ADVERTISEMENT

The most telling statistic of the Iowa Caucus is the payoff for the money each candidate spent. It tells a story of the integrity of Iowa Republican voters. Iowa voters are not easily persuaded by flashy ads. We want to hear the candidate and discuss his or her record—at length.

Let’s look at each candidates return on investment.

Jon Huntsman spent the most per vote at over $5000, his $4M brought him 745 votes. Michele Bachmann had a disappointing 6th-place 6 thousand votes, so her $6M rates at $1000 per voter. Mitt Romney sowed an eye-popping $17½ million; he reaped 30,000 votes; that’s $600 per vote. Ron Paul came right about average at $300 and change spent per vote ($9 M for 26,000 votes). The hands down winner was Santorum who spent only $37 for each voter received.

To put it the other way, the victor-by-eight-votes Romney, connected with 1.7 voters for each $1000 he spent. The underfunded underdog used each thousand-dollar bill to connect with 27 voters. I recognize that the numbers are a little problematic because they reflect total spending not just spending in Iowa; nevertheless, here are the detailed calculations:

Spending data found at OpenSecrets.org.

The second moral of the Iowa Caucus story is the demographic distribution of support. Of the 99 counties, 62 chose Santorum, 18 chose Paul, and 17 went for Mitt. Romney’s support in his 17 counties was roughly equal to Santorum’s 62 counties. Romney did better in dense population areas, Santorum did better in rural areas. Despite his efforts to escape his record, Romney was less favored by the most conservative counties of the state. So much so that, even with the split in the conservative vote, Romney won by a mere eight votes. If Perry, Gingrich, and Bachmann bow out, the conservative vote will find their new home in Santorum’s camp. Romney would find himself in second place in the nation and without his single best campaign argument—that he is the obvious heir to the nomination.

Republican Winners by County

The third observation comes from the proportion of votes awarded to a non-Romney. Pundits have seen the campaign thus far as the attempt of the party to find a suitable anybody-but-Romney candidate. So count the votes: Romney 25%, Not-Romney 75%. Actually, that is not entirely accurate. The race is not Romney vs. anti-Romney, the race is between the Romneyites, the Conservatives, and Ron Paul’s coalition blend (mostly Libertarians, some Conservatives, and, admit it, a smattering of Tin-Foil Hatters). The voting is therefore about 50% Conservatives, 25% Romneyites, and 20% Ron’s Revolution Coalition.

Last night, Santorum showed that a conservative really can win the party’s nomination. He won the chance to compete in earnest for the big primary states. Huckabee won that in Iowa in 2008; but conservatives were browbeaten into surrendering the primary early and accepting “the only candidate who could beat the democrat”. How did that work out? If conservatives can resist the temptation to repeat the fiasco of 2008, this could be the turning point in the primary season.

Subscribe For Latest Updates

Sign up to receive stimulating conservative Christian commentary in your inbox.

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
7 comments
  1. While the general trends here may be accurate, the degree and at least some of the numbers flunk. Checking the OpenSecrets link, the $71,866 number given here as Santorum’s Iowa spending is actually his “Debts as of September 30.” As of that date, Santorum had spent $1,097,488, of which we can assume the bulk was in Iowa. We can also assume he spent heavily in the 4th quarter, when he finally began a media buy. This one mistake could render the conclusions on this chart in error by a factor of five or ten. I’m as ready as any conservative to gloat over Santorum’s low-budget success, but we need to get our facts straight.

    1. I will look at the data again and correct my error if I am wrong. Thanks for the heads-up.

    2. I copied three data from the wrong column: Santorum’s, Gingrich’s, and Huntman’s spending figures. The article is fixed, now. Thanks again.

      1. You’re very welcome, Christopher. Even with the corrected figures, it’s very impressive for Santorum. It will be interesting to see if the reports from the final quarter hold to the same pattern. I would assume that each of the leaders increased spending from September to caucus day. It would also be interesting to see how these numbers compare to Huckabee’s numbers in 2008.

  2. Romney did better in dense population areas,

    Well, if they voted for Romney, we know they had to be pretty dense.  😉

  3. Most important part of the entire post:

    “Santorum showed that a conservative really can win the party’s
    nomination. He won the chance to compete in earnest for the big primary
    states. Huckabee won that in Iowa in 2008; but conservatives were
    browbeaten into surrendering the primary early and accepting “the only
    candidate who could beat the democrat”. How did that work out? If
    conservatives can resist the temptation to repeat the fiasco of 2008,
    this could be the turning point in the primary season.”

    We should be reminding Republican voters of this fact like broken records.  Recall the fates of the most “moderate and electable” candidates we’ve put up for President:  Gerald Ford, George H. W. Bush, Robert Dole, John McCain…and contrast it with the performance of that “unelectable” Ronald Reagan.

Comments are closed.

You May Also Like

Obama-Romney Debate Preview

In 58 seconds watch why Mitt Romney will lose to Barack Obama.…

The Angry Christian Candidate

I find it disconcerting that the political candidates running on Judeo-Christian values…

Mazie Hirono Is A Treasure

U.S. Senator Maize Hirono (D-HI) implies that Democrats often don’t connect well with voters because they are smart and don’t appeal to voters’ hearts.

Steve King Responds to ObamaCare Ruling

Congressman Steve King (R-IA), a leading critic of ObamaCare issued the following…