The second state to weigh in held its primary yesterday. Judging from the results, it’s going to be a long spring. Anybody who is interested has probably already learned the results, so I have other observations to ponder.

The efficacy of entrance and exit polls, for example. I’ve come to the conclusion these polls hold little value, except for CNN and Fox News, that offer 24/7 commentary and must fill all those airwave minutes. My solution to this is to have CNN and Fox on only part of each day. I mentioned this to Earl who said, “Yes, but think of the advertising revenues that would be lost.” He has a point, except if there were a shorter broadcasting day there would be less need for such revenues.

As a child, I remember television stations going off the air at various hours in the night. Anyone with insomnia was invited to watch the test pattern that was shown until the station returned to the air the next day. I suspect there were fewer insomniacs back then, and I think there is merit in returning to this approach to avoid innocuous drivel from air-headed reporters.

Another issue I have: the presidential race is so wide open that no candidate is truly going to be representative. Take the Democrats. There are three front runners, one of which won Iowa and the other which won New Hampshire. The third will probably win one of the upcoming states. So, at this point in time, regardless of which candidate wins he or she really represents about a third of the Democratic votes. The other two thirds may have to swallow hard to vote along party lines. This isn’t an overwhelming victory for any candidate.

Then there’s the candidates’ assessments of their individual situations. Each has been guilty of saying something like, “This is only one state; we’re in it for the long haul; and we’re going to win.” Maybe this spurs supporters to excitement, but the last part of this exhortation may or may not come to pass. I’ve always been a believer in setting the expectations at a reasonable level and then exceeding them, instead of claiming victory before the final vote is cast. I guess I haven’t arrived in the twenty-first century yet.

Finally, I’m tired of adjectives, and I’ve only been engaged in the sport of politics since January 2. But such phrases as “explosive comeback,” “upset,” and “clear lead” are way over the top for me. Clinton’s showing in New Hampshire may not have been what the pundits predicted, but I don’t think it can be categorized as either “explosive” or a “comeback.” I wish, along with limits on campaign funding and the number of months candidates can campaign, there was a third rule. It would be that no superlative adjective could ever be used. Which means that one of my sentences early in this commentary would say that “. . . I think there is merit in returning to this approach to avoid drivel from reporters.”

I’m willing to start campaign reform by cutting out adjectives if everyone else is.

Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee won in Iowa last night, although I can’t say theirs were decisive victories. I know they want to think that, and maybe the media promotes it; but let’s put the Democratic and Republican caucuses in perspective.

It was estimated that between 120 thousand and 150 thousand Democrats would participate, while 80 to 90 thousand Republicans would do the same. I haven’t read the actual numbers for the turnout, but it did seem that attendance ran high.

Here’s the thing. As of 2006, approximately 2.9 million people claimed Iowa as home. Of those residents, approximately 23.8 percent were under the age of eighteen and not eligible to caucus. That left 2.2 million. Now if both Democratic and Republican turnouts were at the high end of the original estimates, it means that little more than ten percent of the population affected the outcome. I wouldn’t call this decisive.

What I would say is that those who voted seemed to want younger leaders, candidates who pride themselves on being outside the Washington Beltway’s political influence. Obama is forty-seven, Huckabee is fifty-two. Maybe candidates who were born before 1950 better think about this.

New Hampshire’s primary is next. For the record — and I researched the U.S. Census Bureau for all statistics in this blog — that state’s 2006 estimated population was 1.3 million, with approximately 22.6 percent of those residents under 18 years of age. That leaves a little over a million people who could go to the primary on January 8. Regardless of whom they vote for, I hope more than ten percent — even more than twenty percent — show up. A decisive victory would have more meaning if more people were involved.

Nobody can call me politically astute; in fact, I’ve spent most of 2007 trying to avoid any discussions, debates, or debacles that reek of politics. But, with the Iowa caucus being held tomorrow, it’s time to become an educated voter. No, I’m not planning to visit Des Moines and participate; rather, I told myself about ten months ago that on January second I would take off the blinders I’ve deliberately worn and spend time learning about the candidates, their ideas, and — perhaps most significantly — their voting or vetoing records.

Earl frequently says that past behavior is a good indicator of future performance, and I agree. My mother often quoted the phrase, “What you do speaks so loudly, I cannot hear what you are saying.” Usually she said this when I had done something she disapproved of and was trying to apologize.

In this day of over-the-top rhetoric and in-your-face confrontation, I’m thinking these two sayings apply. It isn’t really about what the candidates promise in the heat of the race as it is about what they’ve done after other victories. Besides, with negative campaigning becoming a hallmark of political advertising, we hardly learn what the candidates themselves really stand for. I mean REALLY stand for.

To show up as an educated voter in November, I’ve decided to first refine where I stand on such issues as education, the war in Iraq, the economy, illegal immigration, and the family (This list is not exhaustive, only representative). Then I plan to study the candidates and vote for the one whose past performance suggests a match with my thinking. I have the feeling that some of the candidates want the process to be the other way around. They want to tell me what the “right” thing to think is.

I’m not sure which is the politically astute way — theirs or mine — but I’ve spent many hours with my blinders on trying to decide what to do when I removed them. This is what I came up with, and now that January 2, 2008 is here I plan to begin.