USA Today’s Walter Shapiro had an interesting column today about the primary/caucus system and the candidates’ positioning in advance of the 2004 race.
While Shapiro’s column had some noteworthy observations — about February primaries vs. January and the importance of matching-funds, for example — he made one historical note that was incorrect.
“Historical precedent has given rise to two Iron Laws of presidential politics,” Shapiro said. “Since 1976, when Jimmy Carter put the Iowa caucuses at the center of the political map, no candidate has been nominated for president without winning either Iowa or the New Hampshire primary. And the candidate with the most money in the bank on Jan. 1 of the presidential year invariably wins the primaries.”
Shapiro’s second point is largely right, but the first one is not. While Iowa and New Hampshire are generally very significant, he’s incorrect when he says that no candidate has been their party’s nominee without winning one or the other.
Quick detour: Since 1976, only two non-incumbent candidates have won both. Jimmy Carter was considered an outsider with little hope for victory in the Dem primaries in 1976, but he won in Iowa and New Hampshire, and the nomination was his. Al Gore, meanwhile, beat Bill Bradley in every Dem caucus and primary on his way to the nomination.
Every other candidate won either Iowa or New Hampshire before winning their party’s nomination — except one who lost both but got the nomination anyway.
In 1980, Reagan won New Hampshire, but not Iowa. In 1984, Mondale won Iowa, but not New Hampshire. In 1988, Dukakis and Bush both lost badly in Iowa (they both came in third), but both won in New Hampshire. In 1996, Dole won Iowa, but not New Hampshire. In 2000, Bush won Iowa, but got his butt kicked by McCain in New Hampshire.
So, who’s the exception to the rule? Bill Clinton.
Clinton came in a distant fourth in Iowa’s caucus in 1992. Native son Tom Harkin won easily with over 76% support, while Clinton largely ignored the state and won under 3% of caucus goers. Shortly thereafter, Clinton rallied to finish second in New Hampshire behind Paul Tsongas.
I’m not just mentioning this to prove Shapiro wrong; it was an easy mistake that a lot of people make. The other point I wanted to emphasize is that Dem voters will soon see many candidates make a conscious decision as to whether to compete at all in Iowa or New Hampshire. With limited resources, a tight schedule, and a front-loaded system, many candidates may conclude that they can skip the first two races to concentrate on states such as South Carolina, Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma, and nevertheless remain competitive.
Even if candidates decide to ignore Iowa, New Hampshire, or both, this doesn’t necessarily mean their campaigns are doomed. Just something to keep in mind as the process unfolds.