Straw Wars: Baker For the Win
The Republican Party of Arkansas hosted its straw poll for the 2010 Senate race today, with seven of the announced candidates participating. And in a way, I guess you could say that all of these guys are winners. But in another, more accurate way, most of them are losers and Gilbert Baker is the winner, since he won.
More from Roby Brock at Talk Business, who offers summaries of the hopefuls’ speeches at his Political Buzz blog.
Please follow and like us:
7 thoughts on “Straw Wars: Baker For the Win”
David, how is Baker the winner???
He has a 10-1 advantage over his opponents in money, the openly tacit support of the NRSC, and is the “supposed” frontrunner, yet he only managed 35%?
I was going to ask Drew what “openly tacit” means (I think it is something like “explicitly implicit”), but I think a more pressing question is: why does Gilbert’s photo bear such a strong resemblance to Frankenstein’s monster?
Baker is the “winner” because he “won” the most votes in the poll. In the English language, it is common to describe someone as having “won” a competition when they amass the most units by which progress in the competition is judged (points, votes, etc.)
Now, it’s true that in some competitive scenarios, like golf and Uno, one wins by amassing fewer of these units, but those are generally the exception. And it’s not like I’m the only person describing Baker as the “winner.” Look at all these headlines: http://bit.ly/7vpMJG.
If you want to debate the meaning or magnitude of this win, that’s fine. It’s open to spin and interpretation. My own sense of it is that this is a contrived party fund-raising event participated in by a small number of activists and that it tells us little of real significance. But it sounds like it was a lot of fun and gave everyone something to rally around and argue about for a few days, so what the hell, why not?
And David, of course there is strip poker, a game in which you want your opponent to wind up with less and you remaining with pretty much what you started out with. And you ALWAYS want your opponent to have less because if you are playing with someone you don’t want to see nekkid, then you really don’t understand the rules.
I have wondered why I always win at this game, even when my cards seem to be an “openly tacit” losing hand to the one the ladies are holding… They will argue and argue and come up with these arcane rules giving me a winning hand. Regardless, these ladies have my openly tacit support to continue letting me win, if they ever let me play again.
I have seen polling placing some of the candidates for the Senate seat against the incumbent from Rasmussen and others, but I am curious as to why all of the announced candidates have not been polled in a race against the incumbent. I think my bassett hound could win against the incumbent currently and I think the nation should know just how dissatisfied THIS state is with the lack of common sense that currently resides in the Senate, House and Presidency. Throw them ALL out, Republican and Democrat, and get people like the founders in.
David, this was not an actual vote. This was a straw poll. Baker has all the advantages but has 2/3rd of the party opposed to his election. Now in Arkansas, those voters will be in the primary, where a runoff is required. So if you add up the votes of the candidates who oppose Baker, how do you add it up to a win?
If this was a runoff of Baker v. Coleman, I don’t see Reynolds supporters lining up behind Coleman. Add in Cox’s supporters and that makes a recipe for disaster.
So once again, how in a straw poll, where Baker is the presumed front runner, who has all the advantages, but has 2/3rds of the party faithful opposed to his election, is he a winner???
This seems like some of that D.C. math that says we can spend what we don’t have.
Will Tom Cox run as third party candidate?