The media did our country a disservice by merely stating the results of the Ames, Iowa, straw poll instead of really presenting an analysis of what the poll showed. In fact, what the straw poll showed us is that Romney’s first-place finish was unimpressive, and that Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul were the big winners. What I mean is that if one were to take all the major national polls and correct them to reflect the absence of Giuliani, McCain, Gingrich and Fred Thompson (because they were not campaigning for votes in the straw poll), then Romney should have expected to garner close to two thirds of the votes in Iowa, while Huckabee and Paul should have polled at around 8 and 2.5 percent respectively.

Instead, Romney only polled at 31.5 percent (less than half of what the normalized national polls would predict), while Huckabee’s 18 percent is twice what the polls would predict and Ron Paul’s 9.1 percent is an amazing three and a half times more support than the polls predicted. I’ll admit that this method of comparison is not without some flaws, but it shows that there is more to the story than just reporting how the candidates placed.

In the words of Herbert Asher, a political science professor at the Ohio State University, “continuing coverage of long-term trends, and background news is often neglected” by the media. So, congratulations to Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee. The media should get off the Rudy McRomneyson bandwagon and shine a little spotlight on the “second-tier” candidates who are actually delivering a message the American public wants to hear.

For a more clear explanation of the math I used above, visit http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/ames-straw-poll-results.html.

William Osmer

Bangor