Sunday, August 14, 2011

Conspiracy Theory: Iowa Straw Poll Stolen from Ron Paul

Lew Rockwell writes:
I have it from a very good source that virtually all the people involved in Ron's Iowa campaign, and who had worked for other candidates in previous straw polls, believe that Ron actually won, but the GOP establishment fixed the results to give it to the warmonger Bachmann. To the extent the media suspected this, they cheered.
I'll tell you the strangest thing I noticed about the pool. I watched the poll results announce live on CNN. This is the way it went down. A GOP official steps onto the podium and says:
Michelle Bachmann has won the Iowa straw poll.
No mention of how many votes she received, no mention of Ron Paul coming in second, or how the other candidates performed. Just, "Michelle Bachmann has won the Iowa straw poll."

When the official was then interviewed by CNN, the CNN anchor called him a "man of few words" and referenced his limited remarks at the podium They then went on to talk about Bachmann and Rick Perry.

(Note: If anyone has a youtube clip of the announcement please send it to me and I will post it here.)

Update: Roger Leahy emails:

Here is a video of the announcement of the winner at the Straw Poll in Ames yesterday.I was there, and it was strange that nothing was said about any results other than the winner.

Roger Leahy,
Fairfield Iowa
Ron Paul supporter

Here's the Fox broadcast via Leahy:

Update 2: Here's how it was done in 2007



  1. As I was watching the original broadcast I commented to one of my family members how odd the look was on the announcers face and the manner in which he did it. It wouldn't surprise me one bit that it was rigged.

    Given the nature of the state, is it unreasonable to expect anything less? Really?

  2. My distinct recollection was the guy coming out and saying:

    "The winner of the 2011 Iowa State Straw Poll is congress-woman Michelle Bachman."

    And then he might have said something like "so long suckers" and left.


  4. sometimes being a 'man of few words' is a good thing. this guy though is just dishonest.


    This is Fox's live broadcast. Much more revealing then Shills' youtube

  6. Here's how the 1995 Ames Straw poll was rigged. That was the year of the statistically extremely unlikely exact tie between Dole and Gramm, 2,582 votes to 2,582:

  7. Here is a video of the 2007 Iowa straw poll results, they did it a little differently back then....

  8. Whether or not Michelle Bachmann was the legitimate winner, I do believe Ron Paul's close second-place finish was the reason why ONLY the first-place winner was announced this year.

    The media blackout of Ron Paul after this event has been incredible. It's as if all these presstitutes get their orders from oligarch central command.

  9. Came across The Iowa Straw Poll Mystery on the ICYMI feed...

    "The official number of votes counted in the 2011 Iowa Straw Poll is 16,892. The ten candidates listed garnered 16,674. That leaves 218 votes unaccounted for. MSNBC has reported that the 218 is actually only 162. Bachmann wins by 152 votes, meanwhile 218 votes seem to be unaccounted for publicly. While I am sure there is a very good reason for the missing votes, this is precisely what causes distrust of government and the media."

    Meanwhile, the media actually admits to ignoring Ron Paul. Why? As TD at zerohedge says, "Because if "the unelectable one" were to become president, the financial kleptocratic, oligarchic status quo, which just so happens is the big legacy media's biggest advertising base, would be wiped out overnight."

  10. nader paul kucinich gravel mckinney baldwin ventura sheehanAugust 15, 2011 at 1:49 AM

    All too obvious.
    all very obvious

  11. Correct, after MB was announced as winner, the announcer wished everyone a good night.

  12. Oh no...tin foil hat talk again. A recurring theme sadly. It's never the numbers that are the problem...just one's perspective. You people do realize that this poll means nothing to anyone right? If you want Paul to win vote for him, but enough of the sour grapes and wingnut contortionism.

  13. Anonymous at 7:11 AM: just because you're newborn-baby naive about the US political system doesn't mean they're not out to get you.



    As far as I can tell the only wing nut is one that actually took to the time to post what you said. Amazing how dumb people really are and this post reflects my opinion.


    I respond in kind Bill. And you know what they say about opinions.

  16. anon@8:33 sure, just matter of perspective, now lets move on and talk about the important subjects, such as Rick Perry's long standing small government credentials.

    Having Karl Rove announce that Ron could do really well is almost an admission that the fix was in.

  17. Heath- I agree. Let's talk about what's important. Ron Paul is likeable enough on his own and I tend to agree with much of what he says. However...I would simply offer another viewpoint that he will not be the GOP nominee and if Bachmann is, all of us will be the worse off for it because we can expect O 2.0 all over again. Look who the media is trashing at the moment to see who they i.e. fascists/progressive/communists fear the most. Cue Romney, Perry and Bachmann. I'm not saying they're justified in their argument, only that they seem to believe Paul has no chance of the nomination so why waste ammunition trying to kill a dead horse.

    My argument against Paul's campaign is not against him at all. I think he's done an admirable job with what he has. I think I know what the GOP establishment see in Paul's campaign as weakness-- his supporters. They seem to think that Republicans, conservatives and independents will resist associating themselves with the more vocal supporters of Ron Paul. A divided majority means the minority wins the election and the GOP is not about to risk losing the momentum at a time when O appears weak.

    I may be totally wrong and part of me hopes I am, but Paul's biggest hurdles at the moment lie in the GOP-- not against O...yet.

  18. anon@9:30 then why give the appearance of underhandedness - the message all republicans talk about is one of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However the leadership never delivers on that and those rank and file conservatives always fall into line behind whatever goofy 'crisis' that crops up. The debt ceiling flap was a case in point. They talked big but delivered the usual plan that was essentially status quo and gave Barry what he wanted.


