Crunch time for the candidates?
Posted by Moonage on 27 Dec 2007 | Tagged as: 2008 Presidential Race
A lot is being made of the Iowa and New Hampshire caucuses. Now we’re facing “crunch time“. Let’s look at a little history, shall we?
Here’s Iowa’s history of caucus voting:
Democrats
- January 19, 2004 - John Kerry (38%), John Edwards (32%), Howard Dean (18%), Richard Gephardt (11%) and Dennis Kucinich (1%)
- January 24, 2000 - Al Gore (63%), Bill Bradley (37%)
- February 12, 1996 - Bill Clinton* (unopposed)
- February 10, 1992 - Tom Harkin (76%), “Uncommitted” (12%), Paul Tsongas (4%), Bill Clinton* (3%), Bob Kerrey (2%) and Jerry Brown (2%)
- February 8, 1988 - Richard Gephardt (31%), Paul Simon (27%), Michael Dukakis (22%) and Bruce Babbitt (6%)
- February 20, 1984 - Walter Mondale (49%), Gary Hart (17%), George McGovern (10%), Alan Cranston (7%), John Glenn (4%), Reubin Askew (3%) and Jesse Jackson (2%)
- January 21, 1980 - Jimmy Carter (59%), Ted Kennedy (31%)
- January 19, 1976 - “Uncommitted” (37%), Jimmy Carter* (28%) Birch Bayh (13%), Fred R. Harris (10%), Morris Udall (6%), Sargent Shriver (3%) and Henry M. Jackson (1%)
- January 24, 1972 - “Uncommitted” (36%) and Edmund Muskie (36%), George McGovern (23%), Hubert Humphrey (2%), Eugene McCarthy (1%), Shirley Chisholm (1%) and Henry M. Jackson (1%)
Republicans
- 2004- George W. Bush* (unopposed)
- 2000- George W. Bush* (41%), Steve Forbes (30%), Alan Keyes (14%), Gary Bauer (9%), John McCain (5%) and Orrin Hatch (1%)
- 1996- Bob Dole (26%), Pat Buchanan (23%), Lamar Alexander (18%), Steve Forbes (10%), Phil Gramm (9%), Alan Keyes (7%), Richard Lugar (4%) and Morry Taylor (1%)
- 1992- George H. W. Bush (unopposed)
- 1988- Bob Dole (37%), Pat Robertson (25%), George H. W. Bush* (19%), Jack Kemp (11%) and Pete DuPont (7%)
- 1984- Ronald Reagan* (unopposed)
- 1980- George H. W. Bush (32%), Ronald Reagan* (30%), Howard Baker (15%), John Connally (9%), Phil Crane (7%), John B. Anderson (4%) and Bob Dole (2%)
- 1976- Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan
Toss out the unopposed and Iowa is just as likely to not pick the winner of their party’s nomination process as they are to pick it. There’s nothing telling there.
Now, New Hampshire:
Democrats
- January 27, 2004: Senator John Kerry defeated Governor Howard B. Dean III, General Wesley K. Clark, Senator John Edwards, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich and Reverend Al Sharpton.
- February 1, 2000: Vice President Al Gore defeated Senator Bill Bradley
- February 20, 1996: President Bill Clinton (no serious opposition)
- February 18, 1992: Senator Paul Tsongas defeated Governor Bill Clinton, Senator Bob Kerrey, Senator Tom Harkin, Governor Jerry Brown, and mayor Larry Agran
- February 16, 1988: Governor Michael Dukakis defeated Congressman Richard A. “Dick” Gephardt, Senator Paul Simon, Reverend Jesse L. Jackson, and Senator Al Gore
- February 28, 1984: Senator Gary Hart defeated Vice President Walter Mondale, Senator John Glenn, Reverend Jesse L. Jackson, and Senator George McGovern
- February 26, 1980: President Jimmy Carter defeated Senator Edward Kennedy, and Governor Jerry Brown.
