Iowa, New Hampshire success rate in picking the Democratic nominee (UPDATE).


, , , , , , , , , ,

Iowa, NH primary success rate

What do the numbers tell us about the Iowa, New Hampshire success rate in picking the nominee?

The closer we get to the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, the more interesting it is to look at the historical relevance of those two contests, at least as far as Democrats are concerned.

In putting this table together, what impresses me most is that only three times since 1972 did both Iowa and New Hampshire choose the same candidate who then became the eventual Democratic nominee (excluding the incumbent years of 1980, 1996, and 2012).

In other words, about a third of the time — 37% to be exact — did a candidate win both Iowa and New Hampshire and then become the nominee. The nominees who won both contests were Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, and John Kerry.

If we start with the 1972 campaign year, looked at separately Iowa has a better track record than New Hampshire in picking winners. Iowa picked the eventual nominee in five out of eight contested elections, a 62.5% rate of success (again excluding the incumbent races). New Hampshire chose the eventual nominee in four contested primaries, a 50% success rate.

Of course, each contest has its own little side story that is relevant to the relationship between primary winners and the nominee selection.

For example, although Bill Clinton did not win the 1992 New Hampshire primary, the “Comeback Kid” had enough momentum coming out of the Granite State, that he then used this “victory” as a springboard for future successes. Bill Clinton won neither the Iowa caucuses nor the New Hampshire primary but eventually became the nominee.

In an unusual case in which the victor in both contests did not become the nominee, Ed Muskie’s campaign quickly fell apart after the New Hampshire contest. Many believe that the publisher of the powerful New Hampshire Union Leader had a lot to do with Muskie’s demise. The cruel-hearted William Loeb taunted Muskie as weak and “unpresidential” after Muskie cried when his wife had been attacked during the campaign.

Perhaps more relevant to the current campaign is the solidarity among Iowa and New Hampshire voters in picking the same candidate — Gore and Kerry — who then became the ultimate nominee.

Time will tell, but my prediction is that Hillary will win Iowa and Sanders will win New Hampshire.  Ultimately, Hillary will become the Democratic nominee.

For more about Hillary and the 2016 presidential campaign, visit the Hillary Clinton Quarterly

DEM Iowa-NH History

Editor’s Notebook, 01/20/16

Looking for more posts about Hillary Clinton and the presidential campaign?

Although I have collaborated with Rake from the very beginning in writing this blog, I hope to take a more active role here as an editor and writer. Along with my own observations about the “detritus of modern life,” some of the stories from the Hillary Clinton Quarterly will also appear here, most likely with additional commentary from me, Rake, and sometimes Jefferson Hill.

I hope you will like the changes.

In looking back on more than 11 years of posts on this blog, what impressed me the most were the comments from our readers. They are almost all passionate (pro and con) and added immensely to the blog. Yes, we can always use more feedback and I invite you to add your own thoughts and observations in your comments. They are most welcome.

I am looking forward to this!

— Frank

Far left is still out to destroy Hillary.


, , , , , , , , ,

vote different ad

Following the same “Anyone But Hillary” strategy they used in 2008, far-left Democrats are still trying to get even with Hillary for voting for the Iraq war and not being liberal enough. The sniping against Hillary from her friends has gone on for years. Now that she’d an older “boomer,” she seems to be fair game. Unfortunately, we live in a time where you have to get what you want — no substitutions! — or you can’t possibly be satisfied.

That’s the case with Hillary. She might be a great candidate and a great president, but she’s not the perfect candidate. Nevermind if she has to lead a very diverse population: those who want the perfect candidate suffer from acute myopia. They dodn’t care if anyone else is unhappy as long as they have the candidate they want.

Keep in mind, as parents, business owners, community leaders, we created those selfish automatons by always giving them what they want and not teaching the art of compromise, or even the basic principles of democratic government. Now we have to pay the price they set for their selfishness.

Here’s a short blog post from the Hillary Clinton Quarterly about this topic:

Following the same “Anyone But Hillary” strategy they used in 2008, far-left Democrats are still trying to get even with Hillary for voting for the Iraq war and not being liberal enough.

If we consider the declared candidates and non-candidates like Elizabeth Warren, when they say Hillary has “too much baggage,” they don’t just mean the various Clinton scandals. They mean her policies, her votes, her personal beliefs, the track record of political inclusion that sometimes requires compromise with the opposition. They literally can’t stomach her and will do anything to stop her.

Eight years have changed Barack Obama’s political game, but many of his supporters from 2008 have not. Remember that “1984” anti-Hillary ad? Presumably, the President would not approve of such an outrageous attack on the former First Lady, but he did back in 2008. The ad was not just about a policy disagreement. It was a personal attack on Hillary the person and everything she believed in.

Here is the ad again in case you need a refresher:

There’s a connection between the “1984 video” and the current far left campaign to smear Hillary. Blue State Digital, the company that employed the person who created the anti-Hillary “1984 video,” was founded by a group of anti-war activists who worked on the Howard Dean 2004 campaign.

As previously noted on the company’s web site:

“The partners of Blue State Digital – Jascha Franklin-Hodge, Clay Johnson, Joe Rospars and Ben Self – started the company immediately after working for Howard Dean’s presidential campaign in 2004. Since then, the company has grown to 22 employees with offices in Boston and Washington, D.C. and works with over 40 clients – including Sen. Ted Kennedy’s (D-Mass.) campaign, Gov. Tom Vilsack’s (D-Iowa) PAC — Heartland PAC, the AFL-CIO, the DNC and the Democratic Governors Association.”

Although the company released a statement distancing itself from the video’s creator, Phillip de Vellis, clearly there was an anti-Hillary Clinton, anti-war fervor within the company that fed into de Vellis’ warped view of then-Senator Clinton as “Big Brother.” Ultimately, the company — and Barack Obama — were responsible for their role as “enablers” of de Vellis and for encouraging and promoting such extreme anti-war positions.

A viewing of the 1984 video would suggest that de Vellis takes himself and his views very seriously. However, in a comic understatement, his reaction after being fired by Blue State Digital was that the incident “changed the trajectory of my career.”

And, in an apparent effort to rebuild the bridges that were quickly burning behind him, he offered his support to Hillary Clinton and vowed to vote for her if she won the nomination.

Perhaps playing seer for this controversy, Blue State Digital co-founder Clay Johnson said in a round-table discussion entitled “Net Politics: the Internet Can Make You President” — “The thing that scares the crap out of me are the camera phone and YouTube. They are going to be the death of a candidate. ”

Or a video producer.

Our advice here at HCQ is to keep an eye on what the far left Democrats (so-called progressives) are doing to keep Hillary out of the White House. In 2008 they helped defeat her in the Democratic primaries. In 2015 they’re still trying to destroy her political career.