Iowa Caucus Report

by: Mike Lux

Fri Oct 12, 2007 at 16:30

Assuming Iowa is still first in the nation (this calendar stuff just keeps getting weirder and weirder), the biggest single variable in terms of bounce, momentum, and changing the nature of the race is the surprise factor. If candidates finish in the order national reporters expect them to, it doesn't change anything. McCain's gamble to skip Iowa in 2000 worked because nothing surprising happened there, and he was able to make his stand in New Hampshire. Wes Clark's gamble to skip Iowa in 2004 blew up in his face because of Kerry's upset victory- it totally blew Clark out of the media spotlight and ended his chances.

You can go back over time and check it out:

-In 1976, Carter's momentum out of Iowa was unstoppable because his victory was such a big surprise

-In 1980, Carter was expected to win Iowa, did, and nothing changed in the dynamics of the campaign

-In 1984, Mondale got nothing out of a widely expected Iowa landslide win, but Hart got a huge boost because pundits didn't expect him to be in second place.

-In 1988, Gephardt was expected to win Iowa and did, but all the surprise was on the Republican side with Pat Robertson finishing first, so Gephardt got no bounce at all

-In 2000, the Gore-Bradley race in Iowa was thought to be more competitive than it turned out to be, so while it wasn't a surprise for Gore to win, it was a surprise that he crushed Bradley so badly, deflating Bradley's NH campaign.

One variable this year is that the top three Democratic candidates are so closely bunched at the top. If things stay that way all the way to the end, whoever wins probably will get a boost, especially if it's a solid victory.

The big surprise, though, would be if any of the top three fades in the last week of the campaign, and one of the second-tier candidates slips ahead and finishes in the top three. I would not be surprised to see that happen, and if it does, it would utterly destroy whichever of the top three candidates slip, and would give a really big boost and a lot of attention to the surprise top three finisher. If that turns out to be Richardson, with his "no residual troops" issue, and his Hispanic base in all the February 5th states (plus Nevada in between), this could suddenly become a very exciting race.

Mike Lux :: Iowa Caucus Report

Tags: Iowa caucuses, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

Iowa Caucus Report | 4 comments

I think you're wrong about 1980 (0.00 / 0)

It was much more like 2000, the extent of Carter's defeat of Kennedy damaged Kennedy in NH and that ended the race.

by: AJ MA @ Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 09:37:19 AM CDT

You might be right about that. (0.00 / 0)

by: Mike Lux @ Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 13:34:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm too young to remember that (0.00 / 0)

but I read a biography about Senator Kennedy, IIRC by Adam Nagourney. Kennedy did his infamous interview with CBS news where he couldn't articulate why he was running for President. Then he got crushed in IA and lost New Hampshire too.

The interesting thing about that is how on media moment could be so much bigger then. Now there are so many images and outlets unless someone issues a racial slur one camera they may be swamped by the next news mini-cycle.

by: AJ MA @ Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 14:33:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Depends. (0.00 / 0)

I think it depends on the media moment in question. People my age will never forget that interview, or Reagan's brilliantly delivered signature lines in his debates ("I paid for these microphones","There he goes again", I won't take advantage of my opponent's youth and inexperience"). But I can remember signature moments from just about every campaign, and every President.

by: Mike Lux @ Sat Oct 13, 2007 at 18:05:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]