Dawidziak: Iowa's straw poll worth little

Michael Dawidziak is a political consultant and pollster.

Summer is a slow time for political news, and that's one reason the media and pundits go gaga over the Ames, Iowa, straw poll. Back in the 1970s, those wily Iowans saw how to maximize their state's influence by making their caucus the first major test of the presidential primary season. Then they put the straw poll even earlier on the calendar, to ensure maximum media coverage. They don't call them Hawkeyes for nothing.

The Ames Straw Poll is primarily a fundraiser for the Iowa State Republican Party. Democrats have their own version of cashing in, by pressuring presidential hopefuls to attend the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner in Des Moines in November. With both events, candidates for the White House choose not to participate at their peril -- even if the rules and circumstances put them at a disadvantage.

For all the attention the media showers on the straw poll, the results are usually meaningless. The winner is whichever campaign turns out the most supporters. Translation: the campaign that buys the most tickets. Ames is mostly a test of a campaign's willingness to donate considerable effort and precious early dollars to a nonbinding referendum. Sometimes long-shots are motivated by their quest for legitimacy in the press. Other times, front-runners are jealously guarding their position.

As media coverage this past weekend showed, it's a carnival-like atmosphere. Candidates offer free barbecue and live entertainment in their tents. The most advantageous sites go for the highest prices. More "cha-ching" for the party coffers.

In theory, it's a venue where candidates can persuade undecided Iowan voters. In truth, most attendees have been bused in by their respective campaigns and there are few undecided voters to persuade. And there's nothing to stop committed supporters from visiting a rival's booth and enjoying the superior food and music.

The results are hardly a scientific sampling of Iowa's Republicans -- and can in fact inaccurately reflect their feelings. In 1987, Pat Robertson was able to motivate the evangelical right to attend the straw poll in overwhelming numbers. (First disclosure, I was a consultant to George H.W. Bush's campaign that year.) Even though Robertson beat Bush and Bob Dole in the straw poll, he finished second to Dole when it came to the actual state caucuses.

In 1995, Dole went into Iowa as a favorite son from the nearby fellow farming state of Kansas. He had the best turnout operation. Nevertheless, Phil Gramm tied him in the straw poll by spending a prodigious amount of money. This dead-heat finish in no way reflected reality; Dole won the caucuses easily and predictably. (Second disclosure, I was a consultant to Dole's campaign that year.)

In 1999, nobody was touching George W. Bush when it came to fundraising or operatives. But Steve Forbes was able to finish a strong second with a combination of a populist message -- the flat tax -- and a well-heeled, well-oiled operation. (Third disclosure, I was a consultant to Forbes' campaign that year). Nobody was surprised when Bush won the caucuses and cemented his status as the front-runner.

The last time around, in 2007, Mitt Romney won the poll by spending the most money -- but he was later trounced by Mike Huckabee in the caucuses.

Given their unpredictive nature, it's incredible that candidates drop their bids based on this Barnum & Bailey process. But Lamar Alexander and Dan Quayle did in 1999 -- just as Tim Pawlenty did this year.

So what does Michele Bachmann's victory or Ron Paul's strong second place mean? Historically, next to nothing. If this seems like a screwy way to start the process of selecting the leader of the free world, it is.

But, hey, at least it gives us all something to talk about.