Iowa Caucus cost per vote

[woodsmoke]

This will be my only post in this thread if it becomes a thread because I'm not going to "get into politics".

But... an odd statistic was mentioned on Fox News analysis and I can't find a post on it on the net but it was something like this:

The "cost per vote" for Romney to get to 25 percent of the caucus was (I think) $113 dollars per vote.

The "cost per vote" for Santorum to get to 25 percent of the caucus was.. (I think) $1.50(that is one dollar and fifty cents). per vote.

The numbers are PROBABLY not precise but the HUGE CHASM between the cost for the two men to get their votes was staggering.

And, if it was that CHEAP for Santorum to get the same percentage as Romney...well... we shall see who ends up being the Republican candidate and may look back and muse....hmmmm

if anyone has the actual numbers please post them because

a) I may be completely wrong
b) I DO know that I am probably off in the "detail"...but the big point to me was the chasm.

woodsmoke

[SteveRiley]

Re: Iowa Caucus cost per vote

Strong opinion ahead.

State-by-state caucuses and primaries are relics that have persisted long beyond their usefulness (just like the Electoral College). It is inexcusable that 130,000 people -- who are far from representative of the larger population -- get to set the tone of the next 11 months of campaigning.

It's high time we move to a single national primary and, while we're at it, limit the campaign to 100 days and use only public funding.

</dismount-soapbox>

[woodsmoke]

Re: Iowa Caucus cost per vote

Again, I am not going to "get political" here.

The analysis today was that Romney spent $49.00 per vote and Santorum spent $00.73 per vote.

Still a huge gap.

It might be equated with two anecdotes about the Kennedy and Nixon debates.

Both have been both promoted and dismissed.

a) It was the first televised debate and the studio was hot. Nixon appeared "sweaty" most of the time while Kennedy did not. The "sweatiness" was ascribe to the heat, not nervousness on Nixon's part, apparently there were differences in the placement of spotlights etc.

As a consequence: Apparently, those who "listened" to the debate and those who "watched" the debate reached different conclusions about who "won" the particular debate. Those who "listened" gave the debate to Nixon, those who "watched" gave it to Kennedy.

b) There is another anecdote to the effect that "the person who spoke last" won the debate. Apparently there the polling was sufficiently fine grained that the pollsters went back and asked "who won" of the same people week to week in addition to "new" people each week.

Again, both of these are both promoted and also derided.

But, the point of them is that what one sees in the speeches and the talking heads analysis is always about "this or that" but it just "might be" that the "cost per vote" is either a good, or bad, indicator of who might win.

And, it could be that this has nothing to do with it, it could be a "dark horse" who finally gets the nomination.

In any case, it will be interesting, for me at least, to see who wins the nomination for the GOP given the above.

woodsmoke

[dibl]

Re: Iowa Caucus cost per vote

I could live with 4 regional primaries that rotate the sequence. There's something to be said for a system that encourages the candidates to come visit the governed in their own part of the country. And yes, 6 months is way plenty leadtime for the national conventions.