If Iowa and New Hampshire are so important....

ShaneGR

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Oct-19-03 08:54 PM
Original message

If Iowa and New Hampshire are so important....

How come Clinton didn't win either of them in 92?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

arcos

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Oct-19-03 09:03 PM
Response to Original message

1. better than expected showing... in the top 3 in both cases n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

dsc

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Oct-19-03 09:06 PM
Original message

Because Senator Harkin

who was running, is from Iowa. And Clinton may as well have won New Hampshire given the coverage he got for finishing second.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

diplomats

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Oct-19-03 09:21 PM
Response to Original message

3. He was third in N.H., I believe

which was a tremendous accomplishment given the fact that everyone assumed his campaign for president was dead in the water a few weeks before.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

LSdemocrat

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Oct-19-03 09:06 PM
Response to Original message

2. Well . . .

Tom Harkin, who is from Iowa, was running, so NO other candidate took Iowa seriously.

Paul Tsongas, the only serious New England candidate, had a distinct advantage in New Hampshire.

Plus, the Clinton campaign was rocked by various "scandals" just before the NH primary (what a coincidence), and actually did much better than expected, thus propelling him to win the nomination.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

WillyBrandt

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Oct-19-03 09:22 PM
Response to Original message

4. Neither necessary nor sufficient

But are still very important, especially if a candidate is trying for a momentum victory.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

quaker bill

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Oct-19-03 09:30 PM
Response to Original message

5. It is not that they are soooo important

But on the other hand, opting to skip them suggests you are not ready for primetime.

This is understandable in Clark's case. He just got on board and will have trouble getting the necessary organization up and running this late.

For Lieberman though, skipping Iowa is significant, because he has had the time. It suggests that his message just is not selling.

Works for me.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

KittyWampus

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Oct-19-03 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #5

6. In Lieberman's Case- I Think It Is Definately Money

more than organization or message.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

RichM

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Oct-19-03 09:37 PM
Response to Original message

7. Oh, you mean, Clark has dropped out of Iowa, so you want to denigrate

Iowa's significance. :eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Oct-19-03 09:39 PM
Response to Original message

8. I think Clinton was the first person in decades (a century?)

not to win NH and then win the presidency.

I read that recently, but I'm not sure if it's true.

I thought there were a couple others recently. Probably not.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

JI7

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Oct-19-03 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #8

9. bill clinton was smart

he didn't win it, but his campaign said clinton actually did well considering all the crap he was getting and from then on he won the primary even though losing some of the early states. i can see someone else doing that. assume wes clark comes in second or third or maybe even 4th depending on the percentage he gets. he might say for someone who got a late start it's a big victory. same with edwards or any other candidate who might just do better than expected rather than actually win the state.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

dsc

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Oct-19-03 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #8

10. He was the first Democrat in history to do so

(since the 1950's) and only Ike did so for Republicans until Bush did this time.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Tue May 14th 2024, 04:25 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.