How often has the winner of the first caucus gone on to become the Dem candidate for president?

Ignorant Canadian here, just wondering about all the apparent certainty.

like Carter in 1980, Mondale in 1984, Clinton in 1996 and Gore in 2000.

Only Kerry in 2004 comes to mind.

:shrug:

if not earlier.

I think that there are so many voters in other states mad at the outsize importance that Iowans got, that they will vote for someone else just to show that the game is not over yet.

I think they'd be just as mad about the media trying to foist a "subway series" between New Yorkers Clinton and Giulliani on us that they might be excited by the current results.

Seriously, the other states have historically shown themselves perfectly willing to take their leads from Iowa and New Hampshire; why should this year be any different? Americans love a winner, and Obama is the only Dem who's actually won a state right now.

Hillary's supporters crowned her President before a single vote had even been counted, so I can understand their excitement.

Frankly I find the USA system pretty confusing, but I understand your point.

since 1972 the eventual nominee has won 3 of the 7 caucuses: John Kerry (2004), Al Gore (2000), and Walter Mondale (1984). In 1972 George McGovern lost by 13 points to Edmund Muskie, in 1988 Michael Dukakis finished in third place (9 points behind Dick Gephardt), and in 1992 Bill Clinton finished in third place (73 points behind Iowa native Senator Tom Harkin). In 1976 Jimmy Carter (28 percent) was the leading candidate, though “Uncommitted” caucus-goers totaled 37 percent of the total vote.

Mondale in 1984 - no longer incumbent, but the most recent one - and Gore in 2000.

Thank you for the information. I'm starting to think that maybe I asked this question too late in the day to digest any replies before I turn in!

President? Iowa is an indicator, and it eliminates the lower polling candidates, but it sure hasn't choseour Presidents! Hell, I remember one year Robertson won the Pub caucus! Talk about a nightmare!!!!

So, yes, Iowa does not choose a president. Robertson came second, in 1988, after Dole but, of course, it was papa Bush who won New Hampshire and the nomination.

President? Iowa is an indicator, and it eliminates the lower polling candidates, but it sure hasn't choseour Presidents! Hell, I remember one year Robertson won the Pub caucus! Talk about a nightmare!!!!

President? Iowa is an indicator, and it eliminates the lower polling candidates, but it sure hasn't choseour Presidents! Hell, I remember one year Robertson won the Pub caucus! Talk about a nightmare!!!!

This looks very similar, with Obama in Kerry's position, Hillary in Dean's, and Edwards playing himself. :)

Much has changed since the modern primary system was first enacted in 1972. Back when the primaries were much more spread out, there was retail politics in more states than just Iowa and New Hampshire, which means that Iowa was a big deal but not as big of a deal as today.

With front loading there's no time for retail politics in any states but Iowa and New Hampshire, and a little bit in South Carolina. And even though there is retail politics done in New Hampshire, a lot more is focused on Iowa. And the less retail politics there is in the state the more that "momentum" becomes a factor.

2004 is IMO the closest to this year in terms of front loaded primaries. Obama doesn't have it sewn up yet. But if he wins New Hampshire next Tuesday he will be very very hard to beat.

Of course, this time we pretty much knew it was going to be the top 3 who came out of it. So Obama's (wide) victory is very significant. People all over America, and the world, were watching this contest.