Iowa doesn't matter

Good points, but I think it does matter somewhat, perhaps not as much as we might think it does right now. In 2004, I think it mattered to Howard Dean, as that was the beginning of his downfall.

Perhaps like a football game, failing to score on a first and goal at the one after an opponent's fumble could be very demoralizing, but scoring could send you on the way to victory,

Iowa is where the hype meets reality for the first time. That's why it matters.

What is the average number of candidates running, counting both parties, in Iowa? I won't bother to look it up, but let us assume 7, so if 1 of the 6 that loses wins the Whitehouse the other 74% of the time, that is an average of a 12.3% chance of winning the Whitehouse after losing Iowa, for each 1 of the 6 other candidates. Personally, I would take the 26% odds. If I win Iowa, my chances are probably better than if I lose Iowa.

I don't know how many candidates, on average, run in Iowa, but I would say more than 7 most of the time, which would make the odds even worse than 12.3% if you lose.

Of course, if you come in second, then your odds are better, but would they be better than 26%?

I doubt it, because even if the Republican or Democrat that wins Iowa always wins their party nomination, their odds of winning the Whitehouse is still only roughly 50%.

engineer wrote:

Iowa is where the hype meets reality for the first time. That's why it matters.

If this were true, Iowa would have a better record than 26%.

112 candidates have received votes in the Iowa Caucuses. Of these only 15 have won the Iowa Caucus and of the 15 winners only 4 made it to the White House. 4 is only 26.67% of 15 and only 3.6% of 112.

Actually 2nd and even 3rd place finishers in Iowa have a better historical chance of winning New Hampshire than Iowa's 1st place finishers have had.

Since 1972 the winner of the Democrat New Hampshire Primary has won his party's nomination in 6 of the 9 elections. For Republicans this number is 7 of 9 elections.

The winner of the Democrat New Hampshire Primary took the White House in only 2 of the 9 elections.

The winner of the Republican New Hampshire Primary took the White House in 5 of the 9 elections.

Since 1972 the winner of the New Hampshire Primary (regardless of party) has taken the White House in 7 of the 9 elections- and since the New Hampshire Primary was first held in 1952 (or was it 1948?) the person to take the White House has lost the New Hampshire Primary only twice (Clinton 1992 and George W. Bush in 2000).

Historically New Hampshire has been the better predictor of November than Iowa has ever thought about being. However, since 1992 so many liberals from Massachusetts have retired to New Hampshire that that state likely is no longer a good guide.

Winning the Iowa Caucus may give you an even chance of winning your party's nomination, but it gives you a greater chance of losing the White House.

So as I said, 26% is alot better than that of a loser in Iowa, you say 3.6%, so I would much rather take the odds of winning after winning Iowa than after losing Iowa.

Interesting figures you cite, and it sounds reasonable. I do think New Hampshire might be a better predictor. On the REpublican side, I think from Romney's point of view, he could more afford to lose Iowa than New Hampshire and still have a chance, but he needs to win both if possible.

Your statement is a bit misleading, as no matter what primary you win, whether it is Iowa or Timbuktu, your chance of winning the whitehouse is only 50% plus or minus.

I would venture that Huckabee will likely at least tie for 1st place in Iowa, but either Giuliani, Romney or McCain will win New Hampshire. But at the same time I doubt that the winner in Iowa will be the GOP nominee this year. McCain is a has-been, but he may be a good 2nd choice compromise candidate. The South isn't going to support a Yankee or a Mormon, but there aren't enough evangelicals to give any candidate the nomination. And if what I've heard about Huckabee's record on illegal aliens is true, I don't see him doing any better than breaking even in the South. I'm not ready to say that the GOP convention will open with no apparent nominee, but it if this does happen, I won't be all that surprised.

I don't see Hilary winning Iowa. The last I heard she, Obama and Edwards are in a dead heat for 1st place, but Hilary is practically nobody's 2nd choice and according to Democrat Party rules if your candidate does get over a certain amount of support in the 1st round you have to make a 2nd choice. The 2nd choice of the people who now support Kucinich, Biden and Richards will likely place Obama and/or Edwards over Hilary. But I do think Hilary will be the Democrat nominee since slick likely still controls the Democrat Party machinery and as far as I know the Democrats still have super-delegtes, i.e., elected officials who are automatically national convention delegates. The are the establishment and Hilary is the establishment candidate.

flaja wrote:

I would venture that Huckabee will likely at least tie for 1st place in Iowa, but either Giuliani, Romney or McCain will win New Hampshire. But at the same time I doubt that the winner in Iowa will be the GOP nominee this year. McCain is a has-been, but he may be a good 2nd choice compromise candidate. The South isn't going to support a Yankee or a Mormon, but there aren't enough evangelicals to give any candidate the nomination. And if what I've heard about Huckabee's record on illegal aliens is true, I don't see him doing any better than breaking even in the South. I'm not ready to say that the GOP convention will open with no apparent nominee, but it if this does happen, I won't be all that surprised.

I don't see Hilary winning Iowa. The last I heard she, Obama and Edwards are in a dead heat for 1st place, but Hilary is practically nobody's 2nd choice and according to Democrat Party rules if your candidate does get over a certain amount of support in the 1st round you have to make a 2nd choice. The 2nd choice of the people who now support Kucinich, Biden and Richards will likely place Obama and/or Edwards over Hilary. But I do think Hilary will be the Democrat nominee since slick likely still controls the Democrat Party machinery and as far as I know the Democrats still have super-delegtes, i.e., elected officials who are automatically national convention delegates. The are the establishment and Hilary is the establishment candidate.

I agree with much of that, except I don't think Giuliani has a chance in New Hampshire, and I think there will be an apparent Republican nominee by the time the convention is here. Also, maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't believe the so-called "evangelical" block exists as described or believed. I think most people are more independent thinking than as characterized.

I agree the Clintons appear to have a death grip on the Democrat machinery, and there are not enough people with the cahoneys to tell them to get lost once and for all. I had hoped their wheels were beginning to come off, but probably a false hope.

The intent of any caucus or primary is to winnow the field of candidates, not to pick a winner. The reason Iowa is important is that it is first.

Well, then you should just get rid of the primary system all together. That's the purpose of them.