Iowa

Iowa.

Why?

The state that for no good reason is so seemingly important to our political process. It is incredible to me that candidates will fall away due to a bunch of hoo-hahs in a state you won't hear about for, well, another four years.

A caucus and ethanol......maybe a corn maze, that's what it's known for. I'm not knocking the state, exactly. I'm just saying it is a lot of weight put into one race. Statistically, it doesn't really pay off either.....for Dems or the big fat stupid, stubborn Elephants.

As of 21:36 EDT the caucus is still going on, so there aren't any leaders as of yet, and well, Blobby needs his beauty rest. So I can't even weigh in on who will be weeded out. Not that it matters, not really.

Going from 1972 - 2016, and not including those candidates running unopposed (i.e. presidents running for re-election) below are some stats for both parties.

Democrats

• 12 caucuses
• 11 caucuses with opposition: Kennedy ran against Carter in 1980; Nader ran against Clinton in 1996 
• 8 of the 11 who won Iowa won the nomination (2 of the 3 others had 'uncommitted' as the Iowa winner. ouch!) - that is 72.7% success rate. In test terms that's a C-. 
• 3 of those 8 candidates won the general election (Al Gore not withstanding). That is a 37.5%. Grade: F

Republicans

• 12 caucuses
• 9 caucuses with opposition; 3 unopposed
• 3 of 9 the candidates (excluding the unopposed) who won Iowa, won the nomination. That rate?  33.3%.  F-, at best 
• 1 of those 3 candidates won the general election (Al Gore not withstanding, as it was Shrub who was the winner). 33.3%. See above.

I get that for whatever reason, the $$$$ dries up a bit if one doesn't show well in Iowa, but a 34% win didn't help Mike Fuckabee win the nomination, and the 13% that eventual nominee McCain won, well.....didn't do him any good either.

Of course, I'm still baffled by how one 'scream' in from Howard Dean sunk his campaign.



Song by: Dar Williams