Biden would almost wrap up the race if he sweeps Iowa and New Hampshire (with fairly clear wins, I mean, not just by fractions of a percentile). Assuming he doesn’t get completely embarrassed, he doesn’t* need* to win either of those States, because the next two up, South Carolina and Nevada, are demographically much better for him.
Sanders, like Biden, would be the strong favorite if he could sweep the first two States. Unlike Biden, it’s hard to see a way forward for him if he can’t manage a win or at least a very close second in either of them.
Warren and Buttigieg would be in a strong position if they sweep IA/NH, but not as strong as Biden or Sanders would be, because they still wouldn’t have proved they can appeal to minority voters. They really have no reason to keep going if they can’t win either of these States.
And given that the NH race is very close, the momentum from winning Iowa will make it likely that the Iowa winner will also win in NH. So Iowa is going to have a huge impact on the race.
What college football folk call the Total Chaos scenario would be Warren and Buttigieg splitting the first two States, then Biden winning South Carolina and Sanders winning Nevada. Then we could have four viable candidates going into Super Tuesday.
Very important, unfortunately. Winning attracts supporters – people will strongly consider dumping their poorly-performing candidate for the one at the top (or near the top).
We’re in agreement, who would have thought it possible.
Buttigieg and Warren need first place in IA/NH or VERY strong seconds to keep going. Bernie and Biden can stick it out, especially Biden with an almost guaranteed win in SC. Bernie has tons of money and a devout fanbase so he’s not going anywhere.
It would be an odd scenario if the big 4 all finish neck and neck in IA and NH with no clear winner. NV is such a wild card and SC appears to be a Biden lock so all 4 could go into Super Tuesday. None of them are hurting for money.
Very important. It will have a great influence on how long it takes the Democrats to choose a presumptive nominee. The longer that takes, the more campaign contributions will be wasted on the circular firing squad, and the less time the nominee would have to run against Trump.
This is an example of the advantages of incumbency that make Trump, in my mind, a slight favorite.
P.S. Don’t think I’m for Trump. If he’s re-elected, I don’t rule out his being the last President under the American Republic, with Donald Trump Jr. being the first dictator under the American Greatness Empire, or whatever term the successor regime would come up with.
Plus, the primaries can be a grind. With no winner take all or winner take most states, a candidate can stay in as long as they’ve got money coming in.
I do wonder, though, what would happen if Iowa ends up being a 4 way tie as the polling seems to suggest and New Hampshire is also really close. In that case it may be very hard to draw any conclusions.
Pretty much so. Pete and Warren will continue to get donations as viable candidates. We all know Biden has got SC locked up, NV is such a crapshoot (pun intended) that who knows?
not important to me but the media goes nuts over them. I prefer Yang but he probably won’t be in the race when I vote March 3rd unless he shocks by doing very well in IA or NH.
Maybe. But there’s other factors as well. Let’s say Pete wins Iowa but Warren or Sanders wins NH. Is NH slapping him down or do the New Englanders just have a backyard advantage? Would Warren win NH as a senator from Oklahoma or Sanders as a Senator from NY?
In the past 45 years, no candidate for the nomination of either major party has lost both Iowa and New Hampshire, and gone on to win their party’s nomination.
So the answer is: they’re pretty damned important. Maybe this will be the year: maybe Biden won’t win either Iowa or NH, yet go on to win the Dem nomination. Any streak like this eventually gets broken. But if I were managing a campaign, I wouldn’t want to place too much reliance on the possibility that my candidate would be the one to do it, no matter how favorable the terrain looked.
The only exception was the unusual circumstances in 1992. Harkin won Iowa as a favorite son and IA wasn’t strongly contested. Then, in NH, Tsongas won as a neighbor state candidate. But, 1992 was just weird all around. Grab any newspaper article and it’s all about when will Cuomo or candidate XYZ jump in rather than covering who was already running. Plus, you had Jerry Brown being an early version of Bernie with him plugging the 800 number nonstop to raise small dollar donations and running as an antiestablishment candidate.
they would be more important to me if they were not both 95% white. the Dems in particular should try to get more diverse states to start. I know SC is an early state but they need more diverse early states.
As others have said, it’s important because if candidates don’t finish well in either contest, their supporters lose confidence. No matter how much someone believes in a candidate’s ideas, nobody wants to back a losing horse.
If Bernie can win both Iowa and New Hampshire, that would be a huge shot in the arm heading into Super Tuesday, regardless of how he performs in South Carolina and Nevada.
OTOH, if we believe the latest polls coming out, Biden appears to be in real trouble. He can lose in IA and NH, but if he places third behind Buttigieg or Warren, that would be sobering to say the least.
Of course, each election is different. In the past, Bernie’s fundraising would have dried up after he lost New York decisively and had no reasonable path to the nomination. So losing early may not kill fundraising as much as it used to.
Also, this cycle we have Bloomberg and Steyer bombarding the airwaves with ads. When we get to the Super Tuesday states will the billionaires crowd out the others? There’s only so much ad time to go around and no candidate can do the state fair and dinner circuit once the campaigns move to the larger states.
I think it shows a commitment that they actually want to get elected. It also forces them to be out shaking hands, kissing babies, and to meet people. Often in states they have never visited before.
When Obama was running he said he hit every fair and fish fry in Iowa to win votes.
You’re right about 1992 generally, but Iowa wasn’t contested at all that year - everybody just plain skipped it and let Harkin have an uncontested win - hence my wording. No 1992 candidates lost Iowa, so no 1992 candidates lost both Iowa and NH.