No more Iowa polls. That's over.

[bluewater]

21. Your argument is simply flawed and based on cherry picking examples.

The data shows the eventual nominee outperforms the contested field in IA, for example.

You keep making the mistake of saying, essentially, "but someone else wins sometimes, so there is no correlation".

Looking at contested nominations from 1972 onwards, the eventual nominee has WON IOWA 11 times. Someone else, from a field of multiple candidates, has won only 8 times.

That's 11 to 8 for the eventual nominee winning Iowa. If those were just head to head races, the eventual nominee would be winning 58% of the time.

But, there were more than two candidates in all those contested fields. The eventual nominee VASTLY outperforms the field in winning Iowa.

Contested Iowa Caucus Winners versus Becoming Nominee

1972 Muskie - NO
1976 Ford - YES
1976 carter - YES
1980 Carter - YES
1980 Bush - NO
1984 Mondale -YES
1988 Gephardt- NO
1992 Harkin - NO
1996 DOLE - YES
2000 Gore - YES
2000 Bush - YES
2004 Kerry - YES
2008 Huckabee - NO
2008 Obama - YES
2012 Santorum - NO
2016 Clinton - YES
2016 Cruz - NO

Hence, Your argument is simply flawed and based on cherry picking examples.

Enjoy the rest of your day