Results Of The GOP Corn Poll Conducted at The South Dakota State Fair

33 thoughts on “Results Of The GOP Corn Poll Conducted at The South Dakota State Fair”

1. And, the big polling firms spend how much to get the same results in national polls?

   1. That’s right. The polls are showing similar numbers right now. Trump on the Republican side and Sanders rising on the Democrat left.

      Wake me up.

2. Almost two-thirds of South Dakota Republicans are voting for Trump and Carson. I suppose I could be wrong but there is no way in hell either of them can win the primary much less the general election. It’s uncharted territory and I have to tell you… that is kinda scary.

3. I thought Trump would be out by now, right?

   1. Trump has enough money to stick around as long as he wants. He also has said so many outrageous things that he will be a joke for a lot longer.

4. I have been saying for sometime that Carson will be the GOP nominee. Trump is clearing the way for him. I don’t think the GOP could have two better candidates than Carson and Trump. Carson makes me more comfortable but Trump is more fun and the guy doing the heavy lifting right now.

   Amazing that the establishment candidates are doing so poorly. It’s a joke. I was originally for Rubio but Trump and Carson are my other two faves.

5. I think we need to step back from the politics of personality, personal destruction against those who hold positions contrary to our own, and focus what we want for our nation long-term. From this we will find a rational (vs. emotional) choice for our President. We live in serious times with serious challenges ahead.

   1. I want for our nation to be great again. And an “establishment” candidate has been tried twice in the last two elections and lost. Establishment is exactly what we do NOT need. Establishment is what got us where we are now. We need a different type of leader now, one that is not beholden to special interests and one that is not politically correct and one that is definitely not an inside the beltway thinker.

   2. “From this we will find a rational (vs. emotional) choice for our President.”

      Certainly, that is a worthy goal, but it’s just not likely in today’s society. The voting public is just not interested in knowing the “issues” or listening to anyone who talks about the issues or being “rational” about their political choices. In fact, not only are most indifferent to the details, they’re HOSTILE.

      Americans support whom they FEEL like supporting and I don’t see the ongoing Oprahfication of American society changing anytime soon. From speech codes on campus, to Trayvon Martin, to Duke rape case to Kaitlyn Jenner to manhugs to Paula Dean to rape culture to Black Lives Matter to Kim Davis—rationality in the public square is rare. It may take actual bullets to awaken folks’ awareness that feelings in political affairs should not matter much.

      And we see it on this blog every hour. I responded forcefully when feel-good responses fueled by white guilt (more Oprahfied feelings) tried to attack the known facts (and unproven allegations) and verdict in the Rushmore beer spillage incident. As you probably read (or maybe you had better things to do), NONE of the posters EVER addressed what was proven by evidence and what was not. Wny not? They were more interested in applauding their own anti-racism bona fides using the case to do so; and by doing so, exposed their own RACIST views (“drunk white guy MUSTA done wrong to those always-victimized NAs”). In essence, their “good feelings” against racism trumped ANY discussion of the proven facts, the burden to prove those facts, and what was not proven–so they assigned guilt BASED on race alone (=racists). Fortunately , the judge’s job was to focus on the present case, not feelings of white guilt and so-called white privilege. (I knew NO ONE involved in that case).

      So, why do we expect the voting public to go beyond superficial impressions and likeability when it comes to political candidates? I don’t.

      Gosh, don’t those styrofoam Greek columns look cool??

6. I would love to see an ad that juxtaposes Ronald Reagan’s greatest quotes with some of Donald Trump’s infamous lines. Perhaps it would snap people back to reality.

   1. i think last night oreilly and beck pointed out that everything trump says is a variation of “the people who run this government are stupid and i will bring in smarter people.” indeed during oreilly’s interview, you could SEE trump not having a position, then asking oreilly to restate the question and then jumping on the correct answer. he gets out of having to be able to accurately spout hundreds of foreign leaders names at any given moment. george w. bush had to pull that trick off all the time in 2000 and while he did it, he frequently almost injured himself doing it.

7. If it wasn’t so darn important, Donald Trump versus Bernie Sanders would provide the most entertainment value in the Presidential race.