- February 24, 1976: Governor Jimmy Carter defeated Congressman Mo Udall, Senator Birch Bayh, Senator Fred R. Harris, and Ambassador R. Sargent Shriver
- March 7, 1972: Senator Edmund Muskie defeated Senator George McGovern and Mayor Samuel William Yorty
- March 12, 1968: President Lyndon B. Johnson defeated Senator Eugene McCarthy
- March 10, 1964: President Lyndon B. Johnson (no serious opposition)
- March 8, 1960: Senator John F. Kennedy defeated businessman Paul C. Fisher
- March 13, 1956: Senator Estes Kefauver defeated Governor Adlai E. Stevenson II
- March 11, 1952: Senator Estes Kefauver defeated President Harry S. Truman
Republicans
- January 27, 2004: President George W. Bush (no serious opposition)
- February 1, 2000: Senator John McCain defeated Governor George W. Bush, Malcolm S. “Steve” Forbes, Jr., Ambassador Alan Keyes, and Gary L. Bauer
- February 20, 1996: Pat Buchanan defeated Senator Bob Dole, Governor A. Lamar Alexander, Steve Forbes, Senator Richard G. “Dick” Lugar, and Ambassador Alan Keyes
- February 18, 1992: President George H. W. Bush defeated Patrick J. “Pat” Buchanan
- February 16, 1988: Vice President George H. W. Bush defeated Senator Bob Dole, Congressman Jack F. Kemp, Jr., Governor Pierre S. “Pete” du Pont IV, and Reverend Marion G. “Pat” Robertson
- February 28, 1984: President Ronald Reagan (no serious opposition)
- February 26, 1980: Governor Ronald Reagan defeated Ambassador George H. W. Bush, Senator Howard H. Baker, Jr., Congressman John B. Anderson, and Congressman Philip M. “Phil” Crane
- February 24, 1976: President Gerald R. Ford defeated Governor Ronald Reagan
- March 7, 1972: President Richard Nixon defeated Congressman Paul N. “Pete” McCloskey, Jr. and Congressman John M. Ashbrook
- March 12, 1968: Vice President Richard M. Nixon defeated Governor George Romney
- March 10, 1964: Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. defeated Senator Barry M. Goldwater, Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller, and Vice President Richard Nixon
- March 8, 1960: Vice President Richard Nixon (no serious opposition)
- March 13, 1956: President Dwight D. Eisenhower (no serious opposition)
- March 11, 1952: General Dwight D. Eisenhower defeated Senator Robert Taft and Governor Harold Stassen
- 1948: Governor Harold E. Stassen defeated Governor Thomas E. Dewey
Same holds true in New Hampshire as well. Both states have a long history of sending meaningless delegates to their convention and not establishing any nation wide trend.
Some candidates will fall out, some will rise and fall, and some will flame out. Bottom line, crunch time is February 5, 2008. I’ll start getting really excited about all this come February 1, 2008.Â
14 Comments »
on 27 Dec 2007 at 8:59 am 1.2008 Presidential Election » Crunch time for the candidates? said …
[...] Moonage Political Webdream added an interesting post today on Crunch time for the candidates?Here’s a small reading [...]
on 27 Dec 2007 at 9:01 am 2.Democrats @ 2008 Presidential Election » Crunch time for the candidates? said …
[...] Moonage Political Webdream created an interesting post today on Crunch time for the candidates?Here’s a short outline [...]
on 27 Dec 2007 at 10:58 am 3.Michael Jackson » Crunch time for the candidates? said …
[...] Moonage Political Webdream wrote an interesting post today on Crunch time for the candidates?Here’s a quick excerptCrunch time for the candidates? by Moonage in 2008 Presidential Race A lot is being made of the Iowa and New Hampshire caucuses. Now we’re facing “crunch time“. Let’s look at a little history, shall we? Here’s Iowa’s history of caucus voting: Democrats January 19, 2004 - John Kerry (38%), John Edwards (32%), Howard Dean (18%), Richard Gephardt (11%) and Dennis Kucinich (1%) January 24, 2000 - Al Gore (63%), Bill Bradley (37%) February 12, 1996 - Bill Clinton* (unopposed) February 10, 19 [...]
on 27 Dec 2007 at 2:52 pm 4.mw
said …
At least as far as the New Hampshire Republican Primary is concerned, your facts do not support your conclusion. By your count - Of the 15 NH Republican Primaries listed, the eventual Republican nominee won 11 times and finished second 4 times. I’d say that is pretty damn good indicator.
on 27 Dec 2007 at 3:35 pm 5.Moonage
said …
Well, you have to look a little closer than just the winner to get a better picture of what happened. Let’s look at the last twenty years for example:
1984 - Ronald Reagan won, he did win the presidency. He had no opposition in New Hampshire. That’s sort of a meaningless gimme dontcha think?
1988 - Bush defeated Dole and did go on to win the Presidency. They got that one right.
1992 - Pat Buchanan did extremely well in New Hampshire with about 33% of the vote. That was quite a bit more than he got anywhere else in the rest of the country and lost in a blowout.
1996 - Pat Buchanan beat Bob Dole. Dole would win the primary and get blown out in the general.
2000 - McCain Defeated Bush in New Hampshire, that would be about it.
2004 - Bush won New Hampshire with no real opposition.
And, if you go back the entire duration, and toss out the “no oppositions”, they got it right six times, and got it wrong five times. That’s giving them credit for voting for incumbants like Richard Nixon that had opposition who didn’t have a ghost chance from day one.
So, although they may have barely gotten it right more often than not, when given a real choice, they didn’t.
on 27 Dec 2007 at 5:55 pm 6.mw
said …
We are talking apples and oranges.
