I have a theory, and I wonder if it is backed by history:
If a candidate wins both the disparate states of Iowa and New Hampshire, it seems they will win everything.
True or false?
If a candidate wins both the disparate states of Iowa and New Hampshire, it seems they will win everything.”
Absolutely correct.
But we don’t know that strictly speaking from history....because it has (I think) never happened. (Except like Reagan in 84 or Bush in 04 but those are not true primaries).
In other words, if Trump wins IA and NH...we can say...WOW, that is unprecedented!
And it would be. And I think therefore right to predict that Trump would win every state thereafter.
Other than incumbent Presidents running for reelection I do not recall that ever occurring.
I think most people think if Trump wins in Iowa and New Hampshire he has this thing sewed up fairly quickly...
Theses states aren't really all that disparate. Both have similar demographics, an extraordinarily highly inflated opinion of themselves, a substantial college and college educated population who think they are smarter than the rest of the country, some history of being bellweather states in the past but both trending Democrat recently, were among the first to endorse queer marriage, etc.
The only real major difference is that New Hampshire is more urban and is probably the most conservative state in New England. Iowa is more rural and would rank only behind three of five states bordering the Great Lakes for being the most liberal in the Midwest.
“If a candidate wins both the disparate states of Iowa and New Hampshire, it seems they will win everything.
True or false?”
False. The first six months of this campaign have proven clearly this year is quite different than those in the past. All the old theories should be thrown out the window.
The correlation, based on an analysis I read but can’t recall the source of, is:
- #1 or #2 in Iowa
- #1 in NH
- a strong lead in national polls at the start of the primary season
TThe analysis showed these three factors correlated very strongly with the eventual nominees from both parties over a series of elections. But of course correlation does not imply causation.
I would think it is true for this election. Win Iowa AND New Hampshire and the others start withering quickly.