By Jay Panandiker

It’s virtually impossible to watch any news show on television without hearing mention of the Republican presidential candidates. Last week, when I turned on CNN, they had a clock in the corner counting down the hours until the Iowa caucuses. So far the Republican candidates have each spent millions of dollars in the state already, and there have been several debates there. In addition, SuperPACs have spent well over ten million dollars. In spite of all of this, there are so many reasons that lead me to believe that what happens in Iowa has no lasting effects on the presidential race.

A graphic by The Chicago Tribune showing past Iowa Caucus results.

One perspective on the Iowa caucus is that the winner gains significant momentum, and the win in Iowa often sets the tone for the rest of the election. However, recent winning statistics show that Iowa is not all that accurate in predicting the nominee. In fact, since 1980, a non-incumbent Iowa Caucus winner has become the nominee only twice. That is equal to about a 40% success rate.

My guess as to why this happens is the fact that Iowa is a caucus state and not a primary state. In a primary, a registered party member can go into a polling booth, vote, and leave within minutes. However, in Iowa, each town has their own meeting in a public place, usually a school or church. In the Democratic Primary, each individual must publicly declare whom he or she is voting for.  Then, whichever candidate has the most votes wins that precinct. However, in the Republican Caucus, each member of the community writes their candidate’s name on a sheet of paper. These slips of paper are then counted and recounted several times.  Both party’s caucuses must have multiple hour meetings. So instead of spending five minutes voting, a voter must spend two or three hours.  These impractical and long meetings lead to very few people showing up to vote. Often those who do show up are from the extremes of the party, because they are the only people patient enough to sit in a meeting for hours. I believe this is why, in 2008, the more conservative Mike Huckabee won the Iowa Caucus, while in 1980 the more moderate Ronald Reagan lost.

The second problem I have with the focus on Iowa is its role in the general election. While candidates spend the most money in valuable battleground states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida, Iowa is not far behind these states. For starters, Iowa is not a battleground state at all in the general elections.  In every election since 1988, Iowa has been a blue state in the presidential race.  Even in 1988, when George H.W. Bush got 426 electoral votes and California went Republican, Iowa went Democratic. Moreover, Iowa could never decide a presidential election. There will never be a moment where a candidate says, “Oh, if only I could have won Iowa.” Its six electoral votes are dwarfed by states like New York (29), Texas (38), or California (55).

In this election year, only the Republican Party has to worry about the Iowa caucus. Many of this year’s caucus goers will be Evangelical Christian voters. These voters are often the most conservative in the American political system, because they combine fiscal conservancy with conservative social values. So in the weeks leading up to the Iowa caucuses, candidates try to focus on these voters the most, which makes the GOP candidates appear far more conservative than they actually are. With so much media attention in Iowa, this could turn out to hurt the candidates in the end. The current political rhetoric could potentially turn off the important independent voters.

A graphic by the New York Times showing the 2012 Iowa Caucus Results.

In 2012 especially, it is clear that the polls change every week, and almost every candidate has had their moment at the top. Even though Michele Bachmann won the Ames Iowa Straw Poll in August, she lost momentum and even dropped out of the race, while Mitt Romney has risen to the top. Polls were still fluctuating days before the caucuses. Many political thinkers suggest that there is no candidate that satisfies both the conservative base and the moderates. They argue that GOP is trying to find candidates other than Mitt Romney to pit against President Obama in 2012.

This year in Iowa, frontrunner Mitt Romney won by a marginal eight votes – the closest victory in the history of the caucuses. Rick Santorum, who was nowhere to be seen leading up to Iowa, came in a close second. However, in New Hampshire, Romney won by a huge margin of 17 percent. In my opinion, Santorum came so close in Iowa for two reasons. First off, he spent more hours campaigning there than any other candidate. Furthermore, the Iowa caucuses just happened to coincide with his time at the top of the polls.

When I turned on CNN the day after the Iowa Caucus, I heard one analyst say that Santorum can carry the momentum from Iowa, through the election. However, Santorum now is running low on funds, and he came in fifth place in New Hampshire, behind Romney, Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman, and Newt Gingrich. Many people find Paul, who placed third in Iowa, unelectable due to his libertarian views.

And lastly, just for a little bit of perspective: in the Iowa Caucuses this year, 121,147 people (or about 4 percent of the state) voted in the caucus. In New Hampshire, 242,908 people (or about 18 percent of the state) voted in the primary. This statistic alone shows that the Iowa caucus represents a small group of partisan voters. What happens in New Hampshire is more representative of what may happen around the country.

There is a political proverb that says, “Iowa picks corn, New Hampshire picks presidents.” And there is some truth to that statement. After all, what ever happened to Mike Huckabee after he won in Iowa?