The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Don't Discount Ames

Text Size

Don't Discount Ames

By W. James Antle, III on 8.8.11 @ 9:26AM

In his column Sunday, George Will wrote:

The Ames poll has not reliably predicted the winner of Iowa's caucuses five months later, and the caucuses have been an uncertain trumpet regarding the winner of the nomination. In 1979, George H.W. Bush won the poll and the subsequent caucuses but lost the nomination to Ronald Reagan. In 1987, Pat Robertson won the poll, Bob Dole won the caucuses and Bush won the nomination. In 1995, Phil Gramm and Bob Dole tied in the poll, then Dole won the caucuses and the nomination. In 1999, George W. Bush won the poll, the caucuses and the nomination. In 2007, Romney won the poll, Mike Huckabee won the caucuses and John McCain won the nomination.

All true, but Will leaves out some important context demonstrating Iowa's significance. In 1979, George H.W. Bush was roughly where Jon Huntsman is in the Republican race this year. Winning Ames and then Iowa launched him toward a second-place finish and made possible his spot on the ticket with Ronald Reagan. Ames and Iowa similarly established, however briefly, Pat Robertson as a force in the 1988 contest -- and the GOP throughout the 1990s.

Phil Gramm's inability to finish ahead of Bob Dole at Ames was an early signal that he wasn't going to be successful as the conservative alternative to Dole. By the time the caucuses rolled around, Pat Buchanan had clearly secured that role. Ames helped knock Dan Quayle and Elizabeth Dole from the 2000 race, giving George W. Bush a clearer path to the nomination. Mike Huckabee's strong second place showing at Ames was crucial to upsetting Mitt Romney in the caucuses, which in turn derailed Romney's most plausible path to the nomination.

Even when the straw poll and the caucuses haven't predicted the nominee, they have played a large role in shaping the outcome in recent years.

View all comments (2) | Leave a comment

Zbigniew Mazurak| 8.8.11 @ 1:16PM

This is largely correct. I'd only add that:

1) The Ames Straw Poll IS very important, because it provides momentum to those who poll highly in it, and prompts those who poorly poll in it to withdraw from the race.

2) Jon Huntsman will never win the GOP presidential nomination for 2012, let alone the general election. I'm willing to bet with anyone on that. It's the safest bet anyone can make.

3) The reason why the ASP is such a poor predictor of who will win the nomination is because the Iowa caucus itself (just like the NH primary) is an unreliable indicator of who the nominees of the two parties will be, let alone who will win the general election. In 1972, Edmund Muskie beat George McGovern. In 1980, Bush beat Reagan. In 1988, Bush and Dukakis were third in their parties' caucuses. In 1992, Iowa Senator Tom Harkin won the Dem caucus. In 2008, Mike Huckabee won the GOP caucus.

Moreover, we should not ignore the fact that neither IA nor NH is representative of the US as a whole, whether demographically or economically.

Sandy| 8.9.11 @ 8:35AM

I disagree that the Ames straw poll is important any more. Romney, Huntsman and Paul have all been known to bus in and pay for supporters to vote for them in the poll. It has been happening with all straw polls where ever they take place. That is not a fair representation of the voters and who they prefer. It is simply buying a win, and hoping to get some momentum out of it. As everyone knows you can't buy love, or even like.

As was stated above, Iowa and NH are not representative of the other states. Because they may have voted for a candidate that went on to win the nomination a time or two is like a broken clock, which is still correct twice a day.