The end of the Iowa Straw Poll may seem inconsequential because, well, the Iowa Straw Poll had come to seem inconsequential.
But it does matter. It’s good news for the candidates who already have more money and higher poll numbers, and it’s bad news for the candidates hoping to be propelled into the top tier through a straw poll win.
For context, a note on 2011:
In 2011, the straw poll helped nobody. Michele Bachmann won, but that proved to be the peak of her popularity. That one instance doesn’t prove the straw poll’s worthlessness any more than the 2014 election proves Maryland is a Republican state.
What happened in 2011 was this: Bachmann had recently peaked in national polls. She had defined herself, a bit earlier in the summer, as the anti-Romney. Although she had begun to fall in polls already by mid-August, her time as the anti-Romney had left her with a bit of an organized base of support in Iowa, which carried her to victory in the straw poll.
Then immediately after the straw poll, Texas Gov. Rick Perry entered the race and stole her thunder as the conservative anti-Romney. Perry’s entry makes the 2011 straw poll an odd case rather than the norm.
Here’s what could have happened in 2015:
A second-tier candidate with a dedicated following — Santorum (who kind of won the Iowa caucuses in 2012), Jindal (who is running as the truest culture-war candidate), Fiorina (who is connecting with the most punches on Hillary), Perry, or another — could have pulled off a win through a combination of organization, organic support and luck. That could have the effect of propelling him or her into the public spotlight as the up-and-coming candidate, and suddenly be in the same tier as Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and Scott Walker. A bump in poll numbers could have secured the candidate a place in a debate, and made a big difference.
That wouldn’t be implausible if there were a straw poll. Now that there won’t be one, such a comeback story becomes harder.
