Some random participant observer opinions regarding Tuesday’s primary results and what we know about the lead up . . .
End of primary campaign finance reports are not available at this writing however any that change or add to our understanding of events will be acknowledged. As always reader observations, alternative views and supportive or contrary information are welcome.
- Joni Ernst won the U.S. Senate primary achieving 56.12 % of the votes cast. She more than tripled the percentage of the next highest vote getter, Sam Clovis at 17.99%. Mark Jacobs was third statewide at 16.82%. Matt Whitaker finished a distant fourth place at 7.54% and Scott Schaben managed 1.44% of the vote.
- As reported previously the percentages above do not reflect an enthusiastic response to the primary from Republicans. The turnout figure statewide was at least 30% less than the 2010 turnout in raw numbers. The two primaries are arguably comparable because no incumbents were involved in the high profile races at the top of the ticket. The 2014 race was arguably the most compelling because of the national significance of Republican efforts to take over the U.S. Senate. Nationally known entities entered the fray on behalf of or in opposition to the various candidates (with the exception of Scott Schaben). Yet the turnout was lower.
- Ernst’s winning raw vote total was less than distant second place finisher Bob Vander Platts in the 2010 primary election for governor against Terry Branstad, a well known multi-term former governor.
- Scott County results were substantially worse in turn-out at ~35% reduction in raw voter turnout. The candidate selection also tracked differently than the statewide percentage figures with Ernst and Jacobs the one two finishers, however distant. Ernst won Scott County with 66.2% of the vote, still nearly tripling Jacobs second place showing of 22.49% . A greatly distant third was Sam Clovis at 7.16 %. The Matt Whitaker vote was only 2.82 % of those cast with Schaben coming in at 1.14%.
- Linn County was closer to Scott County as regards candidate spread than the state figures. However its turnout figures tracked with the state figure, doing “less worse” than Scott County compared to 2010. Ernst received 62.82 % of the vote in Linn compared to 22.55% for Jacobs. Sam Clovis was a distant third in Linn at 6.75% (a little worse showing than in Scott County) and Whitaker did better there than in Scott with 6.97% of the vote.
- Great amounts of money were spent to influence the Senate primary race targeting or benefiting Jacobs and Ernst. The other candidates raised and spent comparatively little and spent no significant amount on “going negative” on a theory of enhancing themselves. All the negative money (opposition to another candidate or his or her positions) was focused on Ernst and Jacobs, and by Jacobs (especially) and Jacobs (or by supporters of hers). That is probably key to the turn-out figures.
- It is reported Jacobs spent perhaps 3 million dollars of personal funds directly or as loans (mostly) to his campaign. It was the largest amount of a candidate’s personal money loaned or donated to advance themselves politically in Iowa history. The distant next highest, a Democrat some years ago, was a loser as well.
- Significant amounts of money were spent by outside groups pointing out Jacob’s shortcomings, indeed driving home that he was an implausible candidate for Iowa — prey to a carpetbagger persona, not an authentic conservative, wealthy Goldman Sachs alum, Democrat donor, supporter of cap and trade and Common Core. While the money spent was significant, the message resonated and did not require overwhelming airtime.
- Jacobs spent a large percentage of his campaign resources on doing negatives on Joni Ernst. It was effective to the extent of suppressing the vote in general and probably for her. The problem for Jacobs was that it suppressed the vote for him and interest in the race in general because those two were perceived as the most likely nominees. A pox on both their houses effect and declining interest in the results.
- Jacobs made excuses for his donations to Democrats and support for cap and trade but did not apologize to any politically significant extent. It was simply a no win situation for him. He could only seek to draw down his main opponent, or interest in the likely outcome of the race, which he proceeded to do.
- The other candidates did not spend any significant amount of resources “going negative” on others, nor did they attract outside organizations to do so. Clovis and Whitaker did have well known endorsements, but those were of a positive nature. They did not have money to go negative if they wanted to. With a couple hundred thousand dollars more money to invest in the same approach they used with what they had, we believe Clovis and Whitaker would have fared much better.
More commentary to come.