   1. Obama in 2008 SHOULD have been entertaining, but instead, the joke was on us.

8. um, it is a corn poll. Just a corn poll. don’t try to read too much into it.

9. Springer,

   “Establishment Candidate?” I don’t even know what that is and has become the “slur” of the day for anyone who isn’t a particular candidate of choice of one group or another. John McCain has always been a maverick where he fits no mold and thus wasn’t the establishment candidate when he ran against George Bush but is the establishment candidate when he beat Mitt Romney? Mitt Romney wasn’t the establishment candidate when he ran against McCain but was the establishment candidate when he was the nominee in 2012?

   Nearly everyone who is running was at one time not the establishment candidate. One becomes an establishment candidate once they become elected to office. Thus, by definition, “establishment candidate” must be the one who has been electorally successful in the past and the non-establishment candidate is one of the following:

   1) Never ran for office before (Carson/Trump) or ran before and lost (Fiorina) or

   2) Never ran for office before.

   What a criteria for dissing a Presidential candidate. Few places I know pick their leader with the primary criteria of “unexperienced.” So, I guess the USA has become. The antithesis of a meritocracy but instead an “anti-meritocracy.”

   1. john mccain was absolutely the establishment candidate the year he ran against obama. in 2007 i remember watching pelosi ruin the house while reid held back the senate and thinking to myself “rudy giuliani is going to have a tough time with these people but he’s one of the ones who can make then knuckle under if anyone can.” 2007 was the year that absolutely NO activist or party member was expressing any interest in mccain, he was totally off the radar and we were arguing about giuliani, versus huckabee, versus fred d. thompson, versus mitt romney, and the LAST thing anyone expected was that there’d be an iota in senator john shamnesty mccain. THEN in the runup to the iowa caucuses and beyond suddenly THERE HE WAS, with that horrible introduction video with him lying severly injured on a cot after leaving the hanoi hilton. all life was sucked out of us, all the NOT-mccain candidates were systematically destroyed by the media and the party rules, and there we were stuck with him. THE ONLY REASON mccain appeared out of nowhere and suddenly owned the whole table was that he was the establishment choice of 2008. no doubt about it. romney’s valiant fight to stop that in 2008 made HIM the establishment choice in 2012, ironically. what can you do? the voters have had it with the whole rigged game finally and who can blame them? if we’re going to wish for non-traditional candidates my wish is always for dr conde rice, but that’s not going to happen. i guess i’ll vote trump.

10. Trump is ahead in the polls but somehow can’t win an election? Where’s the logic in that?

    He’s ahead because he’s connecting with voters. On issues.
    Which amazingly enough…is what wins elections…

    1. BK says: “Trump is ahead in the polls but somehow can’t win an election? Where’s the logic in that?”

       There has been one debate and virtually no ads. He is an adman’s dream opponent. Does he have baggage? Too much for commercial flights.

11. Two man race in SD.

    Fiorina might get some traction in a few weeks but right now Trump and Carson are much stronger.

    Rubio has to wish he was running for Senate still.

12. if the party picks trump, i’ll vote for him. if the party picked gordon howie for president i’d vote for howie over the democrat. not that i’m worried about facing that moral dilemma ever.

    1. In a recent “head to head” poll (Monmouth) Carson looks like he would beat Mr. Trump handily (55 to 36). And he’s the only one. Is it possible that Carson will be the GOP nominee? (That’s what my crystal ball is telling me today. Interesting.)

       http://www.pollingreport.com/wh16rep.htm

13. Enquirer:

    My point exactly:

    McCain became “Establishment” when he won the primary despite being a maverick when he ran against George Bush.

    Romney became “Establishment” when he won the primary despite being “non-establishment” just four years before.

    Obviously, one becomes “establishment” upon winning the primary which then means the non-establishment types don’t like you any more.

    Talk about a Catch-22 for those who want a non-establishment candidate- They lose him when they get what they want. Ironic.

    At the end of the day, the person who gets the nominee will gain the most delegates via primary elections based on voters. The whole concept that millions of Americans are participating in some conspiracy with a nebulous “Establishment” is goofy.

