So no one has ever lost the nom that's won Iowa and New Hampshire?

babylonsister

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jan-07-08 05:09 PM
Original message

So no one has ever lost the nom that's won Iowa and New Hampshire?

Just heard that on Tweety; does anyone know off the top of their head if that's true?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

cali

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jan-07-08 05:11 PM
Response to Original message

1. I think it's over the last 3 or 4 decades or so

but yeah, it's true. For both parties.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Yael

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jan-07-08 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #1

3. That speaks volumes for momentum AND the media control over the process

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

tekisui

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jan-07-08 05:11 PM
Response to Original message

2. I also heard that no one has ever won the Nomination after losing both.

Please correct that if wrong.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

SteppingRazor

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jan-07-08 05:13 PM
Original message

1992, Bill Clinton.

Lost Iowa to Tom Harkin, lost NH to Paul Tsongas.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

tekisui

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jan-07-08 05:21 PM
Response to Original message

16. Thanks,. I stand corrected.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

SteppingRazor

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jan-07-08 05:12 PM
Response to Original message

4. I know the reverse isn't true. People have lost both and gone on to get the nomination...

but in the examples I can think of, different people won Iowa and NH.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

K Gardner

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jan-07-08 05:12 PM
Response to Original message

5. misread OP ! Idiot answer deleted.

Edited on Mon Jan-07-08 05:13 PM by K Gardner

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Skip Intro

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jan-07-08 05:12 PM
Response to Original message

6. Didn't Bill Clinton lose both?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Proud2BAmurkin

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jan-07-08 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #6

10. yup nt

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

K Gardner

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jan-07-08 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #6

11. That wasn't the ?. I misread it too and replied the same as you :-)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

beachmom

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jan-07-08 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #6

12. Didn't he skip Iowa, and then come in 3rd in NH, but called that a "victory"?

I can't remember. Someone enlighten us.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

SteppingRazor

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jan-07-08 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #6

13. Yeah, but he lost them to different people...

which means that the statement that no one who has won BOTH has not gotten the nomination could still be true. I can't think of any example that refutes it. :shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

FogerRox

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jan-07-08 05:13 PM
Response to Original message

7. I think so

about 60% of Iowa winners get the Nom, while about 75% of NH winners get the Nom.

But... I dont think in modern history, there was a 3 way race, like bewteen HRC, Obama, & Edwards. So we may be in new territory here.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Alexander

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jan-07-08 05:13 PM
Response to Original message

8. Yes, it's true.

On the flip side, Bill Clinton didn't win either, and he became president.

So if the Iowa and New Hampshire victories are split, it's still wide open.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

elocs

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jan-07-08 05:13 PM
Response to Original message

9. I don't know the answer to that,

but I did find it amusing how Clinton dismissed the outcome of Iowa after she came in third. I don't see her campaigning there again.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

cmaff05

(157 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jan-07-08 05:15 PM
Response to Original message

14. Yes it is true

There are have been 9 candidates from both parties who have won both the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire primaries, and none of them HAVENT won their parties nomination.

John Kerry is one of the 9.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

GainesT1958

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jan-07-08 05:15 PM
Response to Original message

15. I think that WAS the case for Dems...

Until Clinton in 1992--no one contested Iowa that year because Tom Harkin was running, and he finished behind Paul Tsongas in N.H., though his late recovery there is what gained him the "Comeback Kid" nickname.

It used to be the case for Repubs that no one won the presidency without winning the N.H. primary, but John McCain won it in 2000, and so ended that string.

B-)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

cali

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jan-07-08 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #15

18. You're reading it wrong. It's that every candidate who has won both

states has gone on to win the nomination in their respective parties.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

aquart

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Jan-07-08 05:30 PM
Response to Original message

17. Nobody else needs to vote. It's over.

It would be almost worth it to end the debates and the ads.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Thu May 16th 2024, 02:45 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.