A History of Winners and Losers in Iowa (revealing data here)

[WilliamPitt]

Democrats: Since 1972, the Iowa caucus accurately picked the eventual nominee four times out of eight, for a 50% rating. 1992, in particular, saw Bill Clinton come in fourth behind Harkin, Tsongas and Uncommitted.

1972

Uncommitted: 35.8%
Edmund Muskie: 35.5%
George McGovern: 22.6%
Hubert Humphrey: 1.6%
Eugene McCarthy: 1.4%
Shirley Chisolm: 1.3%
Henry Jackson: 1.1%

1976

Uncommitted: 37.2%
Jimmy Carter: 27.6%
Birch Bayh: 13.2%
Fred Harris: 9.9%
Morris Udall: 6%
Sargent Shriver: 3.3%
Henry Jackson: 1.1%

1980

Jimmy Carter: 59.1%
Edward Kennedy: 31.2%
Uncommitted: 9.6%

1984

Walter Mondale: 48.9%
Gary Hart: 16.5%
George McGovern: 10.3%
Uncommitted: 9.4%
Alan Cranston: 7.4%
John Glenn: 3.5%
Reuben Askew: 2.5%
Jesse Jackson: 1.5%
Ernest Hollings: 0%

1988

Richard Gephardt: 31.3%
Paul Simon: 26.7%
Michael Dukakis: 22.2%
Jesse Jackson: 8.8%
Bruce Babbitt: 6.1%
Uncommitted: 4.5%
Gary Hart: .3%
Al Gore: 0%

1992

Tom Harkin: 76.4%
Uncommitted: 11.9%
Paul Tsongas: 4.1%
Bill Clinton: 2.8%
Bob Kerrey: 2.4%
Jerry Brown: 1.6%

1996

President Bill Clinton was unopposed for renomination.

2000

Al Gore: 63%
Bill Bradley: 35%
Uncommitted: 2%

=====

Republicans: Three times out of eight saw Iowa get it right. Note 1980. Note also that twice there were no caucuses because of incumbents running, so I guess that means Iowa got it right three times out of six.

1976

Gerald Ford: 264
Ronald Reagan: 248
Undecided: 62

1980

George Bush: 31.6%
Ronald Reagan: 29.5%
Howard Baker: 15.3%
John Connally: 9.3%
Phil Crane: 6.7%
John Anderson: 4.3%
No Preference: 1.7%
Robert Dole: 1.5%

1984

President Ronald Reagan was unopposed for renomination.

1988

Robert Dole: 37.4%
Pat Robertson: 24.6%
George Bush: 18.6%
Jack Kemp: 11.1%
Pete DuPont: 7.3%
No preference: .7%
Alexander Haig: .3%

1992

President George Bush was unopposed for renomination.

1996

Bob Dole: 26%
Pat Buchanan: 23%
Lamar Alexander: 17.6%
Steve Forbes: 10.1%
Phil Gramm: 9.3%
Alan Keyes: 7.4%
Richard Lugar: 3.7%
Maurice Taylor: 1.4%
No preference: .4%
Robert Dornan: .14%

2000

George W. Bush: 41%
Steve Forbes: 30%
Alan Keyes: 14%
Gary Bauer: 9%
John McCain: 5%
Orrin Hatch: 1%

http://desmoinesregister.com/extras/politics/caucus2004/pastresults.html

=====
Sum total: Iowa gets it right half the time.

[trumad]

1. It simply means the Iowa caucus is highly overrated

These numbers prove that.

[WilliamPitt]

2. Well, half-overrated, anyway

Find me a baseball player who bats .500 in their career and I'll show you a first-ballot Hall of Famer who will never be topped.

[PAMod]

6. Show me a pitcher who is .500 and I never heard of him. n/t

[lancdem]

4. It gets so much attention because it's the first test

[JI7]

3. 1992 doesn't count since Harkin was from the state

and others didn't really compete there.

[leyton]

8. I think the conclusion we can draw is...

The Iowa caucuses usually but not always make the nominee.

But it's up to the nominee to win the election.

[wysimdnwyg]

5. Thanks for the numbers, Will

In the other thread, I was quoting what I heard on the Today show this morning. I guess they should have said, "the Democratic Iowa caucus winner has only been elected President once since 1972."

[PAMod]

7. If Dean wins NH, Iowa never happened.

If Dean finishes lower than 2nd, he has a problem.

If Kerry wins NH, the fat lady will have sung. President Kerry doesn't sound too bad to me. If he loses NH, Iowa never happened.

If Clark wins NH, we have a horse race.

If Edwards wins NH, then I know nothing about presidential politics.

Geez, sounds like a lot rests on NH.

[Johnyawl]

10. I'm not sure I agree, PAMod

I think you're right on here If Dean finishes lower than 2nd, he has a problem., but the rest....

I think that Kerry and Dean can finish 1 & 2 (either way) without derailing their campaigns. But after new Hampshire we have a primary in which several southern states all vote on the same day. Those are states that Edwards, Clark & Lieberman are all counting on doing well in. IF Kerry places 1 or 2 in New Hampshire, and carries a couple of those states, than I think we can say the fat lady will have sung. If Clark loses badly in NH, but carries all the southern states, we still have a horse race. And what happens if Edwards finishes 3rd in NH, but wins the southern primaries? I think we would have a new 'front runner'.

The primaries in the little states are great for gathering momentum, but we're not going to know who wins the nomination until the big states vote,i.e., NY,CA,TX, FL,OH,PA,Il,IN, Michigan (I don't know the 2 letter abr for Michigan!). That's a shit load of delegates in those eight states.

[PAMod]

14. You are essentially correct, but forgetting about momentum.

If we have a series of primary dates, all with different winners, we are basically back to where we started.

If Kerry wins NH, he will, most likely, win the majority of states on Feb. 3. Same goes for Clark & Dean, who are both polling well (before last night anyway) in the south.

If Dean wins NH, I think Kerry is dead in the water, again.

Edwards is supposed to carry the south. If that is his only glory, it is a dog bites man story. Whoopdeedoo. If Edwards loses in any southern primaries, I think he starts to think about VP - same with Clark, though he does show strength nationally and can raise money.

That's the other thing. How will this potentially herky-jerky primary season affect fund-raising?

What if Dean continues to pile up cash, while losing? That might be interesting to watch, too.

Stay tuned!

[FredScuttle]

11. If Lieberman wins NH...

well, looks like we're playing hockey in Hades.

[hlthe2b]

9. this should raise the spirits of our Dean supporters...

The Iowa hype does not necessarily equate to true importance in the scheme of things

[lupita]

12. Thanks Will! n/t

[LincolnMcGrath]

13. Bill Clinton: 2.8% 1992

Why would the Gebster quit knowing the Iowa record?