    Here is who the “Establishment” is in the GOP. It is probably 80% of registered voters who see all the candidates at different but acceptable degrees as good potential Presidents. However, they have favorites, hope to express themselves for their favorite, but sometimes pass on their favorite because they would rather win the general election than have their favorite lose to the Democrat. The other 20% are “my way or the highway” Republicans and oddly like losing general elections.

    1. Establishment today refers to DC politicians as a whole. McCain and Romney were already establishment. Trump isn’t and never will be. Cruz, though a DC politician, is definitely not establishment as most of the establishment wishes he would just sit down and shut up. Carson definitely is not establishment. Neither is Fiorina. Thus their popularity. I think your 80% of GOP voters being “establishment” is way off this time, as evidenced by the popularity of the non-establishment candidates. And last time my candidate of choice was not Romney, but he was the establishment pick and I voted for him gladly over Obama.

14. the south dakota straw poll is similar in outcome to the recent iowa straw poll and latest iowa polling numbers as far as candidate dominance and ranking. just for fun, WHAT did the iowa straw poll look like in august 2007, right before john s. mccain became the party’s nominee after the new year?
    the august 2007 iowa straw poll had mitt romney as the massive winner, beating each of his nearest three rivals by an almost three-to-one margin. in a virtual dead heat for second were tom tancredo (who did the trump trick of banging the illegal immigration drum hard) mike huckabee (the social conservatives favorite) and rudy giuliani (whose second/3rd place showing was even more impressive in that he did no campaigning whatsoever for the poll) . the third-tier included a fair but low showing by fred dalton thompson, governor tommy thompson and sam brownback of kansas.

    august 2007, in the iowa straw poll, BARELY MOVING THE NEEDLE, hardly registering at all: ron paul, john cox of illinois, (anti war candidates) and maverick arizona senator, bringer of both ‘surge’ and ‘shamnesty’ john sidney mccain.

    then six months later he was winning it all. so who really really knows? is the party speaking at these events, so early, or just activists?

15. when i say “establishment” what i mean is that he’s the party’s top insider choice, able to spend two years going around early and locking up a lot of big money, commitments, and cashing in promises for support made by fellow congressmembers and others over the prior years. in 2008 that person was john mccain. we didn’t HAVE a star rise out of the party itself in 2012 so a lot of goodwill from his second place finish went to mitt romney and we white-knuckled through that. go back to 2000 when mccain mounted his first run, and HE was derailed by who i would call the establishment candidate, who went around in front of his own brother jeb to lock up the early support: george w. bush. on our side, we don’t have an ’emilys list’ we have the rnc and its affiliates.

16. Springer,

    The only thing Trump, Fiorina, and Carson have in common is they have never been elected. Fiorina and Carson can hardly contain how badly they despise Trump. They would consider being compared to Trump barely above being compared to Hillary.

    Thus, you are proving my point: Establishment means a proven success at winning elections. And non establishment means unproven and inexperienced.

    It is amazing that a criteria to be President is unproven and in experienced. Only morons would hire a McDonalds manager who is unproven and inexperienced but you like it as a criteria for most powerful person in the world. Bizarro.

    1. if i was hiring a manager for an upscale fine restaurant, and the only choice i had was between a perkins manager and someone who’d run a similar fine restaurant into the ground, i’d carefully interview and not toss out the perkins manager out of hand.

       re: “establishment,” i think the dynamic that gave us mccain in 2008, whether you say he was the process’s fair choice or, more cynically, that he had the best pre-primary setup and best outcome via the actual mechanics of the primary gauntlet – – – the history of the last 20 years shows us that regardless of the ‘flavor of the day’ in the previous august, the actual primary delivers to republicans time after time the one person who is seen garnering all the early support and commitments 18 to 24 months prior to election season.

       granted such a huge undertaking as running for president requires years of planning, but the way this dynamic reoccurs time and again tends to give me pause when i look back over history and consider it. “it’s dole’s turn” “w” “mccain is the conscience of the gop,” “JEB” (noting how both brothers were downplaying the bush name) all i’m saying is that jeb bush fits my definition of the ‘establishment candidate’ in early support and effort expended so far – – and if we get to december and january, and jeb is winning these contests, by two points, three points, then more and more as others implode, THEN i have to call b-s on all the hype that occurs in the previous summer before the presidential cycle begins. that’s all.

