The Democratic Winner of the Iowa Caucuses goes on the win The Nomination.

[crazytown]

Gore (2000), Kerry (2004), Obama (2008), Clinton (2016), and, in earlier times, Carter (1976) and Mondale (1984). 1992 (Harkin) was not contested: 2nd place was Tsongas with 4%. The only significant exception was Gephardt (1988). Following the caucuses, Dukakis and Gore co-ordinated to crush his candidacy with negative ads.

[mpreorder]

1. According to 538...

Warren is beating both Biden and Sanders by 11 percentage points in Iowa. Goes to show what actual caring and analysis of issues combined with detailed plans of how to address those issues and the ability to deliver them to a sometimes too impatient/lazy/less educated population can do.

YOU GO GIRL....

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

2. No surprise to see Warren doing well... she's the most qualified woman to ever run for President.

Would be honored to vote for her in the general for President (or VP)!!


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!! or
Elizabeth & Bernie 2020!!
Either way, welcome to the revolution!!!

[highplainsdem]

3. That's not 538, since they don't have a poll average. That's just the latest Change Research poll

that has Warren +11 in the Iowa primary.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/iowa/

The Monmouth poll done a week earlier had Biden +9 in Iowa. And Monmouth is generally considered more reliable than Change Research, despite that very odd outlier national poll fom Monmouth, which they quickly admitted was an outlier, the poll showing both Warren and Sanders ahead of Biden.

RCP doesn't even list the Change Research polls, and they have Biden +8 in Iowa.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-6731.html

Btw, that Change Resarch poll of Iowa had Buttigieg well ahead of everyone else just a few weeks earlier. A few weeks before that, they had Biden well ahead. At this rate they may eventually get around to having Sanders, Harris, Booker, O'Rourke and Yang leading in Iowa...

[crazytown]

5. When Yang is leading in Iowa

I'll go out and buy a case of Stolichnaya vodka. If he is leading in the next poll, I'll drink it.

[highplainsdem]

7. LOL! Well, give Change Research enough time...

[jcgoldie]

16. Hey

Pass that Stoli around its my favorite!

[crazytown]

18. Wait a minute,

I'll have to check the deep freezer.

[jcgoldie]

21. The only good thing coming out of Russia lately it seems..

Unfortunately they stopped selling the handle bottles in these parts so I had to switch to Titos from Texas.

[Blue_true]

29. Make sure you buy a stomach pump with that case of vodka.

But my guess is you won't need either, I don't see Yang breaking 6%.

[sacto95834]

35. Cheers Cra !!

Enjoy a vodka collins win regardless.....takes one minds off the headlines today.

[brush]

4. IMO times have changed. The first real indicator is the SC primary as Iowa and NH...

are 95% white. SC and the closely following Super Tuesday with California now included are much more representative of the entire Democratic constituency (POCs included) than the non-democratic caucus of Iowa and the New Hampshire electorate with a 1.1% African American demographic.

[crazytown]

6. Probably.

But AA voters are renown for voting pragmatically.

[highplainsdem]

8. And right now that pragmatic attitude has them supporting Biden much more than the other candidates.

[crazytown]

19. In 2016,

if Sanders had narrowly won IA, he still would have been thumped in SC I think.

[brush]

9. Yes, which is why IMO Biden and Harris will do well in SC and on Super Tuesday.

I do like Warren as well.

[Blue_true]

30. 95% White Iowa gave a candidate named Barack Obama a victory,

and people in South Carolina got a feeling that he was for real and moved to him. My guess is if Warren wins Iowa and double-up by winning New Hampshire, Biden has issues in South Carolina.

[brush]

32. Biden will do well in SC no matter what happens in the two mostly white states.

[Blue_true]

33. We will see. That is the beauty of the future, none of us know the outcome now.

We can state guesses that vary from educated to ignorant, but none of us truly know the ultimate outcome, that is why words like "will" are overweening when applied to such a situation.

[brush]

34. We pretty much know Biden will do well in SC where there is a large AA demographic. Iowa...

and New Hampshire are 95% white but he'll do okay, but Warren and Sanders are just as competitive in those two states though.

[frazzled]

10. You conveniently left out 1992

and 1988:

1988 (February 8): Dick Gephardt (31%), Paul Simon (27%), Michael Dukakis (22%), and Bruce Babbitt (6%)
1992 (February 10): Tom Harkin (76%), "Uncommitted" (12%), Paul Tsongas (4%), Bill Clinton (3%), Bob Kerrey (2%), and Jerry Brown (2%)

In '88 Dukakis came in third place (with 22%) but won the nomination
In '92 Clinton came in fourth place (with 3%) but won the nomination. (Granted, Tom Harkin was a favorite son here, but still).

