The overdue death of an insane fake political institution

So I have a question, who here knows the name Tim Pawlenty? Anyone? Anyone at all?

If you do, its likely you know him for one of two reasons, you remember the early Republican primaries this year and either you remember the guy who coined the term Obamneycare.....and then wouldnt say it to Mitt Romneys face, or you frequently bring up his name to express regrets that he didnt stay in the race. After all he might have won, and in short has all of Mitt Romney's strengths and none of his weaknesses and compared to some of the other crazies in the race would have had a really good shot at getting the nomination, better then Ron Paul or Newt or Santorum in all likelyhood. he might even have been able to become president, given his [comparatively] social moderate/fiscal conservative record. In fact after leaving the race he went to work for Mitt Romney, leading a lot of republicans to hope he and not Ryan would be the Vice Presidential pick as well, because by that time a lot of them believed (correctly in my opinion) he'd have been a much better candidate.

But the honest truth is, unless your a political junkie like me, you probably never heard of him, and the reason for that is that he dropped out of the race really early, specifically in August 2011, after losing something called the Ames [Iowa] Straw poll. By losing what I really mean is he came in 3rd out of 10, but that only got him 13.6% of the vote leading him to say this (from a larger quote but you'll get the point):

"But obviously that message didn't get the kind of traction or lift that we needed and hoped for coming into and out of the Ames straw poll. We needed to get some lift to continue on and to have a pathway forward. That didn't happen. So I'm announcing this morning on your show that I'm going to be ending my campaign for president"

Now clearly of course if a 3rd place finish means you'll never get traction and need to exit the race, Mitt Romney, the eventually primary winner, and the guy who won the most states, came in first right? No actually try 7th. And the other "big 3" of the republicans? those who actually won states in the primary? Well Newt came in 8th (won the least states) and Santorum came in 4th (second most states). Which means they all did worse then Pawlenty but stuck around. (Ron Paul for the record won 0 states, but picked up several states majority delegates anyways due to the odd nature of the primary system in the GOP...also came in 2nd in the straw poll)

It should be noted too by the way that Rick Perry wasnt in the presidential race at the time of the poll, so was not officially entered, but a as a write-in came in 6th....beating the eventual nominee Mitt Romney. And his comparative success in the poll was a major factor in his entering the race.

But who actually WON the thing? That would be Michelle Bachmann, who was considered and treated as the front runner for several months following her won...well at least until she came in 6th in the Iowa primary and dropped out.

Now look clearly there are other reasons Pawlenty dropped out when other candidates didnt, but still the straw poll was a major part of it. And it's probably true for Perry as well. But still a single event that has the power to cause one candidate to leave, another to enter, and make a frontrunner out of someone who has less change of ever being president then I do, you gotta admit thats power and influence.

And lets be honest you dont amass that kind of power and influence without having a pretty good track record right, so the fact that this year was so far off must have been a fluke right? Not really no. In 2008 the winner of the Straw Poll was Mitt Romney ironically enough, the eventual nominee that year, John McCain came in 10th (of 11). Other previous winners of the poll include Texas senator Phil Gramm and Pat Robertson (yes the wack job on the 700 club).

Now if you look at that list of candidates compared to the fields that years you notice the winners tend to be very very far to the right. And you might also note, except for the first poll in 1980, every year there has been a straw poll (not a Republican incumbent) the democrats have carried Iowa (in fact except for 2004 they have carried in every election since 1980, straw poll or not) And some in the party believe that part of the reason candidates in the republican primary have to go so far to the right is to play for the usually wrong voters in the straw poll. So for people who want a viable competitive republican party (like me, even though I'm a democrat I want at least two strong parties) they tend to be very much against the poll.

In fact in 33 years the straw poll has only predicted the Republican nominee twice ( Dole in 96 and W Bush in 2000) and the president once (Bush 2000). Which means in all honesty I have a better track record of picking presidents (my guesses over my life time have been Gore, Kerry, Obama, Obama so I'm at 50% at least), as do several wild animals

In otherwords its track record SUCKS. And actually to let you in on a secret, it's also rigged. What do I mean by that? well in order to attend the fundraising dinner you go to in order to vote in this thing your supposed to pay $30, but the tradition with all the campaigns is that they will pay the fee (and usually the transportation costs) of all of their supporters. So instead of being a "popular" vote, its really just indicative of who has already raised enough money to bus in a ton of people to vote for them.  But since no one wants to admit to that, the candidates still have to appear to move right to pretend to actually play for the votes

but the rigged system explains most of the other reasons Pawlenty dropped out (he was broke after the poll since he spend all his money on the poll), and why both Bachmann and Romney dropped out 5 months after their wins and why the massive losers those years (7th place Romney and 10th place McCain) won the nominations. Generally the winners and dropouts spend way too much money on a vote that is basically wrong and irrelevant, only those who dont give a damn about the poll (like Romney said this time around, or McCain the last time) tend to actually have any real money left afterwards to get anywhere.. 

In otherwords its not really helping anyone....well except the state of Iowa, cause it makes them seem important. See the Iowa straw poll is the first of many state straw polls in the primary (and the only one anyone gives a damn about) so its the first event of any kind that in theory could show the feelings of the electorate to any candidate. Basically its informally the same thing and same justifications used by Iowa for the Iowa caucus...the first actual VOTING event of the primary.(although the caucus has a similarly bad track record, over the same 33 year period the only two times they predicted the nominee were the same two years the straw poll did). So traditionally Iowa politicians love both the caucus and straw poll and fight to keep, and promote both as a way of ensuring Iowa is both importantly politically and that national politicians have a reason to promote Iowa friendly issues.

Or at least thats the way its been until now. See the current Republican Governor of Iowa Terry Branstad is taking a page from the late great pro wrestler Owen Hart and saying in short "“Enough is enough and it's time for a change".

Specifically what Gov Branstad is saying is "I think the straw poll has outlived its usefulness. It has been a great fundraiser for the party but I think its days are over...You saw what happened the last time. I don’t think candidates will spend the time or money to participate in a straw poll if they don’t see any real benefit coming out of it.”

Now to be fair Branstad is taking massive push back from other republicans in his own state, who still crave the attention they get for the straw poll. As an example the head of the RNC in Iowa A.J Spiker said “Gov. Branstad is wrong, and this is not a decision he will make anyway, It is a decision the party and the candidates will make.” adding [totally incorrectly] “There is nothing like it in the country and I am surprised any Iowan would ever talk it down.” And sadly it appears at the moment Spiker speaks for more official republicans in Iowa then Branstad.

But Branstad is a pretty conservative republican (to the point this is likely the only thing he and I will ever agree on), and a high ranking Iowa official, so the fact he is openly opposed to the straw poll is extremely newsworthy. And while I'm sure there will be a 2016 Iowa straw poll Branstad's opposition (and hopefully the opposition of others like him) I believe signals the beginning of the end of the Iowa Straw poll (by 2020 maybe or 2024)

And without the straw poll one of the major publicity reasons for republican nominees to run far right also vanishes, which means they are much more likely to embrace a more mainstream Republican approach and play much more to that group of Republicans. Which in turn will create a stronger and more viable and inclusive republican party. And stronger more inclusive parties are good for the country overall.

So for taking the first steps to kill this worthless, usually wrong, cheap excuse for a publicity play, I'm actually going to have to give my thumbs up of the month to Gov Branstad.

See never let it be said I cant say nice things about Republicans :P.