As an indicator of who ultimately wins the Presidency, you are right, it is not very useful.
As an indicator of who gets the nomination, I am right. Based on your list, the Republican nominee will certainly be one of the top two vote getters in the N.H. GOP primary. Moreover, there is almost a three out of four chance the N.H. winner will be the GOP nominee.
on 27 Dec 2007 at 9:08 pm 7.Moonage
said …
As far as part A, that’s a given.
As far as Part B, I can’t agree. When given no choice on who to vote for, that can’t be considered support for the only person on the ballot. So, I toss the unopposed out completely. When a candidate is on the ballot, but doesn’t make any effort to win, I don’t consider that support for the winner either. The ones that matter are the ones where there is serious competition between candidates. Given that situation, NH only bats about 50/50. ( OK, 55/45 ). The sure indicator of who’s going to win is the first week of February. Mathematically there’s so many delegates committed that it pretty much sums the whole thing up. With the penalties imposed because of early primaries on Michigan and Florida, they’ve rendererd themselves a lot less of an impact than in previous years. So, because of that, crunch time is 2/5/08, not next month. Neither Iowa or New Hampshire will predict anything or provide any direction to what California and New York are going to do. They certainly won’t have any impact on Florida, Georgia, or Texas.
The whole reason I made this point in the first place was because of media over-blowing the importance of two small states only because they are the first two to vote. Calling it “crucial” and “crunch time”. There’s nothing crucial about these two as history has shown. Every state is important in the totality of the race, but it’s a race to the finish. This is the starting gate, not the finish line. 2/5/08 for all intents is the finish line.
on 04 Jan 2008 at 2:51 pm 8.Divided We Stand United We Fall said …
2008 Presidential Candidate Stack Ranking - Post Iowa Caucus…
So what does it all mean? Certainly it is easy to overstate the importance of this one caucus. But the field is thinning and it will become even clearer next week after a real primary.
…
on 04 Jan 2008 at 4:32 pm 9.Moonage
said …
We’re not looking at the same things here. You are looking at the Iowa caucus itself, I was commenting on the media attention given to Iowa and New Hampshire. It’s disproportional to the importance these two have in the totality of the race. I don’t like media distortion, and this is a major example of that.
Every primary/caucus has a certain level of importance, but this is a marathon, not a sprint. “Crunch time” didn’t end yesterday by any stretch of the imagination. I commented on what this caucus means in a newer post. However, now everyone is focusing on how crucial New Hampshire is. Which is pretty amazing to me considering there is another primary BEFORE New Hampshire ( Wyoming for those that rely exclusively on media ). Why is it any less crucial than Iowa or New Hampshire?
on 06 Jan 2008 at 11:26 am 10.Moonage Political Webdream
said …
Crunch time, round two…
Lost in the debates last night, as well as the sports all over the networks, is the fact there was yet another caucus. Mitt Romney won Wyoming. This barely mentioned a blurb on Fox and not much more than that anywhere else. Unlike Iowa, this one …
on 09 Jan 2008 at 3:43 am 11.mw
said …
The best test for any hypothesis is it’s predictive value. The results are in from New Hampshire. The top two vote getters are McCain and Romney. One of them is your nominee. After watching McCains lackluster acceptance speech tonight, I have a hard time believing its him. So that leaves Mitt.
on 09 Jan 2008 at 8:27 am 12.Moonage
said …
Dunno about all that. If you look at the last decade, which most of these voters have been active in, they didn’t do much for Pat Buchanan or even McCain the last time. This is a very liberal state that is dominated by independent voters. I don’t think their values will dictate the results in the Deep South or Midwest.
As far as the Dems go, Bill’s greatest race was ‘92. Did NH kick him off to that surprising victory? The last time a Clinton was in a contested race in NH, they lost on their way to ultimate victory. Could that be the predictive value on the Dem side?
on 03 Feb 2008 at 2:24 am 13.mw
said …
Ok - this is the first of two “I told you so’s”. The second will be shortly after the convention. I think we can now agree that the N.H. Republican Primary is deadly accurate in picking the Republican nominee. Later.
on 05 Feb 2008 at 12:28 pm 14.Moonage
said …
If it makes you feel better, go right ahead. You have completely misinterpreted the entire intent of this post. So, I’m not going to argue the luck of New Hampshire getting it right. Are you going to make as big a deal about Iowa getting it wrong?
My point was then, and hasn’t changed, that you can’t use Iowa AND New Hampshire to make any predictions. You dwell now on New Hampshire because Iowa got it wrong. I didn’t say New Hampshire was definitely not the indicator, I said there was about a 50/50 chance they would get it right. Maybe they did. Big deal. 50/50’s hardly a longshot. That most certainly is not “crunch time” was the beef of my gripe.