       1. there’s something real under the surface that’s happening on a recurring basis, or so i allege, and it seems to involve the network of state and national party leaders and the depth and type of off-year activities and preparations that have a large influence on events under the surface while the rank-and-file are having a big circus somewhere else. these visible and hidden worlds merge again and again each primary season.
          i’m simply continuing to dig, examine and observe because of that thing in all of us, namely, the need to know.

    2. Since when is “a proven success at winning elections” a good criterion for electing a candidate? It didn’t work with either McCain or Romney, i.e. establishment as they did NOT win the final election. So how can you say we should now back an “establishment” candidate because that person is a “proven success at winning elections”? If something isn’t working, then it’s time for a change – that mantra couldn’t be more true this time around!

       I have to admit that inexperienced and unproven have never been more true than with the election of Obama, but he did have “a proven success at winning elections.” How is that working out!??

       1. obama is actually the big argument for not trusting a trump, and instead going to a bush or kasich.

17. Enquirer,

    Here is the reality of 2008. Early on the “favorites” with regard to money and expectations was Guiliani and Fred Thompson. McCain at this very moment was predicted to be out because he was running out of money and his campaign was in disarray.

    Then, you had Huckabee winning Iowa and again McCain was declared dead because he finished third.

    After barely winning NH and SC, McCain surprisingly won Florida and his primary support came from “disaffected conservatives” who moved late to him.

    The urban myth McCain was the “establishment” candidate didn’t occur until after he was well on his way to win the nomination after a strong Super Tuesday. As I’ve been saying, those who are “anti-establishment” sour on even their own choice because they then think he has become establishment.

    This said, I agree at this stage the “horse race” is close to meaningless. What is relevant is candidates favorable number, unfavorable number, and potential based on not having formed an opinion. Secondarily of import is watching the movement of these things, in particular the ratio of people who become aware of the candidate whether unfavorables grow more or less than favorables.

    1. i don’t use the term ‘establishment’ as other people do i guess; i use it more in the cronyism sense, in the illinois-political-combine sense. i guess i’m using it in place of “beltway” because i don’t think beltway is a good term; beltway seems to limit it to just a handful of famously corrupt politicians, or the tendency to lay blame on the faceless institution of congress. “establishment” in my usage applies to the cooperative cohort of networked people in media, high finance, regional and state political collectives, and republican and democrat national leadership at various levels, creating a singular animal of sorts that thinks about what it wants and gravitates in that direction on a level not connected to or affected by the election cycle.

       my point is that there’s a network, not unlike a gop-version of “journolist” or something, that discusses and maybe acts here and there on these things. i got a very closeup look at the candidates and press cadres and others involved in the 1996 iowa caucuses for instance, and i saw things that still shock me when i think about them, in terms of the hidden beltway cronyism that permeates these things. you can’t make people vote for someone they won’t vote for, i know that. but you can sure sandbag candidates you don’t like in so many ways that people will never find out about, if you’re connected in some way to a group that worries about that sort of thing.

       i agree that mccain’s road wasn’t perfect, and as a candidate he wasn’t perfect, and he didn’t jealously guard his biggest strength, that of being a true MAVERICK, because barack obama moved in and co-opted that position for himself in the general election if you trust the post-election polling that was done.

       i’m observing yet another election cycle, and all i’m saying is that i suspect that jeb bush will grow and improve in ways that will confound many, and that indeed like mccain, his first few primary stumbles won’t matter because he’ll grow in the long game. i’d be glad to be totally wrong in my presumptions but i guess we’ll see in about seven or eight months where everything is.

       1. kasich might have a lot of what the ‘animal’ is looking for too. i like jeb and kasich so that’s not my problem, it’s that the election process isn’t what it seems.

Comments are closed.