If Iowa doesn’t predict winners successfully, why should anyone pay attention to it in predicting losers? Reagan lost in Iowa but won the nomination. Etc. It seems to me that candidates with strong religious communities supporting them do best in the poll because they have the most motivated grass roots for this sort of contest. That doesn’t tell you much, but it explains Robertson, Romney, and Huckabee.
You really are dense, aren’t you?
First of all, Reagan didn’t “lose” in Iowa. He didn’t lose the way Duncan Hunter lost. Reagan still placed respectably.
But more importantly, Reagan didn’t need Iowa. He was already strong all around. He was the front runner. Iowa is for the no-names to get a one-time shot to step out of the shadows. This time, it was Mike Huckabee who got the ticket out of Iowa. The rest of the pygmies lost. For the front runners, it was just an optional beuty pagent. Front runners don’t live and die in Iowa they way the no-name candidates do.
The one thing that has never happened was the candidate who came in dead last in the Iowa straw poll going on to win the nomination. That would be Duncan Hunter. This is the time when guys like him get sifted out of the race.
The reason why it matters is because donors are watching. People who are giving out lots of money are usually pretty careful with that money. They’re not going to throw it away on a proven loser who’s already running at 1% in the polls. No money, no campaign. Hence the candidate dropping out.
Someone like Robertson or Huckabee winning means his supporters are energized, and he gets an influx of cash that allows him to continue competing with the front runners a while longer.