Message auto-removed

[Name removed]

[George II]

1. No matter. Remember, last time around a candidate won Iowa by a fraction of a point and....

.....lost New Hampshire in a landslide.

She did quite well the rest of the way.

[Tiggeroshii]

10. She won Iowa and South Carolina.

Losing IA and NH wouldve been way different. Also winning all 3 wouldve ended the race much earlier than it did.

[George II]

12. Yes. As I said, she won Iowa by a fraction of a point (49.84% to 49.59%) and was creamed in NH.

Essentially she won 1-1/2 of the first two states.

[Tiggeroshii]

14. Winning it at all made all the difference

[Drunken Irishman]

13. Doubtful. Had Bernie won Iowa by the same margin Hillary did, it would not have changed a thing.

[Tiggeroshii]

15. The meme wouldve changed.

But we cannot rewrite history. However, is there any candidate who won iowa and new hampshire who did not win the nomination?

Edit: 1992 bill clinton lost ia and nh. But two different candidates won those states... Biden could definitely go that direction. I just have trouble seeing one candidate winning both and losing the nomination.

[ritapria]

2. Biden doesn't need to win Ia. or NH

He does need to stay in the Top 3 in both states

[redstatebluegirl]

3. I don't think anyone has it locked right now.

Wishful thinking on your part as a Warren supporter. I think Joe will hold his own. I like Elizabeth, I just don't think we will beat 45 with someone that far left. I am not saying we should not move left, just saying the country as a whole isn't ready for what a lot of people in our party think they are.

I still think it is crazy that two small states that are very white, determine who our nominee will be. I think we should have a primary day, all 50 states vote the same day to pick the nominee.

I am sure that won't be popular with some people but that is how I feel.

[Peacetrain]

4. Iowa is pretty split.. not worried about it.. the top 4 should be viable and walk with delegates..

[GitRDun]

5. Iowa and New Hampshire don't matter.

The Democratic nominee will not be determined by a couple of states loaded with white folks.

The nominee will need the support of ALL Democrats.

South Carolina is the first primary that really matters.

Just my opinion.

[GitRDun]

38. Lol

Iowa and NH do NOTHING to tell us how minority communities feel about the candidates. I lived in Iowa for a decade. It's a fine state but hardly challenges the candidates to deal with issues important to people who aren't white.

Hillary Clinton destroyed Bernie once minority communities had their say in who we nominate.

I find it fascinating on this board of all places, how much of a blind spot there appears to be regarding this simple truth.

Until Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg and other candidates successfully plead their case and win over those communities, they don't have a prayer of getting the nomination....regardless of what happens in Iowa and New Hampshire.

[Thekaspervote]

20. 1000+

[Blasphemer]

6. I think the snowball effect would only come into play...

If we get a *decisive* victory by one candidate in both IA and NH. A runaway winner of both would have enough momentum to take those wins all the way to the nomination. The more likely scenario is a split decision - one candidate wins IA, another wins NH - with neither victory being decisive. The end result will be that the early primary states have less of an impact on who wins the nomination. This is probably a good thing.

[treestar]

7. It is not winner-take-all so whoever wins is not such a big deal

the others could make up for it in later states.

[Demsrule86]

8. New Hampshire is meaningless as Warren comes from the area...as for Iowa, I don't think it will have

the same effect as it has before...a small white state that does not reflect our diversity as a party... times change and also it is an undemocratic caucus...doesn't even give a representation of the state. Also Biden doesn't need to prove electability unlike lesser known candidates...he has been elected to the Senate multiple times and won a general election for the presidency as Pres. Obama's VP. I leave you with this interesting fact. Bill Clinton did not win either Iowa nor New Hampshire...

[George II]

35. Here are the winners going back to 1972. A surprising number of Iowa winners were the nominee...

...especially in recent campaigns. Not so much in New Hampshire.

* was the nominee

Iowa

1972 Uncommitted
1976 Uncommitted
1980 Carter* (incumbent)
1984 Mondale*
1988 Gephardt
1992 Harkin
1996 Clinton* (incumbent)
2000 Gore*
2004 Kerry*
2008 Obama*
2012 Obama* (incumbent)
2016 Clinton*

New Hampshire

1972 Muskie
1976 Carter*
1980 Carter* (incumbent)
1984 Hart
1988 Dukakis*
1992 Tsongas
1996 Clinton* (incumbent)
2000 Gore*
2004 Kerry*
2008 Clinton (H.)
2012 Obama* (incumbent)
2016 Sanders

[ritapria]

40. Uncommitted won Iowa in 1976

But Jimmy Carter got the most votes for a specific candidate ………..This quasi-victory launched his upset victory for the nomination …..Jimmy put Iowa on the political map …...No one paid any attention to Iowa before 1976

[Indykatie]

9. For Many The Real Primary Begins in SC Which Will Determine Top Tier of Candidates

There will probably be no decisive winner coming out of the IA caucus and NH primary with their 90% or more White voters. Even if Bittigieg has a good showing in IA and NH he'll face a diverse voting population in SC and struggle. Sanders may also struggle in SC. Then it's on to Super Tuesday.

[vsrazdem]

11. I don't understand how people say if Warren wins Iowa, NH it doesn't matter because

she can't win in the general, but the important one is SC, with Biden, which we will never win SC in a general. This makes no sense to me.

[SCantiGOP]

16. The importance of SC

is that it is the only early state with a significant African American vote. About half of the Dem primary is AA.
This translates into being able to judge how the candidates will do in the swing states such as MI, PA, FL, etc where the enthusiasm of the black voters is a major factor.
Biden has been maintaining a strong double digit lead in SC, and about a 3 or 4 to one margin among black voters.

[SCantiGOP]

22. I live in SC. I am an official with the State party.

But I'm sure you know better.
AA vote makes up about 50% of the Dem electorate in SC every single primary. The AA population is about 1/3 of the state, so saying it only constitutes 20% of the electorate is ridiculous.

On edit, I just noticed that you joined DU today and have a handful of posts. I guess that's why you can be so combative.

[Thekaspervote]

24. SC is the bellwether for the AA voting block. No dem has ever won without them.

In a primary or GE

The importance of SC cannot be over stated!!

[Thekaspervote]

31. Links please

[Skya Rhen]

19. Because SC better represents America in that AAs are factored in. No Dem wins Primary or GE w/o AAs.

[Thekaspervote]

26. This!!

[Thekaspervote]

30. That's your opinion, again As SC goes so does the nation when it comes to the AA vote

If you take a few moments and look at SC polls versus Ntl, this will bear itself out

[emmaverybo]

37. Always a good idea to settle in first before you start criticizing any place you are in.

Welcome!

[Tiggeroshii]

25. Is there a candidate who won both and didnt get the nom?

Clinton lost both and won it all, so biden could possibly go that route. But how bout the former? Kudos to anybody with an answer.

[elleng]

28. Who says?

You?

[evertonfc]

32. big deal

No one expected him to win Iowa or NH. Those states are not reflective of the Democratic base demographically.

[OilemFirchen]

34. Gonna keep reloading.

The suspense is killing me.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

36. Says who?

I don't know who's going to win Iowa or New Hampshire, and I also don't know how anybody else can know.

[AncientGeezer]

39. Not buying that..and the VP isn't my pick as of today..very close #2

Without sourcing....I skeptical of "unlikely"