatives. Had Bachmann championed the kind of legislation that might have gotten through the Pelosi House, she probably wouldn’t have the kind of tea-party support that has made her a legitimate contender.

The executive experience criticism is much more on point. The Republicans rightly pilloried Barack Obama as a candidate for his lack of executive experience, and now he will be running as an incumbent at the end of his first term.

In fact, I don’t see how the GOP can hope to win if it doesn’t nominate someone without extensive executive experience, most likely as a governor. I think that’s a large part of why (former Massachusetts Gov.) Romney is leading most other polls, why (former Minnesota Gov.) Pawlenty still has a chance, why many Republicans wanted Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels to run and why many Republicans now want Texas Gov. Rick Perry to enter the race. Cain has executive experience of a different kind, in corporate America and at the Kansas City Federal Reserve, and it remains to be seen if voters will consider his resume on a par with those of past state governors.

Bachmann’s response to Pawlenty’s executive criticism — that executive experience is no help if the candidate produced “more of the same big government as usual” — might help her get by from now until the straw poll. But ultimately, I don’t think it is winning defense.

– By Kyle Wingfield

Find me on Facebook or follow me on Twitter

105 comments Add your comment

Linda

July 12th, 2011
5:27 pm

don@4:55, If you went to the courthouse & looked at deeds to secure debt, could you decipher the ones from borrowers who had no income/jobs, bad credit & no down payment from those who were AAA borrowers? That’s what the rating agencies had to work with.

After the Bush tax cuts, the “rich” paid more in taxes in ‘05 than in the past 20 yrs. The richest 1% went from paying 25% of all income taxes in ‘90 to paying 39% in ‘05. The richest 5% went from paying 44% in ‘90 to 60% in ‘05. In 1980, when the top rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid 19% of all taxes. In ‘03, when the rate was 35%, they paid double that.

If the rich are bandits, why aren’t they in jail? Did they game the system more than others? What equation are they not a part of already?

Will

July 12th, 2011
5:45 pm

I want to caution my fellow lefties in getting too giddy of the latest news that Bachmann is the leader in the latest Iowa poll.

Although a Bachmann win in Iowa will help to redirect millions of republican dollars to her campaign, sadly enough, there is probably very little chance even the radical seccessionist republican wing can secure the nomination for her.

I hope and pray I am wrong.

All along I thought the best thing that could happen to President Obama’s re-election prospect would be the nomination of that former Alaska governor who quit before she completed half of her term but I never dreamed that the republicans would support someone who believes African-Americans were better off as slaves!!!!

Go Michelle Go!! Take the lead, pull in those republican dollars! Beat those republicans businessmen like Huntsman, Romney and Pawlenty and pave the street to re-election in pure gold!

Linda

July 12th, 2011
5:54 pm

what@5:06,
1. You said @ 2:56 to let’s look at how long did it took Bush II tax receipts to equal Clinton’s. You did not say AFTER the tax cuts.
2. Tax collections did not exceed $2 T until ‘98 & the country did just fine with the services provided by the fed. govt. We don’t need to be spending over $3 T per year this year or during any year in the future. We need to live with the tax collections that come in. Revenues are down but not by much. We must cut the size of the fed. govt.
4. My links can’t be giving contradictory info. They are from the US Treasury Dept.

what??

July 12th, 2011
7:16 pm

Linda-

I could swear we were talking about the Bush Tax Cuts when we started discussing tax rates. Wasn’t your arguments that tax cuts grew revenue. My argument was tax cuts create short term deficits. Either way

1. Then you are kinda admitting that after the Bush Tax Cuts, Revenue did not exceed Clinton’s last year in office(not including his 2000 tax receipt number) until 2005.
2. I actually agreed with you earlier, there is no need for a 3.6 trillion dollar budget year end and year out. The problem is that government spending is a compnent of growth(GDP), so when the private sector doesn’t spend, the government has to make up the shortfall. Going forward, government spending should be no more than 18% of gdp. In all honesty, it should be less, to create a surplus to pay down debt.
3. Debt is the sum of all deficits. If you compare both charts, the deficits to the debt don’t match. It’s not that big a thing. Actually debt is controlled by the treasury, so basically your chart represent roughly 800 billion in deficit debt, and 800 billion in bonds.

Craig E Ennis

July 17th, 2011
8:20 am

What I want to know is how come all Candidates running for the Republican nomination are not included in Ames Straw poll? Being a candidate myself it bothers me that people by special interests don’t include everyone.My example of this is I have been trying to be allowed to participate in the Iowa Republican Presidential Debate seems like the Iowa GOP doesn’t include everyone.

ENNIS in ‘12
craigennis.com