Opinion : The winner, and loser of the 2012 Iowa Caucus

It's only Dec. 1, but I can already predict the impact of the Iowa GOP caucus on the 2012 presidential race. I can safely predict the biggest winner, and loser.

The winner: Won't matter.

The loser: The Iowa Caucus.

Sure, a few candidates will drop out of the race after not winning enough votes in Iowa to be elected mayor of most cities. But they would have dropped out anyway.

The real loser will be the 2016 Iowa Caucus.

Iowa's caucus became famous -- and politically important -- after Jimmy Carter's successful campaign.

But Carter did not win in Iowa in 1976; he came in second. Who came in first? Undecided.

Iowa's caucus peaked in 2008, when Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards all realized they needed an early win. One of Obama's campaign leaders pointed out that Obama spent 80 days campaigning in Iowa, which was more days then JFK spent campaigning during the whole 1960 election process. His victory in Iowa was enough to begin to turn other voters towards him.

Having caucuses with such importance is good for Iowa in many ways. It gives us a chance to meet in person candidate that most people in most states may never hear of, because they dropped out after (or in some cases, before) the Iowa Caucus. It's good for the economy (especially the economy of the TV stations that run all those ads). It's good for our national image. And it's good for the journalists, who get to meet a variety of candidates that they otherwise never would. (By the way, although Vice President Joe Biden only seems to get attention when he says something stupid, he was by far the most interesting candidate that I have heard, even though I was never at all a Biden supporter.)

And, at times, the Iowa Caucus is good for some candidates.

George W. Bush won in Iowa, in 2000. Of course, the guys who came in second, third and fourth were not even politicians (Steve Forbes, Alan Keyes, Gary Bauer). The guy who came in fifth, John McCain, virtually ignored Iowa, focusing on New Hampshire, which he won by a large margin. Some people who did well in Iowa (Dole, in 88, for example) later did well.

But for the most part, the Iowa Caucus is known for making losers.

In the nine elections in which the Iowa Caucus had a noticeable impact, only one candidate -- Obama -- actually got the most votes in a race that was actually contested and went on to win the White House.

Approximately 227,000 Democrats voted in the 2008 Iowa Caucus. While that is a record turnout for Iowa, it is also less than 1/10th of one percent of the 230 million or so Americans who are eligible to vote.

It's no wonder, then, that candidates have spent less money in Iowa this year than they did in 2000, 2004, or 2008. Up until this week, Mitt Romney, one of the perceived front-runners, spent nothing in Iowa (he announced his first ads this week). CBS news, quoting someone who attended a Romney event in Florida, quoted Romney as saying he could come in fourth in Iowa without spending any money, and could come in second or third if he spends a little.

Rick Santorum has held more than 200 events in Iowa, and has visited every county. The former Pennsylvania Senator, who lost his last election in 2006 by a 60-40 percent margin, has climbed in the polls because of all of his visits. He is now at 6 percent.

I have said for years that while it's good for Iowa to have all of the attention of the candidates and media, it probably won't be very long until the rest of the nation stops paying so much attention to us. It looks like it's starting to happen now.

Unless of course, a President Santorum revives the Iowa Caucuses.