Iowa's record of picking winners

Iowans are pretty good at getting the winners correct?
How many of those Iowa winners got elected POTUS or even the nomination?

Here is the Iowa record:
'72 uncommitted, (lost nomination), '76  (lost nomination), '80 Carter(lost general), '84 Mondale, (lost nomination), '88 Gephardt, (lost nomination), '92 Harkin, (lost nomination), '96 Clinton WON nomination & general, '00 Gore, (lost general), 04 Kerry, (lost general)

So Iowa has ONE WIN from 1972 on.

Personally I don't think that is a great record. I would like to see early primary and caucus states more representative of the general population. Any other thoughts about this record and possibly moving around the early states?



Display:


Re: Iowa's record of picking winners (none / 0)

Agree. If Obama becomes the nominee, we are going to lose. Not because he is black or anything, but because the GOP will tear him down on inexperience and the people outside our loser party (i hate saying that) will look at that. Second, a "Barack HUSSEIN Obama" ad is coming near you and finally, the GOP machine took down so many, let's hope he doesn't become another victim. But, its a distinct possibility. We have a good record of losing elections we are supposed to win.

88, 00, 04


by American1989 on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 02:19:16 PM EST

Re: Iowa's record of picking winners (none / 0)

Your Naive if you don't think that Hillary is susceptible to attacks just because she has been tarred and feathered by the GOP before.  Until her graceful handling of the Lewinsky affair, she was not liked much by a majority of people.  

No one has brought up Lewinsky, Travelgate, Whitewater and the other myriad of scandals the Clintons were associated with.  She's in for it just as much as Obama, probably worse.  


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 05:06:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa's record of picking winners (none / 0)

The only problem with this argument is that if Obama has lost Iowa to Clinton, the race would be over.


by Louverture on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 03:11:28 PM EST

Re: Iowa's record of picking winners (none / 0)

The thing is Hillary didn't lose by a little in Iowa, given the 'dead heat' narrative prior to the caucus and her campaign's ambiguity on expectations her loss was truly devastating.  The caucus wasn't 'picking a winner' it was fundamentally changing the context of the primaries to follow.  There can be no disputing that Obama is now, if only for these crucial few days, the front-runner.

That is a dynamic which must have been high on Hillary's worst case scenario list.


by Shaun Appleby on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 03:19:27 PM EST

Re: Concern for a Great but Inexperienced (none / 0)

As some of you know, I'm a business owner & active officer of the Chamber of Commerce in two neighboring states.

I am also a lifelong democrat. The Chamber of Commerce across America is composed roughly of 60% Republican, 40% Democrat.

This is the same chamber that gives millions of dollars in contributions to reps & dems. The 60% of Reps give to the Republicans. We dems give to the Democrats.

Fully 75% of all Chamber of Com members are Small Business Owners . ( 500 employees or less ). Another 20% are Medium size business owners ( 500+ to 2,500 employees) & about 5% are the BIG BUSINESSES. ( the national & multinational)

As you know, 85% of all adult working Americans are employed by small or medium size businesses. We are the backbone of the U.S. economy.

Without small & medium sized business owners, the economy would collapse.

We've had TWO National surveys done across america among All members. One in October & another in December.

They lumped in All dems & reps candidates into one survey.

Both national surveys came back with the same Top Vote Getter. What's really Amazing especially for a democrats like myself is that a Democrat Top the survey!!!

The only other time a Democrat ever topped the Chamber survey was in 1996 with Bill Clinton. Other than that, its ALWAYS BEEN A REPUBLICAN.

That Winner was Democrat Hillary Clinton on both surveys in Oct & Dec. The 2nd,3rd,4th placer were all Republicans. ( Mccain, Giuliani, & Romney)

The main reason for her surprising victory inspite of majority of the survey voters being Republicans was three things. Her Healthcare proposal, her experience & being a moderate.

