Well I had to look it up because it’s not that important, but those kind of comparisons get kind of silly when you delve into them too long. For a long time Missouri was the bell weather state that always picked the winner, till they stopped. But Carter lost Iowa in 1976 but won the presidency. But also, Gore won it in 2000 and lost. And Dukakis won Iowa in 1988 and lost. Kennedy lost Iowa in 60 and won. So it’s not really any kind of indicator. Sometimes it goes Republican and sometimes it goes Democrat. And sometimes the Republican wins and sometimes the Democrat wins.
So 1976 was the last time then.
It’s relevant in this case only because it’s apparently difficult (not impossible) for a Democrat to lose Iowa and still win.
Yeah it all comes down to Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. If a Dem wins back those states its a win. They can lose Iowa, Ohio and Florida and still win. Its still gonna be a bruising competition and Dems can for sure lose it but its going to be a hard march for Trump.
John Kerry won all three of these and still lost.
Not really. Of the last five Democrat presidents, two of the five became president without winning it. And two of the last five Republican presidents won despite losing Iowa. In the same time period. So it’s nothing. It’s something that even time killing analysts wouldn’t even bring up. Because you can apply this logic to ten other states that have a more direct impact.
Thats cuz he lost colorado, New mexico and Nevada. The only one of those states that a Dem could lose these days is Nevada.
Except that the map has changed. Virginia, New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada are pretty good blue states now.
Hillary won NM by 8, Colorado by 5 and Nevada by 2.
Nevada is the only one likely in play.
But I’ve never claimed that whoever wins Iowa would then also win the presidency - that would be asinine.
All I am saying is that it’s difficult for a Democrat to win presidency without IA. Obviously that implies that a Democrat could win IA and still lose.
It’s statistically insignificant. There’s no point in talking about it other than it’s technically harder to win if you lose any state.
That’s true. Therefore the rustbelt is now swing-y.
The electoral map is changing. The Rust belt has got more Red while Virginia, Texas, Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado have got more blue.
I’d agree.
I don’t think that the rust belt has gotten more red. The Democrats changed who they were asking to vote for them and the voters reacted accordingly.
Gerrymandering is also a factor in the legislative races as well, but that’s another discussion.
1 Like
Is it though ?
On one hand, yes - only worth a few EVs, so who cares ?
On the other hand, there’s probably a reason why a Democrat has not won the WH without IA in over four decades and that reason is likely that if a Democrat does not win IA, they’re also unlikely to do well in OH and other states with similar demographics.
The Democrat is going to win Wisconsin. Hillary completely ignored the state and still almost won.
Yeah I dunno. Obama won by double digits in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania in 08 and 12 (edit- only by 7 points in Wisconsin in 2012). Hillary lost in 16. Maybe those states are truly filled with independents who swing both ways depending on the candidate. But I would guess they have become less left leaning lately.
I think any centrist democrat who pays good attention to Wisconsin, Penn and Michgigan will win those states. Not so sure about a more Lefty Dem.
Dukakis actually won IA in 1988 and lost OH.
I was trying to see if IA and OH always voted for the same candidate. They almost always do.
I read that and heard Popeye’s voice.
2 Likes
