Here’s an analysis by a Stanford professor on the recent New Hampshire primary:

Our analysis of all recent primaries in New Hampshire showed that there was always a big primacy effect — big-name, big-vote-getting candidates got 3 percent or more votes more when listed first on the ballot than when listed last.

The initial reaction might be that it’s yet another example of inept election management. And it is. But what’s scarier for me is that people would do this. Remember, this is a primary. There is (as far as I know) no other issue being discussed, so it’s just about the candidate you want. There’s no major moral imperative either – many people feel it’s their civic duty to vote in an election, even if they don’t like any of the candidates, but the same can’t be true to a significant degree in a primary. So presumaby these are motivated, interested people who want to make their voice heard. And they STILL get distracted by something as trivial as word order.

The first results are in: For Dems Obama wins, Edwards does credibly, Hillary not totally embarrassed, everyone else is out (surprise!). For Republicans Huckabee wins (yay, let’s put the clueless guy in charge of the war), Romney second, Thomson and McCain both do better than I would have expected, and Giulliani gets less than 4%. I know he wasn’t campaigning in Iowa, but even so that seems like a bad hit for Rudi.

This is the bit where I provide stunning insight into what this all means, right? Well I don’t have one beyond what a chimp could work out; none of the names I’ve mentioned are out of the race, even Rudi (but I wouldn’t put my money on him), but if you’re Obama or Edwards or Huckabee you’ve got to be pretty happy.

Update: Some factual analysis from Neatorama (where else?) that suggests that the result doesn’t mean nothing, but neither does it mean lots. How’s that for insight?

If I had to pick one trivial* stat that summed up the Bush administration more than any other, it would be the rise of 600% in the cost of paper-shredding for the government. Whether that’s because of heightened secrecy in the operations of public servants, or because handing out fat contracts is very nearly this administration’s raison d’être is for you to decide.

(*non-trivial stats would include amount of fear generated per head of population, and ratio of denials of torture issued to people tortured)