Does Iowa Matter?
 

Apparently not.


http://snsimages.tribune.com/media/g...2/66792834.jpg

I was about to say "Election-wise, or about anything?"

Elections it is then. :D

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.

It will, because RON PAUL WAVE IS STARTING THERE!

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 entire election process is a disgusting joke. We need a praetorian guard, who will appoint strong leaders & kill the bad emperors.

The graph is for the last 10 caucuses. Where do you see 8 out of 9?

It's already been decided. Everyone already sees how this is gonna play out. Mitt will be the Republican Nominee, and he'll loose to Obama.

Ask the peeps riggging the election if it matters!

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.

Whatever it takes to spin the results? :1orglaugh

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?

No they did not. 6/9 Republicans and 7/9 Democrats did.

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.

Until you eliminate the incumbents.

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.

Of course it does Matter, Captain Kirk is from Iowa!

https://gfy.com/image.php?u=104991&dateline=1325572758

I got distracted I am sorry what was the question again?

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.’

http://www.infowars.com/epic-media-f...a-caucus-2012/

the fucking media

It only matters if the establishment candidate wins there. If not, it is irrelevant.

Stupid democracy. Why don't the rabble just eat up whatever the powers that be shoves down their throats.

Having choice is a privilege... not a right!





/sarcasm (just in case you made it this far and haven't realized what this post is about)

Iran has to IMPORT GASOLINE. And the media has Americans scared about that tin pot dictatorship?

The dems would love Rick Santorum or Ron Paul to win.

The irony is comical. They export oil, but can't refine it. They really have no clue at all.

:1orglaugh

Of course you would accept whatever the media says as gospel.