Bill Clinton never ran in Iowa

[JI7]

why do people keep bringing up Clinton not winning Iowa. in 1992 Iowa was not in competetition because Tom Harkin was running also.

and while Clinton did not win NH he did much better than expected and used that to get momentum in other states.

Obama's win in Iowa is more comparable to 1992 because he wasn't expected to win there. his expectations were on South Carolina.

[Captain Hilts]

1. Iowa's system is so screwy and the participants so self-selecting we should IGNORE it completely! nt

[IA_Seth]

7. Feel free to do so! n/t

[Debi]

15. Not if we ignore them first

:rofl:

Is it over yet?

[no name no slogan]

17. How is it self-selecting?

Caucuses are one of the purest forms of direct, participatory democracy-- and one of the easiest ways to get directly involved in the political process.

I've seen college kids, with no political experience or connections, go from the precinct caucus to the national convention-. In fact, TWO from my precinct did exactly this in 1988-- the first time ever.

They both went on to good careers in politics. One of them is now Speaker of the Minnesota State House. The other was a staffer for Wellstone.

[Captain Hilts]

18. The timing, the format...

At night after dark: discourages older people - particularly women, who have nearly the highest voter participation rate, from participating. They don't want to go out after dark.

The night time format is difficult for people with kids and can't find/afford a baby-sitter.

The format of declaring your choice invites pressure from neighbors, but particularly spouses. Women are also less likely to want to declare their vote publicly. In the case of Clinton, she has always gotten more votes than polling points. There are people - older, married women? - who don't feel comfortable telling pollsters who they're actually voting for.

The format also takes time. It's not like voting. So, the less like voting it is, the less accurately it reflects voting patterns. It might, however, influence them in the future, such as in New Hampshire.

It's a real credit to the Obama campaign to get younger folks out there. Their voter participation rate is usually abysmally low. Kudos to them.

[no name no slogan]

19. Those really aren't good excuses.

Most people work during the day. So having it in the evening makes perfect sense. Plus, it's one evening, oftentimes for less than an hour. In fact the shortest caucus I've ever participated in took 1/2 hour and that mostly because we HAD to go on that long.

Also, you are not required to voice preference for a candidate, if you choose not to. A caucus is not just about endorsing candidates-- which so many people seem to forget. The caucus is about running the political party at its most granular level.

Plus, taking time to caucus means that you actually get people who want to support the party selecting the candidates, delegates and platform. It actually means taking some time before making your decision-- not just marking a piece of paper and dropping it in a box.

[Captain Hilts]

20. But, my point is, the less it is like voting - and the caucus process might be superior -

the less representative the results can be.

People work during the day, but they also vote during the day, not at night. That's the point. It's not like voting. A better process? Probably is, but the important thing is it's a different process.

Having the caucuses take time and having them at night changes the demographics from those that vote in the same way having voting on Sunday might change them. They're just different.

[ingac70]

2. Bill was virtually unknown then...

So comparisons can't be made to what is going off now.

[Kajsa]

3. Question- How many candidates who won in Iowa

went on to become President?

I really don't know, and I'm really asking.

I've been thinking about this since yesterday.

[mohc]

4. Since 1972

The caucus first received national attention in 1972, and since then only 3 times has the winner not gone on to win the Democratic nomination: 1972, 1988, and 1992.

In 1992, as mentioned in the OP, Harkin was so favored than the other candidates basically skipped it, making New Hampshire instead the main focus of the media.

1988 had a favored candidate as well, Gephardt, although less so than Harkin. Dukakis was able to overcome the loss by placing decently in Iowa and then winning New Hampshire.

1972 is a bit of a fluke. Muskie won and probably would have won the nomination as well, but the media made a big deal about a speech he made apologizing for a fake letter sent to the Manchester Union-Leader, and though he won New Hampshire his campaign soon collapsed.

Basically, if there is no favorite and the winner does not get hit with some scandal, they go on to win the nomination. Ironically, Obama being from Illinois *could* have been spun into favorite son status, but the campaigns that Edwards and Clinton ran eliminated this possibility (IMHO).

[Kajsa]

5. Thanks, Mohc.

That's what I thought.

:D

[MADem]

10. It's not accurate, that info, though

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucus

[Kajsa]

11. Thanks, MADem.

I see a few of the winners ran unopposed.

[Drunken Irishman]

8. Gephardt also failed to have the money and numbers to compete in NH.

Which left the door open for Dukakis. Gephardt put all his eggs in the Iowa basket, but it was not enough to win the nomination because he didn't build on that momentum. It didn't help, either, that he was the big favorite heading in, so he was in a lose-lose situation there. Obama, however, surprised the media by winning Iowa and has a great campaign running in New Hampshire.

