When has it happened that a candidate won IA and NH in the primary, and lost the nomination?

[portlander23]

Last edited Sun Sep 27, 2015, 08:54 PM - Edit history (1)

I've seen this question posted a few times. It's an interesting question.



I've compiled recent Iowa and New Hampshire wins compared with who gets the nomination, and who won the general election. I've marked incumbents with an asterisk.

As near as I can tell, in recent history at least, if you win both IA and NH, you also have won the nomination. The only recent case against that is Muskie, though he tied in Iowa with "nobody", so it's a stretch. There are cases of winning both states and winning the nomination, but they are all incumbents except Al Gore, who was the previous vice president when he ran. That's sort of incumbenty.

Another thing to notice is that John Kerry and Al Gore are the only non-incumbent (mostly) candidates to win both races. It implies that winning both states shows a lot of support, the kind of support that is normally reserved for incumbents. In this light, if Mr. Sanders won both states, it would be quite a win.

Bill Clinton lost both races and got the nomination in 1996, though in that case, two different people won IA and NH.

In answer to the original question, if you win both states do you get the nomination? Well, there's probably no causal relationship, but it's a fun question.

[Xipe Totec]

1. It's risky to make predictions. Especially about the future. nt

[demwing]

3. I can predict the past with 100% accuracy

and I predict that in the last 11 POTUS primaries, the eventual Dem nominee won at least 1 of these 2 states (NH and IA) on 9 of 11 occasions.

If Hillary loses both, the odds are against her.

[murielm99]

6. Did Yogi Berra say that first?

If not, he should have.

LOL

[jeff47]

8. While it sounds like him, he didn't.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Yogi_Berra

Wikiquote is really handy for "did he/she really say that?"

[Xipe Totec]

10. Opinions differ on who said it, and wikiquote is not the definitive arbiter, but probably true

In conclusion, current evidence indicates that this comical proverb was first expressed in Danish, and the author remains unknown. The first written instance now known was dated 1948.

Niels Bohr died in 1962, and the first linkage of his name to the expression known to QI appeared in 1971. It is possible that Bohr employed the saying, but it is very unlikely that he coined it. Samuel Goldwyn died in 1974, and his first linkage to the saying known to QI was printed in 1979. Perhaps he used the expression, but the evidence is very weak, and it is very unlikely he crafted it. These dates will probably change as more citations are uncovered.



http://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/10/20/no-predict/


http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/never_make_forecasts_especially_about_the_future

[Cheese Sandwich]

2. Sometimes you can lose but still be seen as the winner

Tsongas won NH but somehow Clinton was seen as the winner by the media.

[Motown_Johnny]

7. There was a much larger field in '92

Paul Tsongas: 55,666 (33.21%)
Bill Clinton: 41,542 (24.78%)
Bob Kerrey: 18,584 (11.09%)
Tom Harkin: 17,063 (10.18%)
Jerry Brown: 13,660 (8.15%)
Mario Cuomo: 6,577 (3.92%)
Tom Laughlin: 3,251 (1.94%)
Ralph Nader: 3,054 (1.82%)
Charles Woods: 2,862 (1.71%)




If this continues to be 2 major candidates plus some "also ran" candidates (with my apologies to Mr. O'Malley) then there will be a more well defined winner and loser. Add to that the possibility of someone winning both Iowa and New Hampshire and the winner will be even more clearly defined.

I don't see this being 1992 all over again.

[msongs]

4. When has it happened that a candidate won IA and NH in the primary, and lost the fall election?

[thesquanderer]

5. According to this same chart...

...Kerry, Gore, and Carter's 2nd term.

Of course, Gore didn't really lose. (And according to some accounts, neither did Kerry.)

But if you're going to look at how winning these two states correlates with winning the election, you should also take into account whether or not the Republican candidate won those two states as well.

[HereSince1628]

9. Muskie got crucified for 'crying' (and the tears could have been melting snow) defending his wife

from attacks by the Manchester Union-Leader, it killed his front running status.

And that collapsed his campaign, and the Dems hopes to have their front-runner.


I think it might be different now... It's not like claiming to have dashed for cover under machine gun fire when you didn't.

[Jim Lane]

11. What about on the Republican side?

Some points aren't comparable between the parties. Here, however, part of what we're talking about is the expectations game, the momentum game, and general media tendency to report the nomination struggles as horse races.

I was wondering about the question in your OP, and I really appreciate your taking the trouble to compile the answer. If you feel like doubling your unpaid work by doing the same for GOP results, so much the better!

[portlander23]

12. I dunno if it's comparable

My understanding is that Republican contests are winner-take-all whereas the Democratic ones are proportional. I would think that would strongly favor those who win early states in a way that the Democratic contest would not.

[Jim Lane]

13. Current rules for the GOP are mixed

They prohibit winner-take-all before a specific date -- I think it's March 15 or so. After the cutoff date, each state can go winner-take-all or proportional, as it chooses.

Democratic Party rules prohibit winner-take-all throughout the process.

I think the GOP adopted any restriction only recently (last few cycles). Before that rules change, you're probably right that New Hampshire, at least, and maybe Iowa, were winner-take-all for them and proportional for us. I agree that would affect the comparability.

[blue neen]

14. The President's first name is spelled "Barack".

Thank you.