By the end of March the contest should be over, there are very few states after March 17th.
Because the top 4 are very close in the first 3 states whoever wins Iowa will win the first 3 states due to momentum. If Biden loses Iowa he will lose the first 3 contests in a row, 4 strait weeks of losing.
The betting therefore should reflect primarly if only Iowa, and don't forget Iowa for the Democrats has special rules too.
Iowa is important, but it's far from everything. Cruz winning it in 2016 didn't stop Trump continuing his frontrunner status. Clinton barely won it the same year by under 0.5% but held her lead nationally fairly comfortably. Santorum won (essentially joint 1st) the state in 2012 but only won a handful of other states afterwards; and came 3rd in the next two states. Obama in 2008 knocked out Edwards by winning Iowa, but the race was nowhere near to being over (and he didn't carry the momentum into New Hampshire very much despite some expectations).
I'm not denying that winning Iowa has boosted the candidates who do so, but it rarely if ever dominates the process like you describe. Iowa and NH frequently have different winners, and though nominees tend to win one of them there's no rule which says you have to.
I remember the Rick Santorum presidency well. Precedent is comforting for simplicity but voters remain complicated. Thank heavens.
By the end of March the contest should be over, there are very few states after March 17th.
Because the top 4 are very close in the first 3 states whoever wins Iowa will win the first 3 states due to momentum. If Biden loses Iowa he will lose the first 3 contests in a row, 4 strait weeks of losing.
The betting therefore should reflect primarly if only Iowa, and don't forget Iowa for the Democrats has special rules too.
Iowa is important, but it's far from everything. Cruz winning it in 2016 didn't stop Trump continuing his frontrunner status. Clinton barely won it the same year by under 0.5% but held her lead nationally fairly comfortably. Santorum won (essentially joint 1st) the state in 2012 but only won a handful of other states afterwards; and came 3rd in the next two states. Obama in 2008 knocked out Edwards by winning Iowa, but the race was nowhere near to being over (and he didn't carry the momentum into New Hampshire very much despite some expectations).
I'm not denying that winning Iowa has boosted the candidates who do so, but it rarely if ever dominates the process like you describe. Iowa and NH frequently have different winners, and though nominees tend to win one of them there's no rule which says you have to.
Only one candidate has ever got the nonination without winning either Iowa or N.H., Bill Clinton in 1992 and only perhaps because Tom Harkin who won Iowa that year was the Senator from Iowa.
In the Democratic Primary whoever wins Iowa usually gets the nomination, in the Republican Primary it's usually whoever wins N.H. That's due to the differences between party structures.
Only one candidate has ever got the nonination without winning either Iowa or N.H., Bill Clinton in 1992 and only perhaps because Tom Harkin who won Iowa that year was the Senator from Iowa.
In the Democratic Primary whoever wins Iowa usually gets the nomination, in the Republican Primary it's usually whoever wins N.H. That's due to the differences between party structures.
By the end of March the contest should be over, there are very few states after March 17th.
Because the top 4 are very close in the first 3 states whoever wins Iowa will win the first 3 states due to momentum. If Biden loses Iowa he will lose the first 3 contests in a row, 4 strait weeks of losing.
The betting therefore should reflect primarly if only Iowa, and don't forget Iowa for the Democrats has special rules too.
Iowa is important, but it's far from everything. Cruz winning it in 2016 didn't stop Trump continuing his frontrunner status. Clinton barely won it the same year by under 0.5% but held her lead nationally fairly comfortably. Santorum won (essentially joint 1st) the state in 2012 but only won a handful of other states afterwards; and came 3rd in the next two states. Obama in 2008 knocked out Edwards by winning Iowa, but the race was nowhere near to being over (and he didn't carry the momentum into New Hampshire very much despite some expectations).
I'm not denying that winning Iowa has boosted the candidates who do so, but it rarely if ever dominates the process like you describe. Iowa and NH frequently have different winners, and though nominees tend to win one of them there's no rule which says you have to.
Iowa has historically been more important for the Democrats than the Republicans. For the Republicans, it often picks someone on the religious right side of the party. For the Democrats, it usually lifts whoever wins it significantly. Back in '04, Kerry was way behind Dean and Gephardt, and then Iowa. In '08, Obama lagged Clinton... then Iowa. The only time the Democratic nominee was not chosen in Iowa in the modern primary period was '92, when it was won by the Senator from... Iowa.
That doesn't mean that you can't lose Iowa and win the nomination, because small datasets. But if Buttigieg wins Iowa, then he will be blasted onto the main stage, and given he's equal first in NH, then you'd reckon he has to be odds on for there too. At this point, the other moderates will be dropping like flies...
Only one candidate has ever got the nonination without winning either Iowa or N.H., Bill Clinton in 1992 and only perhaps because Tom Harkin who won Iowa that year was the Senator from Iowa.
In the Democratic Primary whoever wins Iowa usually gets the nomination, in the Republican Primary it's usually whoever wins N.H. That's due to the differences between party structures.
Iowa is important for Sanders, Buttigieg and Warren. Less so for Biden because he has strength in Nevada and South Carolina. NH and Iowa could decide his main challenger
I hope he's had a massive coronary by the end of January.
Not appropriate.
Seems weird to me. The elections over. He’s still stoking expectations as though still on other side of Election Day. The right thing now would be to row back on expectations, talk up the hard work And all pulling in same direction needed to earn prosperity.
Only one candidate has ever got the nonination without winning either Iowa or N.H., Bill Clinton in 1992 and only perhaps because Tom Harkin who won Iowa that year was the Senator from Iowa.
In the Democratic Primary whoever wins Iowa usually gets the nomination, in the Republican Primary it's usually whoever wins N.H. That's due to the differences between party structures.
If only someone anonymous had written a really good novel about that Primary race...
Dominic Cummings just texted me to say his favourite ever documentary is The War Room about the actual 1992 election. One of the Brexit book describes him watching it over and over again for its lessons in campaigning. From Bill to Boris: who'd have thunk it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgo-qwfCFYU
It is available on DVD btw (fx: waves dvd at webcam) if you want to succour your inner Dom.
Comments
*unless one is a LD when these should be as a quasi-MP vote...
And may your God go with you
In the Democratic Primary whoever wins Iowa usually gets the nomination, in the Republican Primary it's usually whoever wins N.H.
That's due to the differences between party structures.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
That doesn't mean that you can't lose Iowa and win the nomination, because small datasets. But if Buttigieg wins Iowa, then he will be blasted onto the main stage, and given he's equal first in NH, then you'd reckon he has to be odds on for there too. At this point, the other moderates will be dropping like flies...
Essentially, if Sanders drops out, then his vote largely goes to Warren. (And she probably wins.)
If Warren drops out, then her vote goes four roughly equal ways: Biden, Sanders, Buttigieg and Other (mostly Klobucher).
NH and Iowa could decide his main challenger
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgo-qwfCFYU
It is available on DVD btw (fx: waves dvd at webcam) if you want to succour your inner Dom.