The first tie of 2008 is one of the first I ever owned.
A fresh start, with a return to classic values and timeless style and polyester flair. It's the Barack Obama of ties.
Update: Why you shouldn't fret too much about the Iowa hype:
Factoring out those who ran unopposed...
- Since 1972, 4 of 8 Democratic candidates who won in Iowa have gone on to earn their party's nomination.
- Since 1976, 3 of 5 Republican candidates have done the same.
- In 1988, George H.W. Bush was elected president, despite polling third in Iowa, with 19% of the vote. He lost to Bob Dole and Pat Robertson (the raging doofus).
- In 1992, Bill Clinton stormed out of nowhere to win the Democratic nomination and the presidency, despite polling only 3% in the Iowa caucus.
Update II: Gallup looks at the ways the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary have--and haven't--changed voter preferences. (They can't analyze the 1988 example due to a lack of data, and completely whiff on the Clinton anomaly in 1992, since he polled strongly in New Hampshire.)
3 comments:
Agreed. There weren't any real indicators that any candidate would get more than 35% of the vote on either side. Its neck and neck and neck and neck in New Hampshire. America has an exciting few weeks ahead.
You do realize that Iowa Senator Tom Harkin was running for President in 1992 and all the other Democratic candidates ceded the Iowa Caucuses to him, don't you?
No, no I didn't, and I can't even claim "I was just an eighth grader" as an excuse, what with Wikipedia and all.
Makes sense, now, why second-place Paul Tsongas beat Clinton with 4%, and "Uncommitted" beat both with 12. (Harkin, for running relatively unopposed, got only 76%.) Oh, for the days when Iowa could be flat-out ignored.
The more germane example, then, would be Michael Dukakis, who won the nomination in 1988 despite polling third in Iowa.
Iowa can matter, but it sure doesn't have to.
Post a Comment