It's ridiculous that the least democratic form of primary (a caucus, which few people attend: in 2016 the turnout rate, for both parties' caucuses was a paltry 15.7 percent of eligible voters) should determine the nominee.

[crazytown]

12. Did you read the OP?

1992 (Harkin) was not contested: 2nd place was Tongas with 4%. The only significant exception was Gephardt (1988). Following the caucuses, Dukakis and Gore co-ordinated to crush his candidacy with negative ads.

[Blue_true]

31. In 88, people who were from near Iowa won.

That is why the person that will be most difficult for Warren there will likely be Buttigieg.

[nsd]

11. Relevant xkcd

Last edited Tue Sep 3, 2019, 12:02 AM - Edit history (1)

Whenever anyone attempts to find a pattern in this way, I think of this comic:

https://xkcd.com/1122/


We’re not doing science here — there are too few data points and too many uncontrolled factors (1992 doesn’t count! Neither does 1988!)

You can find all sorts of patterns in random data if you’re motivated to do so. I can do it too: “Seven out of the last 11 Iowa winners did not win the general election. It’s the kiss of death!” Of course I wouldn’t say that because it’s not a good way to analyze data.

[crazytown]

13. The data points are not random.

The momentum coming out of a win in Iowa is usually decisive.

[nsd]

15. "Momentum" is another fuzzy concept.

Did HRC have momentum coming out of Iowa in 2016? She followed up by losing NH.

Did Obama have momentum in 2008? He also followed up with a NH loss.

1976 was a good example of decisive momentum — or at least it got Carter in the game — but what else? WJC in 1996, as a popular incumbent, didn’t need momentum (however defined) — neither did Obama in 2012. So what does “usually” mean?

[crazytown]

17. Momentum is no more fuzzy than electability.

Obama was 20 points behind before the Iowa caucus and was not considered electable.

[nsd]

20. But Iowa didn't make him the winner.

Iowa made him viable. A long, hard campaign against HRC made him the nominee.

I’m not saying that Iowa is unimportant. Rather, I’m saying it isn’t decisive or a predictor, which is what your original post seems to claim.

P.S. Another (irrelevant) factoid: Mondale followed up his Iowa win by losing the next three contests.

[crazytown]

22. The OP was a statement of fact,

not an analysis of factors.

I believe the 'Yes We Can' speech on NH election night was a decisive turning point: It was the moment Obama became 'Obama' - the man we know and love. The SC polls turned sharply in his favor after that.

[nsd]

23. All of the statements in the xkcd comic I linked to are also statements of fact.

That doesn’t make them meaningful.

ETA: The NH speech you linked was indeed a great moment — that has nothing to do with the issue we’re discussing. In the 2008 contest, there were lots of important moments for Obama: Jefferson-Jackson day speech in 2007, winning Iowa, his NH speech, winning SC, dominating the caucuses on Super Tuesday, the speech on race, fighting HRC to a draw in OH and TX. Lots of important moments — it wasn’t just Iowa. That’s my point.

[crazytown]

24. Carter, Mondale, Gore, Kerry, Obama & HRC won IA, and the nomination.

These facts are not meaningless or co-incidence. I'll leave it at that.

[nsd]

26. Not coincidence -- Iowa is indeed important -- but also not meaningful as a pattern or predictor.

[Demsrule86]

38. What about Clinton? And I wold point out that three of those mentioned lost the general.

And Carter was one term.

[Iggo]

36. "Momentum is no more fuzzy than electability."

I agree with this statement.

[treestar]

14. Well we will still do the rest

of the states, as they have a say, too. This is like superstition.

[Skya Rhen]

25. And there are lots of Red States - not confident that the more progressive candidates will win those

[treestar]

27. And then Iowa isn't progressive overall

In 2016 we kept hearing those states were not important - like the states in the South where the Democrats went heavily for Hillary, we had the illogical claim they should not be important as the state would go red in the general!

[Politicub]

28. I have an image of Tsongas swimming etched in my brain

It was probably from a 60 Minutes segment or something that intended to show his fitness.

I don’t know why it stuck with me. I must have been 18 or 19 at the time. Maybe because it was because I was eligible to cast my first presidential vote.

My first Clinton memory is him playing the saxophone on the Arsenio Hall show.

[crazytown]

39. This one?

[Demsrule86]

37. Unlikely this time...Iowa is not the state it once was and my opinon is that it is coincidence...

small white state that votes GOP...why would they choose anything. It doesn't resemble the party at all...that being said Biden is ahead in Iowa.