Ames Straw Poll More Meaningless than Ever
 |
James Joyner | Sunday, August 12, 2007 |
As expected, given that none of the other serious candidates bothered to campaign, Mitt Romney won the Ames, Iowa straw poll. Surprisingly, the runners up were people with no more chance of getting the Republican nomination than you or I.
- 1. Romney: 4516 (31.5)
2. Huckabee: 2587 (18.1)
3. Brownback: 2192 (15.3)
4. Tancredo: 1961 (13.7)
5. Paul: 1305 (9.1)
6. T. Thompson: 1039 (7.3)
7. F. Thompson: 203 (1.4)
8. Giuliani: 183 (1.3)
9. Hunter: 174 (1.2)
10. McCain: 101 (1)
11. Cox: 41 (.1)
14,302 ballots cast
Historically, the contest has been meaningless, despite the fact that it garners significant media attention. As Dan Balz and Michael D. Shear note on their front page story in today’s Washington Post,
Romney’s victory came against a relatively weak field that did not include Giuliani, Sen. John McCain of Arizona or former senator Fred D. Thompson of Tennessee, and after he heavily outspent those who did compete. Still, the result, with Romney easily outpacing his rivals with 32 percent of the vote, helps elevate him from relative obscurity six months ago to the top tier of the GOP field — despite his relatively low standing in national polls.
Their story is accompanied by the graphic at right. Winning the straw poll has little correlation with getting the nomination and minor candidates often do extraordinarily well. It’s a test of how many people the campaign can pay to bus in to participate, not support.
It’s not inconceivable that Mitt Romney will win the nomination, certainly. But I guarantee that Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Fred Thompson will finish with more delegates than Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo, and even Ron Paul.
John Cox, however, will get less than one percent of the delegates. Stopped clocks and all that.
About the Author: James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway and the managing editor of the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer, Desert Storm vet, and college professor with a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. He lives just outside the Beltway in Alexandria, Virginia.
Follow James on FriendFeed | Twitter | Digg
- None Found
- Obama Blair House Snub Redux
- OTB Radio - Tonight at 7 Eastern
- Jack Kemp Has Cancer
- Burris Seated After All?
- Obama ‘Kicked Out’ of Blair House for Howard
- Hamas Is Not An Iranian Proxy
- The Roiling India-Pakistan Situation
- Oil Prices Rise
- L.A. Billboard Ban Upheld
- OTB Latenight - The Allman Brothers Band
- The Florida Masochist linked with Another fly has dropped
The lower turnout than 1999 may have some meaning, though.
The lower turnout than 1999 may have some meaning, though.
I think it means that none of the top three candidates cared enough to bother to participate.
And why would they?
If they're already leading, would losing Ames by not appearing, change that situation? Why spend the money, therefore, that both Romney and Thompson alluded was required to win?
Let's also consider that Iowa has only gotta one round correctly since inception in 78... that of our current president. Everyone.. and I mean everyone else who won Iowa, ended up being an also-run or worse.
I will go one further and say that John Cox will get NO delegates.
The rest of the analysis is spot on.
Comments are Closed
