The Iowa caucuses meant absolutely nothing!

So much was made of the first primary of the season, you would think that it was a predictor of the nomination/presidential win...it isn't. First, this is not a jab at citizens of Iowa or New Hampshire, more of a jab at our politically motivated corporate media.

In the past six presidential primaries, the Iowa vote predicted one out of six winners, those type of odds aren't going to make anyone rich in Vegas...except the bookies. Let's delve a bit deeper into Iowa, and, for that matter, New Hampshire.

First, Iowa. The state of Iowa has 3,062,309 citizens, which is 30th in the nation. Its largest city is Des Moines with a population of 203,433. The racial demographics of the state is that is 96% white, 84% of their welfare recipients are white and 52% consider themselves Protestant(no differential between moderate and evangelical) and the average income is $48,000(24th in the country). The unemployment rate in Iowa is under 7%.

Now, the Republican caucus numbers: approximately 122,000 showed up to participate, that's less than 20% of the registered republicans in the state. The participants were 99% white, 70% consider themselves evangelical christians. The demographics of Iowa vs. the United States is just a bit skewed.

And lets look at those returns with information on 2008 also rans:

Romney: 30,015 24.6% 2008: 30,021

Santorum: 30,007 24.5% ?

Paul: 26,219 21.5% 2008: 11,841

I kept hearing about how "75% of the caucus goers voted AGAINST Romney!" No one mentioned that 80% of Iowa registered republicans didn't even bother to show up! That may have more to do with the caucus procedures than anything else, about the same amount of voters participated in 2008, but it does show that only 122,000 people out of a population of 3 Million decided in this way. In contrast, over 818,000 Iowa citizens voted for Barak Obama in 2008(and 697,000 for McCain).

So, New Hampshire? It has a population of 1,318,194, 42nd in the nation. Their average income? $60,441, sixth in the country and, again, 94% white, although New Hampshire folks don't neccessarily cozy up to evangelical theology...or any theology for that matter. About 32% consider themselves Protestant, but only 54% of the populace believe there is a god. And Santorum has already had problems with 2 republican rallies in the Granite state...

But the media focuses so much on these 2, partially because they are first I assume, that you would think they showed a microcosm of the United States...not so much...

United States Statistics:

We are a diverse nation, all but the religion stats are from the 2010 Census:

White: 72%, Black: 14%, Hispanic: 16%....immensely different than both Iowa and New Hampshire. The mean average in this country? $49,445, much lower than New Hampshire, in line with Iowa. And that evangelical vote? Just by going with the protestant statistics, the country is about 37% protestant, not 54% as is Iowa.

And, after all of these comparisons/contrasts, what's my point? Just to keep these primaries in perspective. There is a movement in the country to have "roving" regional primaries--come on, all those media folks, candidates and their staff bring extra money into the area...who goes out of their way to visit every country in Iowa for anything else???? Or any state for that matter? Having maybe 4 regional primary areas(I don't know....east coast, west coast, south and midwest?) would be a boon to all and give everyone a chance to be first every so often...like it actually matters for political status!