    I would simply add that this is certainly true, however there need not be anything sinister behind it, but instead a necessary if not pragmatic self-preservation. I loathe the career politicians particularly in the GOP because as you said correctly they talk a great game, but the follow through always seems lacking. I contend that is a failure of leadership and Boehner I'm looking at you. While I am not an apologist for the GOP's deal with the devil, I can see beyond the immediate disgust to what it did provide --time. Not just for O, but those working to thwart his agenda. Imagine if no deal was struck, the downgrade happens (without the perspective of anyone taking action) and suddenly in 2012 the GOP is routed at the polls as the do-nothing Congress who watched the ship sink while they played politics. That's of course an unfair summary of what occurred, but that won't matter to folks who will blame anyone the media tells them for their troubles. Now the media (O's propaganda team) can't say that they stood around--they acted and it still happened so now they try to spin it as a Tea Party failure, but it isn't sticking. If you have to send John Kerry out as your dogwasher, you've already lost.

    I submit the deal while repugnant to anyone who bothered to look at it, did one good thing in that it gives time i.e. cover for the GOP to continue their fight against Obama and blame him for the tanking economy--seen his approval numbers recently?

    The GOP was playing politics yes, but sadly without control of at least two house of Congress, that's what was required to get a delay of game so to speak. This issue isn't dead by a longshot, but hopefully when 2012 rolls around the GOP will be in a position to make substantial gains including an address on Penn. Ave and then the dismantling of this beast can get started.

  20. It is really amazing indeed. Even Fox said it was strange that only the winning name was named with nothing else. what is more, have you noticed the announcer Matt Strawn - the IOWA GOP chairman - did not answer Fox's Carl Cameron's question about whether Ron Paul's strong second could set him up well to win the caucuses early next year at all, and talked about Bachmann instead and then about some others, did not even mention Paul's name. And I listened live on CNBC on the weasel Chuck Todd's question to him about who Paul supporters in IOWA are, e.g. which sort of people, he just answered they are constitutionalists... This whole thing is really fishy.
    What is also of note is that many int he media has said that a low number of straw poll voters would benfit Paul, a medium amount would benefit Pawlenty and a high turnout would benefit Bachman (people like Michael Barone from the Washington Examiner, see his twitter), whereas this turned out to be the second highest turnout in the history of the straw poll 9since 1979) and Paul received more than Romney who won 4 years ago while spending 10 million, while Paul spent less than Bachmann (much less, as acknowledged by Chris Wallace of Fox, and Bachmann had at least 3 ads and always mentioned her IOWA roots, while Paul has only one. BTW: it is quite laughable that she mentioned she was leading in the debt ceiling fight. Also, she is supposed to be the self-appointed leader of the House Tea Party caucus (she got the idea from Rand Paul's tweet BTW, it was never her own idea), but she could not even bring anyway near the majority of her caucus to vote with her. Strictly speaking she should actually resign as leader of the House Tea Party Caucus.
    I also think that the Paul campaign and supporters should not waste their time, effort and money to go after her, she will drop out and if you treat her kindly, like Dr. Paul has, she will most likely endorse Dr. Paul. The focus should be to go after on Rick Perry and Mitt Romney.
    If Paul should have won the poll, they would have said it is meaningless. IMHO Paul is now very well set up for Iowa. The campaign has now enough inspiration to go full out from strength to strength. More endorsements may follow. Ron and Rand Paul, also Doug Wead and others should focus on local TV and affiliates as well as radio hosts, especially Jan Mickelson (Christian libertarian).

  21. to anonymous 12:05:

    As an antidote to your having drunk the gov't school kool-aide about how our political system works, might I suggest an eye-opening book called Indispensible Enemies by Walter Karp? The one problem with Karp is that he puts the locus of power in the congress, while it is clearly in the investment banks. But the rest of his analysis is supported through 300 pages or so of history. Run, don't walk to your local (electronic) bookstore and when you are done, you can emerge from your stupor.


    this is the video you are looking for where he states the total votes and the winner

  23. @ anonymous 12:05:

    As suggested by anon 4:39, to give the GOP a pass for just trying to avoid electoral defeat is giving away the game. If they'll avoid doing the right thing just to stay in office, then what good is having them in office in the first place? Obviously, it's no damn good at all. At least when a dem is in office, the giant group of idiots known as registered republicans is marginally sensitive to loss of liberty. Much like when a republican sits in the oval office, the naive left base makes some token effort to restrain the war machine.

    Most voters are idiots for accepting the false left-right dichotomy of "we'd love to keep our promises, but our mean enemies on the other side of the aisle won't let us." Both major parties are united against the people, but the dimwitted public doesn't catch on.

  24. Update to my original comment re: the look on Matt Strawn's face that day. I found this comment (which I've only partially copied for the relevance) on another website.

    This user confirms my own initial observations of the event. Here it is: "He looked sort of dazed as if realizing the impropriety of what he'd decided, or been forced, to do so as not to draw attention to Ron Paul's result." McClarinJ

  25. Bachmann gave away over 6,000 tickets to the event, and I think she was hoping for as many votes. It was about a third more tickets than Ron Paul gave away, and she still nearly lost to him. It's not much of an endorsement for her if she can hardly buy votes. I think the announcer's reaction was probably with the short announcement of the results and a little fumbling with his folder (deciding to move it after starting to look up).

  26. @Anonymous,

    "I think the announcer's reaction was...."