Some people like to point out that the Democratic NH primary is a poor predictor of the eventual President. But that’s simply because few Democrats have actually won the Presidency since 1980. So that could be a criticism rased against almost ANY primary that Clinton lost in 1992, where he still came in second against Tsongas! Clinton won an “uncontested” NH Primary in 1996.

But to say the Democratic NH Primary isn’t a good predictor of eventual success is simply saying that NO contested Democratic Primary is a very good predictor over the last few decades. One would have to look at the Republican Primaries for THAT. It is a good predictor of the eventual Democratic NOMINEE (though not 100% certain).

2004 John Kerry Senator John Edwards fourth
2000 VP Al Gore Senator Bill Bradley
1996 Bill Clinton (no serious opposition)
1992 Paul Tsongas #2 Bill Clinton [Tsongas from neighboring Mass…Clinton emerged from the pack to gain the monicker “The Comeback Kid”]
1988 Michael Dukakis
1984 Gary Hart #2 VP Walter Mondale
1980 Jimmy Carter #2 Edward Kennedy #3 Gov. Jerry Brown.
1976 Jimmy Carter
1972 Edmund Muskie #2 George McGovern
1968 Lyndon B. Johnson #2 Eugene McCarthy [LBJ had a poor showing vs. McCarthy though, showing vulnerability; eventually VP Hubert Humphrey was nominated after a campaign marked by the assassination of Robert Kennedy]
1964 Lyndon B. Johnson (no serious opposition)
1960 Sen. John F. Kennedy businessman Paul C. Fisher
1956 Estes Kefauver Governor Adlai E. Stevenson II
1952 Sen. Estes Kefauver Pres. Harry S. Truman [HST decided not to run for 3rd term after this defeat]

Has Edwards ever stated that he would work to criminally prosecute ant Bush official? Did he move to encourage impeachment (by the House) while he was a Senator? There were many criminal and Unconstitutional acts already known by then. Seemed he was awfully conciliatory back then…for example, not calling out Cheney in his debates.

Perspective…
There are 852 delegates for the 2008 DNC national convention.
Per wiki history no winner of the Iowa Dem caucus in a contested primary have been elected President.
Per wiki – only ONE winner of the NH Dem Primary have been elected President – Jimmy Carter.

They only have O-13, E-12 & C-11 pledged delegates…. there is a whole lot more races to get to majority.

RGB… I saw it ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucus

Where’d you get this erroneous information katy? If one looks at candidates who took first in the Iowa caucuses you have
2004 – John Kerry (38%);
2000 – Al Gore (63%) [and Bill Bradley (37%)];
1996 – Bill Clinton (unopposed)
1992 – “Favorite son” Tom Harkin (76%), [No one else actually seriously ran, though]
1988 – Dick Gephardt (31%), Paul Simon (27%), Michael Dukakis (22%), and Bruce Babbitt (6%)
[Also viewed as suspect as Gephardt was something of a “favorite son” from an adjacent farm-belt state]
1984 – Walter Mondale (49%)
1980 – Jimmy Carter (59%) and Ted Kennedy (31%)
1976 – “Uncommitted” (37%), Jimmy Carter (28%) Birch Bayh (13%), Fred R. Harris (10%), Morris Udall (6%), Sargent Shriver (3%), and Henry M. Jackson (1%)
1972 – “Uncommitted” (36%), Edmund Muskie (36%), George McGovern (23%), Hubert Humphrey (2%), Eugene McCarthy (1%), Shirley Chisholm (1%), and Henry M. Jackson (1%)

So the candidate that received the most votes in Iowa became the Democratic nominee 6 times out of 9. In only one of those was there an unopposed candidate (although one could regard Kennedy’s bid as such, it WAS viewed as a real threat at the time). Two of those times there was a “favorite son” and most people argued that the Iowa votes were not indicative of more than regional support. And 1972 was an oddity as well, given Muskies psychological meltdown after a Republican dirty-tricks campaign. In my view “Uncommitted” is NOT a candidate who can win the nomination…and everyone considers the person who emerges as first amongst the candidates in such a race as the “winner”.

In any event, there was no favorite son in this campaign and “uncommitted” didn’t lead the options. There was no President in office. So the race was far more like 2004,1984, and 1972 or 2000, 1980 and 1976. In all but one the Iowa caucus winner did emerge as the eventual nominee.

I’m a little shocked at his results in Iowa. I thought he would do better than in 2004 especially as Howard Dean wasn’t drawing off the progressive vote.

OB comes from the next door state to IA he got a lot of help from the IA neighbours, bus loads of young IL people knocking on doors for him and a lot of students caucusing for him that is not the case here in NH. In addition he picked up a number of “votes” from other candidate’s supporters that is not going to happen here. There is a lot of support for Richardson here, not so much for the little twit from Cleveland. HRC is not well liked here either. Some because of big bill’s cigar antics but also because of NAFTA and welfare reform. I think that Edwards will do well here, probably a good second if not first. Hillary, hopefully, will be send to the scrap heap.

So, going back to last night’s results, crossover and independent voters favored Obama and Edwards much more than they did Clinton. Bad news for Hillary. (If I’m understanding the CNN entrance polls correctly.)

This phenomenon helps Edwards, but from the stats not enough to win. Edwards will have to hit a nerve to win (IMHO).

I think that Hillary will have to win (or be a very close second) in NH to win the nomination…if Obama wins it’s going to be hard for either Edwards or Clinton to beat the momentum.

All will stay in until the next set of primaries hoping for a miracle, though. There, Edwards would have to win in South Carolina. If he can’t win there then the idea that he can do anything in the South is likely a fiction. But he will also have to win a few other States as well to demonstrate he’s more than a regional phenomenon.

I’m a little shocked at his results in Iowa. I thought he would do better than in 2004 especially as Howard Dean wasn’t drawing off the progressive vote. Beating Hillary was a tepid victory. It was minimal and not by a large enough margin to send her campaign in NH into an utter tailspin panic mode.