[MADem]

9. The winner in several of those contests was "Uncommitted" so you aren't being fully accurate, there.

"Presidential nominee Uncommitted" beat Carter AND Muskie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucus

If you really break it down, they miss as often as they hit, but they have done WAY better picking the GOP nominee. Anyone using Iowa as a "determiner" is taking a chance, frankly:

Democrats
January 3, 2008 - Barack Obama (38%), John Edwards (30%), Hillary Clinton (29%), Bill Richardson (2%), Joe Biden (1%), Chris Dodd 0%, Mike Gravel 0%, and Dennis Kucinich 0%<15>
January 19, 2004 - John Kerry (38%), John Edwards (32%), Howard Dean (18%), Dick Gephardt (11%), and Dennis Kucinich (1%)
January 24, 2000 - Al Gore (63%) and Bill Bradley (37%)
February 12, 1996 - Bill Clinton (unopposed)
February 10, 1992 - Tom Harkin (76%), "Uncommitted" (12%), Paul Tsongas (4%), Bill Clinton (3%), Bob Kerrey (2%), and Jerry Brown (2%)
February 8, 1988 - Dick Gephardt (31%), Paul Simon (27%), Michael Dukakis (22%), and Bruce Babbitt (6%)
February 20, 1984 - Walter Mondale (49%), Gary Hart (17%), George McGovern (10%), Alan Cranston (7%), John Glenn (4%), Reubin Askew (3%), and Jesse Jackson (2%)
January 21, 1980 - Jimmy Carter (59%) and Ted Kennedy (31%)
January 19, 1976 - "Uncommitted" (37%), Jimmy Carter (28%) Birch Bayh (13%), Fred R. Harris (10%), Morris Udall (6%), Sargent Shriver (3%), and Henry M. Jackson (1%)
January 24, 1972 - "Uncommitted" (36%), Edmund Muskie (36%), George McGovern (23%), Hubert Humphrey (2%), Eugene McCarthy (1%), Shirley Chisholm (1%), and Henry M. Jackson (1%)<16>

Republicans
2008- Mike Huckabee (34%), Mitt Romney (25%), Fred Thompson (13%), John McCain (13%), Ron Paul (10%), Rudy Giuliani (4%), and Duncan Hunter (1%) *95% of precincts reporting <1>
2004- George W. Bush (unopposed)
2000- George W. Bush (41%), Steve Forbes (30%), Alan Keyes (14%), Gary Bauer (9%), John McCain (5%), and Orrin Hatch (1%)
1996- Bob Dole (26%), Pat Buchanan (23%), Lamar Alexander (18%), Steve Forbes (10%), Phil Gramm (9%), Alan Keyes (7%), Richard Lugar (4%), and Morry Taylor (1%)
1992- George H. W. Bush (unopposed)
1988- Bob Dole (37%), Pat Robertson (25%), George H. W. Bush (19%), Jack Kemp (11%), and Pete DuPont (7%)
1984- Ronald Reagan (unopposed)
1980- George H. W. Bush (32%), Ronald Reagan (30%), Howard Baker (15%), John Connally (9%), Phil Crane (7%), John B. Anderson (4%), and Bob Dole (2%)
1976- Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan

[mohc]

14. Well

I guess that depends on what you mean by "winner". While Carter trailed "Uncommitted", he was certainly perceived to have won, ditto with Muskie. On the Republican side it is a different story, only recently has it been accurate. I assumed they were only asking about the Dem side.

[MADem]

16. Actually my recollection is that both Carter and Muskie were viewed as slightly REJECTED.

Certainly, they were the winners in that they were the highest ranked 'name,' even though they didn't get the highest percentage of total support, but they had the aura of the first runner up nonetheless.

It didn't matter as much back then, because we didn't have an obnoxious, repetitive 24 hour news cycle, but the prevailing view was that they couldn't even pick the hick (Carter) or the cryer (Muskie) because they were perceived by caucus goers as lacking in some fashion.

I grew to like Carter, and was a bit irritated at their inability to see the full dimensions of Muskie, but I 'considered the source.' Then, I was getting my news from radio, international papers, and news magazines like Time and Newsweek (International) as I was following those contests as closely as I could manage from afar. There was more time to reflect, too--the hype was less pronounced back then and there was more in-depth analysis of candidate's actual views instead of focusing on dumb shit like their fashion sense or hairstyles.

[mohc]

21. Muskie maybe

Carter was basically unknown before Iowa. Doing better than everyone else there is what let him go onto New Hampshire and win, and the rout was on. Muskie was a supposed frontrunner, so it was somewhat embarrassing for him to come behind the uncommitted total, but no one else benefited from this, and he would have gone on to win without the "crying".

All this being said, I am certainly not trying to imply that a win in Iowa dictates a win. This year the frontrunner lost Iowa. Carter (1976) won in a year with no clear frontrunner. Counting sitting Presidents and former VPs: 1972, 1980, 1984, 1996, and 2000 all had a strong frontrunner that won Iowa. So the only comparisons are 1988, 1992, and 2004. We already discussed 1988 and 1992 upthread. 2004 was the only time an Iowa upset lead to the nomination, and one year does not a trend make. And trends are just trends anyway, all streaks eventually end.

[MADem]

6. You could also say that the Gephardt effect was in play and that's why Obama won.

That probably wouldn't be fully accurate either, but it's a factor.

Every election is what is it. You can look to past elections for themes and patterns, but you shouldn't get all twitchy if the patterns don't match exactly.

Iowa's Democratic Pick for President hasn't been able to prevail in the last two elections, either. Is that apropos of anything? Should we then conclude that IA can't hand us a Democratic President? That we should get ready for President Huckabee, because they only get the Republican right lately?

Nope.

It's one contest. Don't dismiss it, but don't make it more than it is, which is what it is: ONE contest.

[BootinUp]

12. I though Ill shared media coverage in parts of Iowa

and that Obama was expected to do well there.

[MADem]

13. Romney is praying for that same effect in the NH GOP primary, as NH shares market with MA. NT