Iowa to New Hampshire, Most Irrelevant to Second

I have an aunt, a retired school teacher, who once told me that at the end of junior high school, all students should be thrown out, the gates locked, and only those who climbed over the wall to get back in should be taught. Maybe we should do the same with presidential elections. Only those people who will put up with something equivalent to the Iowa Caucuses should have their votes counted.

However, this isn't the case, so the results from the Iowa caucuses are irrelevant. They show the impact of very expensive campaigns in a small, unrepresentative state where only the most dedicated show up at all. If someone were to announce next November that a candidate who was ahead after .3% of the vote was tallied from some outlying corner of the country and most of the polls were still open, was "winning big," we'd all laugh. But the equivalent happens in Iowa in January and pundits are busy reading the tea leaves.

On to New Hampshire. There, the turnout will be a large percentage of a smaller state, equally unrepresentative. If Obama carries NH, they'll all be talking about his momentum, with far less than a percent of the voters heard from cumulatively.

We talk about Hillary being third, but the difference between her and Edwards must be in the range of 2000 votes. Next November, it will top a hundred million. This is absolutely nothing but statistical noise. The difference between her and Obama is hardly anything more. I just wish someone would say, "But let's wait for a state that matters, like California or New York." But that wouldn't be news, I guess.