A Lot Of Money Was Spent For Very Few Votes

Last Tuesday night about 122,000 Iowa Republicans caucused to vote for their favorite in the presidential race, and to elect delegates to the regional and state conventions. Those conventions are where the real delegates will be apportioned, but it can be assumed that those delegates will roughly resemble the portions of the vote each candidate got in the caucus vote. There are 28 delegates from Iowa (or about 1 delegate for every 4350 caucus attendees).

A lot of money was spent to get the favor of those 123,000 Iowa Republicans (about 5.4% of the total registered voters in the state, which means even most Republicans didn't go to those caucuses). The top chart shows the amount of money spent just on TV ads in Iowa for each candidate -- by the campaigns themselves, by their SuperPACs, and by other groups or organizations. The breakdown by each candidate is shown in the top chart, but here is the total amount spent on TV ads by each of the three groups:


By the campaigns...............$9,775,411
By the superPACs...............$4,606,115
By other groups...............$1,161,035
Total spent by all three...............$15,542,561

So about $15.5 million was spent on TV ads -- or about $127.40 for each caucus attendee. And that is only the TV ad expenditures. We don't know how much was spent on hotels, travel, building rentals, yard signs & buttons, newspaper & other advertising, postage, and other miscellaneous expenses. We can be sure that those expenses would add a significant figure to that $15.5 million.

And that is just for one state. There are 49 more to go (and the District of Columbia). That kind of money will not be spent in every state, but if the nomination fight drags on for a while (as it certainly could, considering the strong anti-Romney feeling among Republicans), then the Republicans are going to spend a ton of money just to get a nominee.

In looking at the above chart numbers, I believe there are two things the Democrats can be happy about. First, the amount of money spent did not translate directly into votes. Rick Perry spent the most money, but only wound up in fifth place with 10% of the vote. That 10% cost him about $478 for each one of those votes -- not very cost effective. And Romney didn't come out a lot better. Although he spent about $155 for each vote he got, he was tied by Santorum who only spent about $21 for each of his votes. Could it be that the coming general election will not be determined by massive dollar amounts of TV advertising?

Second, it is starting to look like the Republican nominating process is going to be very expensive -- and the longer it takes for any candidate to get a majority of the delegates, the more money will be spent. And any money spent in the nominating process is money that won't be available to be spent in the general election. There is the idea out there that Republicans will have unlimited funds for the general election, especially due to the money flowing in from Wall Street and the corporations. But that may not be true. Everyone, even the rich, have a limit on how much they are willing to spend on any election.

And while the Republicans are currently spending money like it was water (and this will grow larger with each state primary), president Obama is spending virtually nothing. Both his campaign organization and his superPAC are sitting on a mountain of money -- and those mountains will only grow as the election gets nearer. He will have enough money to effectively compete in the general election.

Personally I hope the Republican nominating process is a long a bitter one -- one that not only muddies the eventual winner, but costs him a ton of money.