NEWS:
Do the Iowa Caucuses Matter? Ask President Harkin, Gephardt, and Muskie.
01-18-04
Keavin
.
The 2004 Presidential election is heating
up, with Iowa Democrats preparing to cast their support behind their man
on Monday. Howard Dean, who was the presumptive frontrunner for most of
the campaign season up until now, has seen his support dwindle away in
the past week or so. Kerry and Edwards are surging ahead of him in the
polls as we get closer to zero hour in Iowa(if you believe polls).
But with all the focus every four years
on Iowa and New Hampshire because they are first on the election calendar,
do these two contests show us who will ultimately win the nomination?
The simple answer is; sometimes.
It is especially unpredictable on the Democrat
side. In the past 7 election cycles only 3 candidates that won the Iowa
caucus went on to win the nomination.
In 1972, uncommitted delegates won the
caucus with 35.8% of the vote, Edmund Muskie came in second with 35.5%
and the eventual nominee, George McGovern, came in a distant third with
22.6% of the vote.
In 1976, Iowans again were uncommitted
to a single candidate, the uncommitted vote accounted for 37.2% of the
vote. Jimmy Carter managed to win 27.6%.
In 1980, when it came time for Jimmy Carter
to run for reelection he managed to win 59.1% of the vote against challenger
Ted Kennedy, who won 31.2%.
In 1984, Iowa got it right when they gave
48.9% of the vote to former Vice President Walter Mondale, who went on
to win the nomination.
1988 eventual nominee, Michael Dukakis,
came in third with 22.2% behind Richard Gephardt (31.3%) and Paul Simon
26.7%.
The 1992 Caucus again proved to give the
winner a lock on the nomination. In fact, Bill Clinton only managed a fourth
place finish with 2.8% of the vote behind Tom Harkin who won in a landslide
with 76.4%. Uncommitted voters came in second with 11.9%, followed by Paul
Tsongas with 4.1%.
In 2000, incumbent Vice President Al Gore
walked away with the caucus with 63% with his sole challenger Bill Bradley
winning 35%.
On the Republican side, the Iowa caucuses
have been far more predictive of the eventual nominee. Iowan Republicans
have only once since 1972 thrown their support behind a candidate that
didn’t eventually secure the nomination.
In 1988, Senator Bob Dole won Iowa with
37.4% with Televangelist Pat Robertson coming in second with 24.6% and
the eventual nominee Vice President George Bush coming in third with 18.6%.
What is important about Iowa and New Hampshire
is the fact that they usually dwindle down crowded races down to the top
contenders and also spark financial support behind candidates.
But what about New Hampshire? How predictive
is this small state that sees more of the Presidential hopefuls than every
other state in the union aside from Iowa?
Since 1952, New Hampshire has missed the
mark 5 times on the Democratic side (Estes Kefauver 1952, 56 - Edmund Muskie
1972 - Gary Hart 1984 - Paul Tsongas 1992). For the Republicans, New Hampshire
voters failed to pick the eventual nominee three times (Henry Cabot Lodge
1964 - Pat Buchanan 1996 - John McCain 2000).
So looking at the track record we have
to ask just how important are Iowa and New Hampshire, aside from being
first in the nation?
tell
a friend about this article
know
of a news item we should cover?
antiMUSIC
News featured on RockNews.info, Google
News and ARTISTdirect
NewsWire
.
Rant
or Rave? Your turn, post you comments
and thoughts on this news item. But hey keep it clean, we wouldn't want
to have to wash your mouth out with Old Spice.
Fan
Speak:
...end |