tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post4174325855886435717..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: Catch of the DayJonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-47634106026469448342011-06-22T18:11:54.954-05:002011-06-22T18:11:54.954-05:00Thanks for engaging in the comments. But the scena...Thanks for engaging in the comments. But the scenario you call unlikely happened in 2000 and 2008 (I disagree that McCain's 13% of the '08 IA vote is at all meaningful, and he took the lead in NH polls before that anyway). I think a hypothesis of IA and NH as separate, unrelated contests fits the evidence better. Especially because in 2008, a candidate with limited geographic appeal and little elite support won IA, and it's not too hard to imagine that happening again...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-29117754356124529472011-06-22T16:49:04.242-05:002011-06-22T16:49:04.242-05:00I think it's implausible that Huntsman will wi...I think it's implausible that Huntsman will win NH. I think it's unlikely that anyone can skip Iowa and win NH. Huntsman has more problems than just skipping Iowa. <br /><br />I did a post a while back talking about the way an implausible nominee could win the nomination...if I recall correctly, I had Huntsman in the group of relatively less implausible candidates out of the group of implausible nominees. Doesn't mean it couldn't happen, but it would take a real change from the way things have been, a change that isn't evident so far.<br /><br />And, yes, I think it's far more likely that he wins NH than that he wins the nomination.Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-85327392997416389002011-06-22T16:43:22.126-05:002011-06-22T16:43:22.126-05:00You sound like those pundits who proved that only ...You sound like those pundits who proved that only governors, never senators, can be elected president! <br /><br />You've backed off a bit from your assertion in an earlier post that Huntsman simply won't win NH. So do you think that if Huntsman skips IA and wins NH, he will still have zero shot at winning the nomination?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-67621895588482153722011-06-22T16:10:17.996-05:002011-06-22T16:10:17.996-05:00I don't understand this objection. Beginning i...I don't understand this objection. Beginning in 1972, every nominee in both parties finished at least third in Iowa, with the sole exception of McCain in 2008 -- who finished 4th, missing third place by 0.36% of the vote (and not counting the uncontested 1992 Dem caucuses).<br /><br />You don't have to win Iowa to do well in New Hampshire, or to be nominated. You can finish second, or third. But there's no evidence at all that you can win the nomination while skipping Iowa.Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-58069366726543202832011-06-22T16:01:06.470-05:002011-06-22T16:01:06.470-05:00Just to belabor the point a bit:
2008 IA GOP cauc...Just to belabor the point a bit:<br /><br />2008 IA GOP caucuses - Mike Huckabee (34%), Mitt Romney (25%), Fred Thompson (13%), John McCain (13%),<br />2008 IA Dem caucuses - Barack Obama (38%), John Edwards (30%), Hillary Clinton (29%),<br />2000 IA GOP caucuses - George W. Bush (41%), Steve Forbes (30%), Alan Keyes (14%), Gary Bauer (9%), John McCain (5%)<br /><br />That's three of the last five competitive primary seasons where the eventual NH winner did not finish first or second in IA.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-65967365150150674732011-06-22T15:48:29.898-05:002011-06-22T15:48:29.898-05:00Again, your "you have to do well in IA to do ...Again, your "you have to do well in IA to do well in NH" premise is totally wrong, not backed up by history -- don't you have to rely on evidence to be a political scientist?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com