Is there really a caucus winner?

Wow! Now we actually have the Iowa caucuses out of the way and we will see new sites from New Hampshire’s cities. Unfortunately after all the television coverage in Iowa, we really haven’t learned very much about the Republican primary election. If Ron Paul had won over 50 percent of the votes, (he was projected in the polls to get about 22 percent) instead of the 21 percent which he received, that could have said something about the strength of his views. If Mitt Romney had received 75 percent of the votes (he was projected at 25 percent) instead of the 24.5 percent voting for him, we could had drawn some conclusions from those results — the importance of religion, connections to Washington political establishments, voters views on leadership and the economic importance of jobs.

Actually it appears the really big winner has been the economy of Iowa. These political candidates have spent tons of money (actually millions of dollars) trying to establish a foothold in the early stages of the primary process. At some point surely we will hear a figure on how much was spent by the candidates on rooms, meals, travel and advertising and it surely must have helped the entire state in numerous ways.

Now we are hearing the media’s opinions on what the results mean and all kinds of explanations about why Santorum tied with Romney and the bottom portion of the contenders lost. We have already learned that Michele Bach- mann has suspended her campaign as a result of her sixth-place finish. All this amid the hype of what it is or is not, going to mean in New Hampshire. When you look at the millions of dollars spent and the number of people actually participating in the caucuses, it is difficult to understand the justification from a purely economic standpoint. The normal criteria for political measurement is based on dollars spent per vote received. That’s a very logical way to evaluate the individual results, but from a purely business standpoint, if candidates established their individual budget based on the anticipated 120,000 ‘voter’ turnout for the caucuses, the money spent would probably be a lot less than they actually expended on this event. The initial reports stated Santorum spent only 73 cents per vote received and Perry about $300 per vote received. No mention was made of the other candidates. Certainly it is the first “test” of one’s political clout and the media exposure is extended over a much longer period of time because there is only one event to cover, but if these are “business-minded” candidates, the economic justification leaves a bit to be desired. It has been reported Perry’s campaign spent a total of about $4.5 million. This kind of money certainly makes me wonder how many of the 1 percent are involved in his Super PAC.

There were some interesting statistics thrown out during the days leading up to the actual caucuses. It was reported, for instance, that only 31 percent of the registered voters in Iowa are Republicans. That leaves a lot of latitude for Independents to influence

the outcome of the caucuses’ voting. They also reported that since 1972 only nine of the 15 “winners” in Iowa have gone on to become the actual Republican nominee. That is less than two-thirds of the time the Iowa results were a predictor of the nation’s choice. This might have had an influence on Jon Huntsman’s decision to skip Iowa and go directly to New Hampshire. His decision also might have been influenced by the 2008 caucuses’ results which made (former Arkansas Governor) Mike Huckabee the front-runner. Being one of those to win the caucus and not become the nominee, he is now a television personality with a home in Florida. Perhaps Jon Huntsman didn’t want the same fate.

From a personal standpoint, it was most interest- ing to learn more about the caucus process and how it differs from a regular primary such as our own process in Arkansas. We go to the polls anytime within the 12-hour period the polls are open, make our decision, pull a handle or mark a ballot and within a few minutes we are out and on our way. It appears the caucuses are more deliberate, take place primarily in the evening and consume an hour or more before voters get to cast their vote in a much more open setting. This apparently is the only process ever used in Iowa Presidential primaries. It might explain the limited restriction on voter turnout. The individuals must have a serious desire to participate or support their candidate to devote this much time to express their views after all the campaign rhetoric. It was also interesting to note that according to the polls, 27 percent of the persons participating in the caucuses would be doing so for the first time. If one thinks about the age factor, it is certainly easier for the younger voters to get out to the caucus location in the evening than for the older generation.

The fact that the polls could “predict” the outcome of Romney’s middle-ofthe-road campaign and Ron Paul’s strong anti-big government, continues to intrigue me. At one point the news media were reporting that about 40 percent of the anticipated caucus goers could change their minds. This undecided group would make the ability to even come close on a prediction more difficult I would think. This might have been an attempt to maintain interest in the outcome or might mean that the primary concerns in the voters’ minds have not been satisfied.

Maybe New Hampshire and South Carolina will be more meaningful in telling us what to expect from a Republican candidate to challenge Obama in the general election.