The Clintons are Pretty Much Completely Wrong About Iowa
The Clinton campaign is playing up the idea that the results of Iowa have historically been an aberration.
"Well, you know Iowa does not have the best track record in determining who the party's nominee is," Hillary said earlier today. "Everybody knows that."
Except she's wrong.
There have been seven meaningful Iowa caucuses in which the winner – or perceived winner -- has gone on to win the nomination.
Here is the history:
2004: John Kerry wins Iowa (both in terms of votes and media perception) and wins the nomination.
2000: Al Gore wins Iowa (again, votes and media perception) and the nomination.
1996: No caucuses
1992: Caucuses were irrelevant -- ignored by the media and candidates and as consequential to the nomination fight as North Dakota.
1988: Michael Dukakis comes in third place, but -- and this is a key difference from Hillary last night -- his bronze medal is considered a moral victory by the media, since he’s competing so far from home (and against two neighboring state Senators). Finishing third gives Dukakis momentum and he wins the nomination.
1984: Walter Mondale wins Iowa and the nomination.
1980: Jimmy Carter wins Iowa and the nomination.
1976: Jimmy Carter wins Iowa and the nomination. (Technically, "uncommitted" came in first, but Carter was declared the clear winner by the media.)
1972: George McGovern comes in a surprisingly strong second to Ed Muskie and is declared the "winner" by the media. This propels McGovern to contender status and, eventually, to the nomination.
Which brings us to…
2008: Hillary Clinton, in contrast to all of the above-mentioned nominees, does not win Iowa and is not declared by the media to have posted a "surprisingly strong" showing. If she wins the nomination, she will be the only Democratic nominee in modern history to do so after suffering such a setback.
- Poll
- Obama (D)
- McCain(R)
- Spread
- RCP Average
- 46.4
- 41.6
- Obama +4.8
- Candidate
- Favorable
- Unfavorable
- Spread
- Obama
- 55.7
- 32.7
- +23.0
- McCain
- 52.4
- 34.7
- +17.7
you're ignoring the robertson and buchannan years. also ignoring the fact that for forty years every elected president had won their respective NH primaries. clinton broke that trend. but it was a far better measure than iowa ever was.
so, yes, they are absolutely CORRECT when they say iowa doesnt have the BEST track record. New Hampshire does.
this blog is starting to piss me off with it's sloppiness.
um, i think robertson and buchanan are republicans. this post is talking about democrats. and anyway, buchanan lost iowa in 96. and there was no iowa for the republicans in 1992 when he also ran. plus you can also say that no prez has been elected w/out winning NH since 1988.
i think you screwed up when you said:plus you can also say that no prez has been elected w/out winning NH since 1988.
i think you meant to say IA not NH. neither clinton nor GW bush won NH in the first go around. and while that is true 1988-2008 is a shorter time than 1952-1992. therefore NH has the better record.
regardless, your comment in no way refutes the fact that the ACTUAL winner of NH has more often and consistently gone on to be the nominee (and president) than the winner of IA, regardless of party affiliation.
was she wrong? absolutely not. was she disingenuous? probably. is she trying to spin her third place finish to look anything but the defeat that we all know it was? of course. but, it's a well known fact that NH has the better track record. which is due in no small part to the fact that it's the first actual primary ELECTION and not just a series of tupperware parties.
of course, if we want to talk about variables that have good odds of predicting a winner then the only one you need to talk about the legislative bias. with the exception of JFK (and we know how that one ended) no president has been elected when their most recently held public office was as part of a legislative body. well, not since reconstruction, anyway. so, obama, hillary, edwards have historical trends stacked against them in a variety of ways.
yes i meant with nh.
yes obviously hillary is trying to spin. nh may have a better track record with picking presidents, but she said NOMINEE, not prez. and all of the democrat nominees who ran in iowa got something positive from it, but she didn't. she cant say moral victory,. now shes just trashing the state. bet she wouldnt be if she'd done better.