Iowa will narrow the field a bit, but historically New Hampshire really matters. In every election since 1948, I think, the nominee took first or second in New Hampshire. So next week instead of nine candidates it should basically be two. Historically, second place in New Hampshire is fine, third place means you're not getting the nomination.
Iowa is less clear cut, but it should help clear up who the leaders are. Historically I think a fourth place finisher in Iowa may have gotten the nomination once.
For historical display only. This information is not current:
support@bettercgi.com ICQ 7208627 Strongbox - The next generation in site security Throttlebox - The next generation in bandwidth control Clonebox - Backup and disaster recovery on steroids
On the grand scale of winning the presidency it doesn't matter a whole lot, but it is pretty clear that it has become at least fairly important to winning your party's nomination. 8 of the last 9 nominees of their party won Iowa. That is pretty telling.
The graph is for the last 10 caucuses. Where do you see 8 out of 9?
I was counting both parties.
So on the democrats we have Clinton, Gore, Kerry and Obama
For Repubs there is G. Bush then Dole the GW Bush twice then Huckabee.
Of those nine who won the Iowa Caucus for their party only Huckabee failed to go on and win the nomination.
Of course Clinton and and one of the GW Bush nominations they were the incumbent and running unopposed so I guess to be more accurate it would be 6 out of 9.
Of course Clinton and and one of the GW Bush nominations they were the incumbent and running unopposed so I guess to be more accurate it would be 6 out of 9.
You are proving that you can spin stats to have whatever desired result you want. Why would you limit it to the last 4 elections? You think they are getting more accurate or something?
You are proving that you can spin stats to have whatever desired result you want. Why would you limit it to the last 4 elections? You think they are getting more accurate or something?
If you don't spin it and you just take the raw results regardless of whether or not the person that won was an incumbent then in both parties 7 out of the last 10 candidates who won the Iowa Caucus went on to win their party's nomination. I would say that is a pretty strong indicator that it does matter.
The people who say it doesn't matter don't want Ron Paul or Rick Santorum to win... it's as simple as that... it does matter because it means delegates... a loss in Iowa can be overcome... but it still matters.
Four years ago, the media branded Iowa as all-important; now, with Ron
Paul in a position to possibly win the caucus, the GOP is poised to
say ‘who cares about Iowa.’
Four years ago, the media branded Iowa as all-important; now, with Ron
Paul in a position to possibly win the caucus, the GOP is poised to
say ?who cares about Iowa.?
The people who say it doesn't matter don't want Ron Paul or Rick Santorum to win... it's as simple as that... it does matter because it means delegates... a loss in Iowa can be overcome... but it still matters.
The dems would love Rick Santorum or Ron Paul to win.
The people who say it doesn't matter don't want Ron Paul or Rick Santorum to win... it's as simple as that... it does matter because it means delegates... a loss in Iowa can be overcome... but it still matters.
Originally posted by DaddyHalbucks
Four years ago, the media branded Iowa as all-important; now, with Ron
Paul in a position to possibly win the caucus, the GOP is poised to
say ?who cares about Iowa.?
Of course you would accept whatever the media says as gospel.
Comment