How many Dems have won IA and become President? Just one - Carter

[JCastillon]

Excluding incumbants who go unopposed, Jimmy Carter is the only Democrat to win IA (the darling of the media and the nation for way too long), and then go on to win the Presidency. That is 30 YEARS! In addition to supporting your specific candidate I am hoping more people will support changing this relic of a system that focuses way too much attention on IA, especially when the end result is that the people of IA evidently aren't the best judgement of who can actually win.

I was born and raised in IA...trust me on this one.

[William769]

1. Also it was the Southern rock bands that pushed him over to get him elected.

[Ninja Jordan]

19. True, he had Gregg Allman on his side.

[PresidentObama]

2. So you're saying to not focus on IA as much.

Or to ignore whom they choose all together?

[JCastillon]

4. All I am saying is that whoever wins in IA usually loses later.

Actually this happens in 'both' parties. For over 30 years George Bush Jr is also the only non-incumbent republican to win an IA caucus and then win it all.

I have attached the Democratic results from the last IA caucuses below and we all know how that turned out.

Name/ Votes/ Pct./ Delegates
Wesley Clark/ 3/ 0% / 0
Howard Dean/ 540 / 18%/ 7
John Edwards/ 954 / 32%/ 18
Richard Gephard/ 318/ 11%/ 0
John Kerry/ 1,128/ 38%/ 20
Dennis Kucinich/ 39 / 1% / 0
Joe Lieberman/ 0 / 0%/ 0
Al Sharpton/ 0/ 0% / 0
Uncommitted/ 15/ 1% / 0

Also, I don't think a lot of people know how a caucus really works unless you go to one. You don't go and vote like you would in a primary or an election. It is way different. I attended two in college and they were very strange events.

[justgamma]

7. And just who out of

that bunch do you think would have beaten Shrub?

[JCastillon]

8. In hindsight...it obviously wasn't Kerry

Personally I think Clark or Edwards would have had a better shot. Clark was my guy then (although he really skipped IA), and Clark is my guy now.

Kerry just had too much baggage and history that obviously came back to haunt him. Whether you think it wa fair or not, that's what happened. I really was surprised when Kerry won IA. I thought for sure that Dean would win because the press really wanted to see a Dean/Bush stand off. Thankfully even the people in IA didn't appear too excited about Dean, even with all those kids running around in the orange hats.

[Hardrada]

3. I live in Iowa now

and we might get to eat cheese and crackers with Hillary. O joy! We see them all. It was our tepid responses that did not encourage Evan Bayh to go Bayh Bayh!

[LiberalFighter]

9. Bayh wouldn't had lasted long regardless.

He couldn't get rock strong solid local support from those within the party in Indiana.

[Hardrada]

12. Oops, I meant he did go Bayh Bayh.

I didn't know E. Bayh's support was tepid even in IN. He and spouse even sent us a holiday card of some sort.

We have a local physician named Bybee. If Bay Buchanan married Even Bayh ( or one of the Bayhs) and then divorced and married our local Dr. her name would be Bay Bayh Bybee. I guess that won't happen now!

[elocs]

5. How many Dems have been reelected President since FDR?

One--Bill Clinton. Got nothing to do with Iowa, just thought I'd throw that in. In the 1976 primary here in Wisconsin I was working for Mo Udall who led in the voting until the rural vote came in and Carter won. The farmers voted for Carter because he was a farmer. From what I remember, Carter would have dropped out if he had lost Wisconsin.

[DU9598]

6. Gore

He just didn't fight to close the deal on election night.

[beaconess]

10. That's really interesting - I didn't know that

Why do you think that is?

[Zynx]

27. Only two Democrats qualify. Conversely, 50% of Dems who win Iowa become Pres.

Aren't statistics fun?

[IA_Seth]

28. Lol, thanks. n/t

[JCastillon]

30. Are you using one of those solar calculators with the lights turned down?

Below are the facts. In fact, if you really want to get picky you can take out Carter in 1976 because although he won the Caucus he only won because 'uncommitted' obviously couldn't be declared the winner. Carter - 27.6% and Uncommitted - 37.2%.

So take out Carter, and you are left with ZERO democratic candidates who have won IA and have gone all the way to win the presidency. Sorry if history just doesn't sit well with you.

You really even can't count Clinton as the winner in 1996 because they didn't even have an Iowa caucus in 1996. Sorry, but you are left with ZERO. Not one, not two, but ZERO.

Iowa Caucus Winners for BOTH Parties and if they made it all the way to president.

