Understanding the Iowa Straw Poll

If you, like most Americans, have been living your life this weekend, you may have missed the news and analysis regarding the Iowa Straw Poll held in Ames, Iowa.

Some analysis on this further below, but first, the results:

• Mitt Romney 4516 votes (31.0%)
• Mike Huckabee 2587 votes (18.1%)
• Sam Brownback 2192 votes (15.3%)
• Tom Tancredo 1961 votes (13.7%).
• Ron Paul with 1305 votes (9.1%)
• Tommy Thompson 1,009 votes (7.3%)
• Fred Thompson 231 votes (1.6%)
• Rudy Giuliani 183 votes (1.3%)
• Duncan Hunter 174 votes (1.2%)
• John McCain 101 votes (0.7%)
• John Cox 41 votes (0.3%)

Some tricks to understanding these results:

1. Presidential primaries are unique beasts - not intended for the general public. The Primary is nearly completely focused upon the active base of each party.

2. The Iowa Straw Poll precedes the first Primary by at least 6 months and is held during August - the month when families are rushing to complete vacations, family moves, rituals, wedding and other rituals of summer prior to the start of school in late August - early September.

3. Put these together, and what you get in the Iowa Straw Poll is an event tailored to excite the core of the party's base. The real die-hards who follow primary machinations while on vacation, 6 months before anyone casts the first vote.

4. To really make this point, remember: In 6 months, most Primary voters (the active base of the party) won't even remember who was on the ballot in Ames this weekend. Even fewer will remember who was on the ballot by the time the general election rolls around in 15 long months.

So, then what good is the Iowa Straw Poll:

1. Despite the fact that the voters in Ames tend to be the energized core of the party's always active base. Iowa is hot and humid in Iowa. Iowa is a large state. Voting in the Straw Poll costs folks money. It interferes with summer family plans. And the results are completely non-binding. So, getting supporters to attend the hot, sweaty masses in Ames is a demonstration of a candidate's appeal to the base (at least the base in Iowa).

2. Iowa is a big state. To assist supporters in attending, candidates tend to run free shuttle buses from as many population centers as possible. Identifying supporters, encouraging them to attend, informing them of travel arrangements, taking care of 1,000's of supporters on site in Ames, etc are all assumed to point to the candidates' ability to organize a broad, effective state organization and to attract and train the types of volunteers which will prove critical in turning out voters on actual election day.

3. All of the campaigning, organizing and logistical support mentioned above take money. So it is assumed that the great Iowa Straw Poll provides an excellent early indicator of a candidate's ability to attract donors.

4. Perhaps more importantly, the Iowa Straw Poll is, above all things, a media event. And, as with all media events, to the perceived victor go the spoils. Historic well performers at Ames have attracted, in the afterglow of media and pundit praise, seasoned leaders and increased donors to their campaigns.

5. Sometimes overlooked, Ames is also an important historic filter. While some candidates meet the tests described above with much aplomb, others flail below the high-set bar of performance. Some of these read the results with an air of reason and remove their entries from the remainder of the primary race. Once withdrawn, their staff, supporters and donors flock like fleas around the big dogs of the poll - multiplying the boon for victory.

6. And for all the above - - - at least on in the minds and writings of the pundits. Nothing ever really goes exactly as described here, but the patterns are fairly predictive.

And now for the analysis:

1. Mitt Romney: The first observation is that Romney won. Yes, he won the most votes, but he won more than that. Romney invested about 2 x's as much budget into the Straw Poll as did any other candidate. He and his entire campaigning family have virtually lived in Iowa for the last month. So assumed was Mitt's victory that Giuliani's campaign withdrew from the Poll. All told, these factors built an added expectation handicap of not just winning, but needing to win by 10%. Mitt was up by 13%, so to Mitt goes the victory.

2. Mike Huckabee: Huckabee has been little noticed by the general press, but party faithful and political commentators have been whispering his praises with little peeps of surprise after each debate - yes, still surprised after admitting he's performed superbly at each (yes every) debate. Huckabee has been said to have raised few dollars and developed no campaign structure, yet he turned in a very impressed 2nd place. One can only assume that:
1. He played the expectations game like a maestro.
2. He organized a better campaign infrastructure than was previously noted
3. He spent his limited budget shrewdly.

3. Sam Brownback: Brownback was forecasting a strong second. He spent the second highest budget in Iowa and lives next door. His campaign infrastructure in Iowa has been developing literally before he officially entered the race. So, by finishing 3rd, he lost the expectations game. At the same time, most folks regard his candidacy as something of a joke nationally. So his close 3rd may win him some respect in terms of national expectations. Time will tell.

4. Losers: Tommy Thompson and Ron Paul. Both candidates focused heavily on Iowa and built expectations for a strong performance. I assume both did this in hopes of bolstering waffling supporters to invest a weekend in traveling to Iowa to cast an expensive ballot on their behalf. Thompson promised a 2nd place finish. Ron Paul proudly forecasted a top 3 finish. Both men performed miserably by comparison with these expectations.

Predictions for Losers:

• Tommy Thompson: I predict he'll announce his withdrawal from the race by day's end Monday.
• Ron Paul: While he should follow Thompson's noble lead, I predict he will not withdraw, will contest the results and will continue to stir up his quite vocal supporters in the conservative "blogosphere".

5. Not Winners: Giuliani and Fred Thompson. One can't win elections without winning votes. Conceding the straw poll may make sense in terms of the huge expectations both would be expected to meet. But at the same time, Romney and Huckabee are alone positioned for media attention, punditry praise and the spoils of name recognition, respectability, donor support and activist/volunteer support. These are the currency of a campaign. Currency which will flow away from Giuliani and Fred Thompson in the next 2-3 weeks.

6. Dark Horse: Tom Tancredo. I view these results with a bit of dismay. Like so many others, I view Tancredo's candidacy as nothing more than a single issue hobby horse being ridden to draw media attention toward immigration reform. His strong 4th place finish, a sure surprise to me, will certainly draw attention to his flagship issue and is almost as certain to encourage him to dig in his heels and stay in the race. Yikes.

7. 
   
7. Filtered: I love the idea of Duncan Hunter, but he just hasn't campaign convincingly or debated impressively. He should leave the race now - while his influence in Congress is still strong. John Cox, another individual who has impressive credentials on paper, but a completely unsuccessful campaign should pull of camp and head for home. I sincerely mean him no respect, but I think I could go to Iowa and purchase 41 votes. I predict both respectable men will do the respectable thing. May we all remember them in 6 and 15 months not as bottom feeding candidates, but as successful men in their other realms of achievement.

On Principle,

CBass

Update: It looks like Tommy Thompson has already announce the inevitable. I bid adieu to a good man doing a good thing.