Does Mitt Romney Fare Better in Caucuses than Primaries? (ContributorNetwork)

One of the most memorable moments of the 2008 election was ex-Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's failure in the Iowa caucus, losing to dark horse candidate Mike Huckabee (the former governor of Arkansas) after blanketing the Hawkeye State with his wealth and campaign cash to the tune of $10 million, according to the Associated Press.

Romney never seemed to recover, blowing the lead in his backyard (New Hampshire) to John McCain, finishing an embarrassing fourth in South Carolina, before dropping out of the nomination contest. This may explain his absence from South Carolina, as reported by Holly Bailey from Yahoo's The Ticket.

The press had a field day with Romney's failures. But amidst all of these shortcomings, Romney did perform well in several states, even winning a few. The question is whether he fared better in the primaries or the caucuses. The answer could speak volumes about Romney's strategy in 2012.

To determine this answer, I looked at all of Romney's performances in the 10 caucus states, as well as the 19 primaries he placed in before dropping out. The data can be found in CNN's Election Center for the 2008 contest.

Romney did surprisingly well in the caucuses. Though he was upset in Iowa, he won eight of the ten caucus states, averaging 46.1 percent of the vote. These victories include Wyoming, Nevada, Maine, Alaska, Colorado, Minnesota, Montana and North Dakota. Each region was represented: New England, the West, the Midwest; only in the South was Romney shut out. He also amassed 176 delegates in the process from these caucus states.

The primaries were a different story. Romney only won three of the 19 primaries, including third and fourth place finishes in a number of these. In these races, he took an average of 32.58 percent of the vote, and barely half as many delegates as he did from the caucuses (though he entered twice as many primaries).

For those who keep score, a difference of means test reveals that Romney's results in caucuses was significantly better than his primary performance. Take Utah out of the equation (where he got 90 percent of the vote), and the disparity would have been even bigger.

What's even more embarrassing for Romney is that he barely got more than 50 percent in the state where he was a governor: Massachusetts (51 percent), and where his dad was a governor: Michigan (39 percent). Those were two states where he won a primary. One third of his primary delegates came from that third state where he took a primary (Utah).

So the good news is that Mitt Romney does pretty well in caucuses, despite what happened in Iowa four years ago. But he had better watch out for primaries, where his real failures were in 2008. Maybe that's why he's focusing more on the New Hampshire Primary than the Iowa Caucus, according to National Public Radio. With fewer caucuses and fewer delegates at stake in those states, it's not a bad idea to focus on his glaring weakness from 2008.

Source: http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/gop/*http%3A//news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20111223/pl_ac/10737979_does_mitt_romney_fare_better_in_caucuses_than_primaries

jeff probst king jong il dead south korea baron davis duggar family dingo fidel castro