1972 - Democrat - Edmund Muskie - Lost
1972 - Republican - no caucus vote - N/A (Nixon of course went on to win, IA was not even in the picture)
1976 - Democrat - Jimmy Carter - Winner - sorta
1976 - Republican - Gerald Ford - Lost
1980 - Democrat - Jimmy Carter - Lost
1980 - Republican - George Bush Senior - Lost
1984 - Democrat - Walter Mondale - Lost
1984 - Republican - Ronald Reagan - Won - however unopposed
1988 - Democrat - Richard Gephardt - Lost
1988 - Republican - Bob Dole - Lost
1992 - Democrat - Tom Harkin - Lost
1992 - Republican - George Bush - Lost
1996 - Democrat - Bill Clinton - Won - however unopposed
1996 - Republican - Bob Dole - Lost
2000 - Democrat - Al Gore - Lost
2000 - Republican - George Bush Jr - Winner - for him, not us
2004 - Democrat - John Kerry - Lost
2004 - Republican - George Bush Jr - Won - however unopposed

[newyawker99]

11. Hi JCastillon!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[IA_Seth]

13. And what does that mean?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=152&topic_id=14592&mesg_id=14598

I find it absurd that anyone would 'count on' the caucus-goers in Iowa to pick THE winner, or to determine who in fact they would vote/caucus for.

Iowa's responsibility in the caucus/primary season is to pick the candidate that best represents IOWA'S values and stances on the issues. Would California's choice be appropriate for those in Alabama? Would New Mexico's pick mirror that of North Dakota? Of course not, because the issues that matter in one state may not have the same importance in another. I'd guess that illegal immigration, and water rights would play big in the West...while agriculture and jobs would play big in the midwest. It doesn't make sense for a voter with one set of criteria for the perfect candidate to choose who another voter chose simply because they went first.

Those that attempt to use any state as a bellwether as to whom the nomination should eventually go to are only feeding into the media's mistakes at propping up this false correlation. IOWA CHOOSES FOR IOWA, the rest of you can pick your own candidate.

And if you are concerned that the winner of Iowa gets undue press coverage, well that is an issue with the media.

I hope I didn't come across too harshly, these posts are rather worn out.

[JCastillon]

16. It means that someone needs to pull the plug on the IA caucus system

Or at least the over the top coverage it is getting, and it looks like it is going to happen. Many states are thankfully moving up their dates so they also can let the candidates know where they stand on the issues.

Normally I am someone who likes to hold on to tradition, but the attention IA (and NH) get by the candidates and the press is really getting to be just a joke. The actual elections will not be for almost two years and Hillary is already giving speeches this weekend? That is just nuts! If there was a system somewhere between the IA and NH first and a grab all super Tuesday then I think we need to at least go there and see how it plays out.

Also, do you know who the only non-incumbent Republican to win the IA caucus and then go on to win the Presidency is? George W. Bush Jr. That's right, our current president, and I think we all know how that turned out. So the ONE time IA picks a winner...we all pay...and pay...and pay.

Thanks Iowa.

[IA_Seth]

20. And then what?

So we pull the plug on Iowa...leaving Nevada's caucus to go first then I assume? Would Nevada's choice necessarily be New York's choice? Would it also be smart for citizens of Georgia to vote for whoever wins Nevada? The state that goes first does not have the responsibility to pick the eventual winner, it wouldn't be much of a democracy if that were the case, would it? What the first state must do is the pick the candidate that best represent THAT STATE'S values.

We have smaller, less populous states go first because it makes it easier for candidates without the 100 million dollar warchest to compete in the primary. Pressing flesh is much more productive in Iowa than say California, where the population is much larger.

Is it truly your intention to group all of the states so closely together that no citizen can personally vet our candidates, instead allowing the media to present our candidates to us in 2 minute news clips?

[Wapsie B]

14. As far as I'm concerned they can take the Iowa Caucases

and shove 'em where the sun don't shine. I've been to caucases on both sides of the aisle. I saw first-hand the rise of the rwing Xians. Problem was, at the time so many mainstreamers in the party kept telling themselves it was just an aberration, that they'd quickly go away. The caucases are not even representative of Iowa, let alone the nation. I wonder what would happen if we'd just throw everything into 4 Super-Tuesdays, or some such thing, one for 4 different regions of the country? Get it over and done with. Shorten the campaign season and cap spending, no matter what the source of $$$. As it is I'm tired of seeing every hog lot and fundie church in Iowa on national TV.

Welcome to DU from another native Iowan!

[IA_Seth]

15. The 4 Super-Tuesday concept..

I think what would happen would be a lot more media-influence over our selection process as the candidates would increasingly have to rely on sound-bytes to convey their message. We'd have tarmac-to-tarmac major media events where John Q Public would get the answers to the question the candidates themselves want to answer. The face-to-face campaigning would be a thing of the past as candidates tried to cover as much ground as possible in the shortest amount of time.

Not to mention that small states would be ignored by the candidats themselves and would instead be hosts to proxies and video-feeds from the larger, more electoral-vote rich states.

And I won't eveng get started on the absolute impossibility of a relatively cash-short campaign to wage a multi-state campaign that could actually compete with the financial juggernauts such as Hillary.

To me, its a simply bad idea.

