Well, the day is finally here. Democrats will finally stop flushing money down the Iowa toilet - a state that will - by most people’s estimates - vote Republican in November anyway.

So, Hillary, Barak and John have spent tens of millions of dollars on a state with a population less than half that of the population of the San Francisco Bay Area - and for what?

Probably nothing.

Iowa has never picked a new Democrat president. Ever. Looking at history, it probably won’t happen this year, either.

For Iowa the caucuses are not about democracy - it’s about money for economic development in a small state with few other industries. According to the Gazette Online:

Iowa State University economics researcher David Swenson said that every $10 million spent in Iowa on advertising supports $4.8 million worth of labor income and 152 jobs, while every $10 million worth of accommodations spending supports $4.8 million in labor income and 217 jobs.

What is for sure: millions of democrat dollars have been wasted in Iowa TV and radio advertising - money that could be better spent in states that strategically matter to Democrats come November 2008: Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania - two of which need to vote for the Democratic candidate if we want to re-capture the white house from the GOP.

According to an article by Alexander Mooney on CNN.com:

Democratic Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois far outpaces any other candidate when it comes to ad spending in Iowa, having spent more than $9 million on close to 11,000 spots. That’s about $2 million more than Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York has spent ($7.2 million), and about three times the amount that former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina has shelled out ($3.2 million). Clinton has aired close to 8,000 spots while Edwards has aired 3,700.

The top three Democrats spent almost $20 million in Iowa, a red state. This is about as absurd as Huckabee, Romney and Thompson spending $20 million in the San Francisco area wooing the gay and green vote.

WHAT I WROTE A MONTH AGO:

1. Iowa will vote Republican in 2008, anyway.
2. In a contested race, the Democrat Iowa caucus winner has never gone on to win the general election. Ever. (see below)

Here is a breakdown of the winners of all the Iowa caucuses since 1972, when it first moved to become first in the nation:

• 1972 - Iowa Caucus winner: Edmund Muskie. He neither became the party candidate nor the President.
• 1976 - Iowa Caucus winner: No Winner, the largest vote went to “Uncommitted” (the eventual President, Democrat Jimmy Carter, only got 28% of the vote)
• 1980 - Iowa Caucus winner: Jimmy Carter - lost in general election to Ronald Reagan
• 1984 - Iowa Caucus winner: Walter Mondale - lost in general election as Ronald Reagan re-elected.
• 1988 - Iowa Caucus winner: Richard Gephart was not the Party’s eventual nominee.
• 1992 - Iowa Caucus winner: Tom Harkin in a landslide victory (eventual party nominee and next President, Bill Clinton only got 3% of the vote)
• 1996 - Iowa Caucus winner: Since Bill Clinton ran unopposed in the caucus, Iowa caucus-goers couldn’t help but vote for the eventual winner.
• 2000 - Iowa Caucus winner: Al Gore - did not become the next President of the U.S.
• 2004 - Iowa Caucus winner: John Kerry - did not become the next President.

So there you go. In a contested Democratic caucus, Iowa has NEVER picked the next president of the U.S.

Democrats should stop funding the economy of this red state, which is hurting our chances of winning in November.

Related posts

• Wanna join a creepy political cult? (7)
• Obama’s supporters may lose the White House for their guy (1)
• Can Obama shake the Iowa Caucus Curse? (0)
• 2008 candidates’ stands on LGBT issues (0)
• You can stick that iron where the sun don’t shine, buddy! (1)

Categories: Links
Tags: 2008, census, Democrat, election, Features, Hillary Clinton, Obama, Politics, San Francisco