The Real Meaning of the Straw Poll

Yesterday, one of those uniquely American political oddities took place. No, it wasn't Rick Perry's announcement of his patently obvious intent to seek the GOP Presidential Nomination. Instead, it was the Straw Poll at the Iowa state fair in Ames.

Before I delve too deeply into yesterday's results, I will start off with a bit of background on the Straw Poll.

The straw poll has been a "tradition"(and I use this term loosely) since 1979. Why 1979? This is because the Straw Poll occurs in the year before an election cycle where there is not an incumbent Republican president who will be running for re-election.

Often, the straw poll is seen as an assessment of each candidate's organizational strength in Iowa. Since Iowa is a caucus state, organization is more important than it normally is. As a result, the Ames straw poll is often seen as a predictor of who will win the Iowa caucuses the following January.

As political spectacle, the straw poll is useful. It makes people ask questions such as "why does this one tiny state have so much influence over a very important election?" As a prognosticating tool however, the straw poll is less useful than a set of tarot cards and a crystal ball.

Since it's inception in 1979, the straw poll has predicted the winner of the Republican nomination twice, and the winner of the general election once. It's track record at predicting the winner of the Iowa caucuses has, however, is a bit better. Out of five straw polls, it has predicted the winner of the Caucuses  three times.

So, who won yesterday's straw poll? Rep. Michelle Bachmann (MN) did, with a ~200 vote margin over Ron  Paul. The losers? Rick Santorum and Herman Cain.

Where did the perceived front runner, Mitt Romney, place in all of this? He didn't, but only because he decided against competing in it.

Think about this a minute. If Romney truly were the front runner, why wouldn't he compete in it? The publicity couldn't hurt, nor could building an organization in Iowa. Even if he didn't win the Iowa caucus, he would still pick up a few delegates, which could help him in the event of a drawn out primary battle, or to gain an upper hand in any deal making at a brokered convention.

The fact that he didn't compete at this straw poll, which he won in 2007, suggests that he is skipping Iowa or, at the very least, not seriously contesting the caucuses. Instead, he's probably going to focus on New Hampshire, which is a risky strategy given how unpredictable it can be.

That much having been said about Romney, it is worthwhile to examine the impact of the straw poll on the race. One thing that is interesting to note is that the establishment candidate, Santorum, placed second to last, but only because of Herman Cain's disappointing dead last finish.

 Another thing that is worth noting is that the top three finishers (Bachmann, Paul, and Pawlenty) are generally considered to be the more conservative candidates. This is a complete reversal from 2007, where the top three finishers (Romney, Huckabee, and Sam Brownback) are more establishmentarian.

This shows that the Tea Party has been a force for good in the GOP, driving the direction of our "conversation" in a more conservative direction. This is good because it means that our candidate will more likely be a conservative. This will benefit the GOP in the general election by making our candidate a "bold color" that will provide independents with a distinct contrast to Pres. Obama, not a pale pastel that will blend in with Pres. Obama.