http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/2008_democratic_presidential_primaryIf she loses in Iowa, the caucus winner will have a brief moment to capitalize on the event and make his case. But, the Clinton campaign does possess something that none of her challengers can claim—a chance to win the nomination even if Iowa doesn’t work out as planned. She remains the most popular candidate among Democrats and is perceived to be the most electable. Clinton has a huge head start in New Hampshire and a solid demographic firewall due to her overwhelming support from women.
http://www.observer.com/people/hillary-clinton?page=7From Mason-Dixon pollster Brad Coker
"People forget that Bill Clinton lost New Hampshire, lost Iowa, and still won the nomination (in 1992) because he had set up a lot of backup states, and he bounced back," Coker said. "The Clintons realize you can lose Iowa and New Hampshire and still win the nomination."
Can we please, please, please stop citing the 1992 Iowa Caucuses as if that meant anything? If you need a refresher, Tom Harkin ran for the Democratic nomination that year. As soon as he entered, his fellow candidates ceded Iowa to him. No one campaign there. No one spent money there. Almost no one showed up on caucus night, when Harkin took 79 percent of the vote (second place went to “uncommitted”). And Harkin got absolutely no bounce from his “win,” since no one noticed it. He finished a distant fourth in New Hampshire the next week and was soon out of the race. For all practical purposes, Iowa didn’t happen in 1992.
Coker’s claim that a candidate can drop Iowa and New Hampshire and still win the nomination remains untested. With Nevada moving up, it seems possible it could happen in 2008 – but outside of the absurd ’92 example, it has yet to happen in either party.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2007/06/is_the_primary_calendar_dimini_1.html>
This should make clear that Iowa and New Hampshire have not historically been as critical as many might think. From this list, we might infer three facts about these contests:
1. A win in Iowa is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for success. You can lose Iowa and still win the nomination (Clinton, Dukakis, Carter, Bush, Reagan). You can win Iowa and still lose the nomination (Harkin, Gephardt, Dole, Bush).
2. A win in New Hampshire is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for success. You can lose New Hampshire and still win the nomination (Clinton, Mondale, Bush, Dole). You can win New Hampshire and still lose the nomination (Tsongas, Hart, McCain, Buchanan).
3. A win in Iowa and New Hampshire is not a necessary condition for success. You can lose both states and still win the nomination (Clinton). However, a win in Iowa and New Hampshire is a sufficient condition for success. If you win both states, you win the nomination (Gore, Kerry).
edbr