For almost all business owners, they are turned off by right wing or left wing candidates. This is why Huckabee does not do well even if he's a republican. They perceive McCain,Rudy & Romney as moderates.

Well fast forward. We had our first of the year county wide meeting last Friday night. The mood has changed. Lots of apprehension of a possible Obama win. The main issue with Obama is his " No experience & his healthcare proposal.

The next national survey is in February. From talking to members last night, we are back to McCain, Rudy or Romney as the favorites again If Clinton does not make it.

Its frustrating for Democratic business owners who have worked so hard to get a Democrat into the white house.

Personally, I predict that Barack Obama would lose every single battleground state plus several key Blue states as the nominee.

Our Country is in Very Bad Shape right now. If people just know what we business owners see for the next 24 months economically, it would make most people sweat. The outlook is bleak. Bush has destroyed this country during his reign.

If Obama was a Republican, most democrats would condemn him as " Not Qualified" to be President. We wouldn't even be talking about him.

With the situation our country is in right now, Now is Not the time to be Experimenting with some Very Inexperienced leader.

I think Obama is an awesome candidate. Another 4 years, and he would be better equipped.

But right now, we are picking a candidate who is even LESS PREPARED to be President than George Bush was in 2000.


by labanman on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 04:03:40 PM EST

Re: Concern for a Great but Inexperienced (none / 0)

Predict all you want.  You'll be wrong and proven wrong.  There is NOTHING out there to show he would lose every battle ground state.  NOT A FUCKING THING.  Not EVERY small business owner is in the Chamber of Commerce, local or otherwise.  In fact, it generally is a minority in most areas given the costs involved to join (ours is a minimum of $500 to join the local city one with fees for most of the others around here.)  

So basing it on a survey for a small special interest group is just ludicrous.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 04:26:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa's record of picking winners (none / 0)

First off, if you are going to post a diary get the facts right...

1972 Ed Muskie tied with uncommitted in Iowa and McGovern finished 2nd

1976 Uncommitted finished first, beating Carter but Carter was the de facto winner with his close second place finish.

1984 Mondale WON the nomination, just not the general.

Now you Could also point out that on the GOP side, the Iowa winner DID win the Presidency in 2000 and 2004... in fact, both nominees were Iowa winners.  This also happened in 1996, which makes it a trend for the last three elections.  It also happened in 1984 as well.  In fact, in only one election, 1988, did neither Iowa winner end up in the General Election.  

I'd also point out that 1992 was irrelevant since the winner was from Iowa; since it was a given he'd win, there wasn't a big deal made about momentum and Iowa became the King Maker.

Furthermore, only 2 candidates have gotten the nomination without winning either Iowa or NH and that was McGovern and Bill Clinton.  No one has gotten without finishing in the top 2 in 1 of those states.  And No one who has won both since 1972 has failed to get the nomination (albeit it is a small number, further dwindled when you remove incumbent Presidents.)  

The other thing to remember is that the calendar wasn't as compressed as it is now, so historical precident isn't as accurate of a comparison to use.  Its been getting more compressed over the years.  In 2004, there were 8 days between Iowa and NH.  In 2000, there were 7 days. Given the compression of the calendar and the fact that within 30 days half of the states and a major amount of Delegates will have been decided makes it almost a whole new ballgame.  


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 05:03:11 PM EST

Re: Iowa's record of picking winners (none / 0)

Iowa used to be considered an important state until Clinton lost so badly there. We see a pattern: every time Clinton loses a state it is denigrated as irrelevant.

The Iowans will get  the last laugh. The delegates from Iowa are still being allocated. Insulting Iowans as irrelevant  is not going to help Hillary in the final count. Obama gained 10 delegates yesterday in the county conventions ON TOP of what he was projected to win at the caucuses.

Hillary Clinton is a good policy wonk, a good support person. But she is a bad politician. Not good politics to insult the people you still need to vote for you.


by LibDem on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:22:58 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.