[Debi]

21. Yes, nothing like having only the very wealthy participate in the process

Let's just have a national primary - better that four regional contests - and get the damn elections over with.

Who wants to meet/question the candidates?

Who wants to allow people to actually learn how the candidates propose to make this country better for all of us?

Just let the candidates with the most money do tarmac-to-tarmac canned speeches and ignore talking to or listening to any actual voters.

:eyes:

Iowa is as representative of the country as any state of the union is representative of the country and ANYONE who can legally vote can participate.

But you are welcome to stay home, shut your television off and ignore the process. That's democracy in action.

[liberalpragmatist]

17. Yeah, and only 2 democrats have been elected President since 1964

Unless you count Al Gore, in which case it's 3.

And Clinton didn't run in Iowa only because Tom Harkin had rock-solid support, so all the other candidates conceded Iowa to him.

[Ninja Jordan]

18. self delete

[Debi]

22. It really doesn't matter which state goes first - that state will have a larger

that necessary influence on the nominating process as long as people only sit home and watch MSM and don't take the time to learn about the individual candidates. Quit letting the press decide the 'winner' and support whoever YOU support.

The winner of the Iowa caucuses only wins Iowa - it's up to voters in all the other states to decide who 'wins' their state.

Do you really think that if Iowa is abolished and Nevada or NH or SC are put first that the 'winner' in that state will get less media attention than if they won in Iowa?

Voters need to educate themselves and then - throughout the primary process - stick to their candidate of choice or change their minds based on what the candidates do, how they perform in debates, what platforms they present - rather than having CNN tell them how to vote.

Really, Iowa is the downfall of Democratic Presidential politics? Come on.

[JCastillon]

23. How can you vote in your primary if your candidate has already dropped out?

Do you know how many candidates don't make it past IA and NH because they don't get that 'boost' that apparently is desperately needed to continue compaigning. The press ignores you and the funds dry up. If there is anyone out there who supports anyone other than Hillary...you had better cross your fingers that IA and NH voters agree with you and your candidate.

IA and NH had a HUGE impact on elections past and those states that follow them because you can't vote if they are no longer in the race.

[Debi]

25. So people watch MSNBC/CNN/FOX and the other MSM and make their decisions

They pull their funding based on Iowa's results.

This is Iowa's fault?

So, if Minnesota went first none of this (the media primary & sheeple) would happen?

[CornField]

24. Thank you for your ignorant opinion

However, Iowa doesn't (and shouldn't) pick the winner for the rest of the nation. Our purpose is to start the festivities with a level playing field -- allowing those who otherwise could not play in the larger states due to logistics and money to have a voice.

Without Iowa, you'd not have had Braun in the race... Kucinich... Dean or many of the others many here on DU put up on pedestals.

[Zynx]

26. Misleading. Only two qualifying Democrats.

1964: Incumbant Democrat.
1968: Republican.
1972: Republican.
1976: Carter.
1980: Republican.
1984: Republican.
1988: Republican
1992: Clinton.
1996: Incumbant Democrat.
2000: Republican.
2004: Republican.

So we have *two* non-incumbant Democrats that become President. One is Carter. The other is Clinton. Clinton didn't contest Iowa.

EDIT: By the way, ask Howard Dean and Wes Clark how cratering in/ignoring Iowa works.

[JCastillon]

29. Not quite...Harkin won IA in 1992. What history book are you reading?

Iowa Caucus Winners for BOTH Parties and if they made it all the way to president.

1972 - Democrat - Edmund Muskie - Lost
1972 - Republican - no caucus vote - N/A (Nixon of course went on to win, IA was not even in the picture)
1976 - Democrat - Jimmy Carter - Winner!
1976 - Republican - Gerald Ford - Lost
1980 - Democrat - Jimmy Carter - Lost
1980 - Republican - George Bush Senior - Lost
1984 - Democrat - Walter Mondale - Lost
1984 - Republican - Ronald Reagan - Won - however unopposed
1988 - Democrat - Richard Gephardt - Lost
1988 - Republican - Bob Dole - Lost
1992 - Democrat - Tom Harkin - Lost
1992 - Republican - George Bush - Lost
1996 - Democrat - Bill Clinton - Won - however unopposed
1996 - Republican - Bob Dole - Lost
2000 - Democrat - Al Gore - Lost
2000 - Republican - George Bush Jr - Winner!
2004 - Democrat - John Kerry - Lost
2004 - Republican - George Bush Jr - Won - however unopposed

[many a good man]

31. Iowa's value? Watch C-SPAN

2004 was the first time I really watched C-SPAN's Road to the White House during the Iowa caucuses. It is, bar none, the best way to see aspiring candidates up close and personal in a variety of settings and formats. I learned so much more about each candidate than I ever could by reading the tripe put out by professionals. It was even more educational than reading DU. I suggest everyone watch as much of it as they can next time around. I hope to God we don't ever lose such a wonderful part of our democracy, whether it's Iowa or some place else.