Bill Clinton LOST Iowa AND New Hampshire in 1992!

[piesRsquare]

I'm gonna say it again:

Bill Clinton LOST Iowa AND New Hampshire in 1992!

It ain't over 'til it's over.

Go Edwards!

[tritsofme]

1. Iowa was not contested in 1992, and his strong finish in NH brought about the "comeback kid" label.

He had the wind at his back coming out of NH, something that Mr. Edwards does not enjoy.

[jackson_dem]

2. Clinton lost the first five or six primaries of 1992. And Jerry Brown

He didn't win until Georgia. Also in 1992 Jerry Brown, a change candidate who was ignored by the media, caught fire late in the process and this forced the media to cover him. Brown gained momentum until a gaffe before the pivotal New York primary cost him the win there. Despite this it still went to the final primary. Clinton would still not have a majority of delegates if Brown won a big victory in his home state of California. Clinton did eke out a victory but that is besides the point. A candidate ignored and declared dead caught fire and nearly caused the nomination to go to the convention. Perhaps if he did not commit a gaffe before the New York primary he could have won the nomination outright.

Ted Kennedy also lost several primaries in a row before catching fire late and mounting a challenge to incumbent president Jimmy Carter in 1980.

Ronald Reagan did not win his first primary in 1976 until March 23. He then engaged in a back and forth battle with an incumbent president. Ford narrowly won, with 1,187 delegates to Reagan's 1,070.

History teaches us it is irrational to declare things to be over this early in the process, especially when a candidate has proven to be as resilient as Edwards. Despite a national media blackout he still averages 18% nationally, twelve points less than the $100 million new JFK who gets multiple times more press than Edwards.

[acmavm]

3. Don't try to use logic with this crowd. It just doesn't work.

[jasmine621]

5. Amen to that.

Strategic thinking is not what they are known for.

[AndyA]

4. I don't know why I feel this way, but something tells me Edwards is going to explode

late in the race.

I think he will continue to gather momentum, then something is going to happen which will force people to take another look at him. Perhaps it will be a scandal in the Barack camp, or Hillary and Barack go into extreme attack mode against one another, forcing people to look elsewhere for leadership.

And, let's not forget: recession is in the news now, as are big business mergers, buy outs, write offs, etc., and that's making people angry that big business has taken advantage of the American people the way they have.

I think Edwards' best days are still ahead. There are a lot of delegates to be won still.

It isn't over, folks. Not by a long shot.

[BlueIris]

6. Sigh. While I agree that this race is NOT decided, 2008 is a long, long way from 1992.

The mainstream media is nothing more than a propaganda apparatus. The voting machines are owned by the Republicans. And allegedly non-Republican America refuses to read real. information. Different world.

[cali]

7. 2008 is not easlily compared to 1992

due to the change in the primary schedule. There's little chance now for someone far back in the race to gain enough momentum between primaries and caucuses to actually mix things up. And Feb 5th is a de facto national primary. The only state I can see Edwards winning- and that's dubious- is Oklahoma. Where can he do better than third? Perhaps in a couple of Southern states, I guess; not in MA, CT, NJ, NY, IL CA, or any of the other large or medium size states. There's a reason that virtually all political analysts have written him out of the race- and it's not the whole MSM meme. I'm talking about academics like those I've heard commenting on local public radio in VT and NH.