Will the winner in Iowa be the eventual nominee?

[cleveramerican]

or Will it be a realty check for the eventual nominee?

Has Obama sealed the deal with Iowans?
Will Hillary prove she's unstoppable?
Will Edwards get a second wind from a victory there?


How much does winning in Iowa even mean?
I would say there is no state harder to read for every campaign.
I predict Iowa's winner wil not be the eventual nominee.

[gateley]

1. Even though I've vowed to not respond to posts that don't even deign to mention

Joe Biden, I THINK that historically the winner in Iowa usually DOESN'T become the nominee. Have you heard that - or am I mistaken in thinking that I have?

[cleveramerican]

2. Kerry won Iowa

Shocked everyone and it launched him to the nomination.

[gateley]

3. It's gonna be interesting! nt

[Selatius]

12. Jimmy Carter also won in Iowa if I recall. n/t

[Debi]

17. As did Jimmy Carter

And really, Bill Clinton came in second in 1992 (even w/out running) to Tom Harkin (who dropped out after Iowa) so you could call that a win :shrug:

[MethuenProgressive]

20. I don't think the Iowa result will matter much to New Hampshire voters.

Iowa is more of a stunt than an actual election. Who ever can bus the most people to the Elks Lodge that night will win. That's not exactly democracy.

[denem]

4. It made Kerry and Edwards in 2004

but mainly because it was such a surprise. Edwards would have a serious upswing this time, Biden even more so. Still the story would be what happened to Clinton and Obama. Nevertheless, I think Edwards has a real shot at it again.

[Hippo_Tron]

5. If Hillary wins Iowa it's over

If Obama wins I think he will run the table. Even if Edwards wins Iowa it's still up in the air because he has taken matching funds and has a very small warchest compared to Clinton and Obama.

[youthere]

6. If there is no upset in the top three.

In other words...if the top three are the top three...it's over for the other candidates.

[surfermaw]

7. Its Edwards all the way

I like Biden , think he would be an excellent V.P., for Edwards, but sometimes he can get a little carried away with words.

[youthere]

9. I think Edwards will win Iowa...

he's got a LOT of support here. But I'm hoping Biden is the dark horse that surprises everyone just the same. :)

[Czolgosz]

8. No one who doesn't finish ahead of Hillary will be viable after Iowa - topping her is the threshold

[ieoeja]

10. Non-Incumbents for both parties are 50%.

For years in which their was no incumbent Democrat, and ignoring '76 in which nobody won, the Iowa caucus has a 50% record of picking the winner (3 out of 6).

Year - Iowa Winner - Eventual Nominee
72 - Muskie - McGovern
76 - uncommitted (Carter 2nd) - Carter
84 - Mondale - Mondale
88 - Gephardt - Dukakis
92 - Harkin - Clinton
00 - Gore - Gore
04 - Kerry - Kerry


Ditto for Republicans where non-incumbent winners became the eventual nominee 2 out of 4 times.

Year - Iowa Winner - Eventual Nominee
80 - Bush - Reagan
88 - Dole - Bush
96 - Dole - Dole
00 - Bush - Bush

[rinsd]

18. Yup. We can't do too much predicting based on an Iowa win sans other momentum.

[Beacool]

11. Not necessarily........

Hillary is the only candidate who can afford to lose Iowa and even NH and still end up being the nominee. Though, she can't lose them by wide margins. Obama can lose Iowa ans still move on to the next round, but would probably be unable to surpass Hillary. Edwards and the rest are out of the running if they lose Iowa.

[Tejanocrat]

15. No candidate has to "win" Iowa. They just have to finish ahead of Hillary going into New Hampshire.

For example, if Iowa were to finish Obama, Edwards, then Hillary or if it were to finish Edwards, Obama, Hillary -- we'd have a three way race in New Hampshire with either result.

But whoever finishes behind Hillary, their support may drift to whomever finishes ahead of Hillary.

If Hillary drops to 4th (which seems unlikely), there could be 4 tickets coming out of Iowa. I wounder -- in the unlikely (but happy) event that were to happen -- whether Richardson or Biden would pass Hillary. I'm not a fan of Biden's or Richardson's, but Richardson seems to have to support currently, but Biden seems to have more momentum.

[Yukari Yakumo]

19. I don't that would be enough.

Hillary has huge leads across the nation. If a candidate is going to have any shot at the nom, they need to win and win by a significant margin.

[oasis]

13. I predict that Edwards will emerge as the victor in Iowa, but that won't be enough.(eom)

[robcon]

14. Let's hope Iowa is not a bellweather.

There's good reasons why Iowa or New Hampshire shouldn't mean anything - they're as unrepresentative of the U.S. as can be.

[Debi]

16. History goes both ways so it's a toss up.

Welcome to Iowa :hi: However, winning in Iowa means 5 non-stop days of MSM and cable news attention (and probably a fresh influx of $$ which helps).

I agree that Iowa is tough to read, even for us here!

I would also agree with your prediction except for one thing: There is only 33 days between Iowa and Super Duper Tuedsay. I don't know if the 'losers' of Iowa (anyone coming in below 1,2,3) can regroup by then AND I think that the Feb. 5th states will be relying more on paid media than personal contact (so $$ will govern the outcome more than in Iowa/New Hampshire).

If the 'winners' of Iowa do well for the next month, Feb. 5th will seal the deal for one of them - however - if the 'losers' of Iowa do well somewhere in the next month AND have money, Feb. 5th could make their day. *sigh* now I have a headache!