Iowa Caucus Vs. New Hampshire Primary: Which is the Better Predictor?

The Iowa Caucus has come and gone - Barack Obama won the Democratic Caucus, whereas Mike Huckabee won the Republican side.

But exactly how useful are the results from Iowa? Let's take a quick and dirty look at the numbers from 1976 to 2004:

IOWA CAUCUS

Democratic Winners
























































Won the Caucus
Won the Party Nomination
Won the Election
1976 "Uncommitted" Jimmy Carter Jimmy Carter
1980 Jimmy Carter Jimmy Carter Ronald Reagan
1984 Walter Mondale Walter Mondale Ronald Reagan
1988 Dick Gephart Michael Dukakis George H.W. Bush
1992 Tom Harkin Bill Clinton Bill Clinton
1996 Bill Clinton (unopposed) Bill Clinton Bill Clinton
2000 Al Gore Al Gore George W. Bush
2004 John Kerry John Kerry George W. Bush

Percentage of Democratic candidates that win the Iowa Caucus and subsequently the party's nomination: 62.5% ( 5 out of 8 )

Percentage of Democratic candidates that win the Iowa Caucus and subsequently win the Election: 12.5% ( 1 out of 8 )

Republication Winners






















































Won the Caucus
Won the Party Nomination
Won the Election
1976 Gerald Ford Gerald Ford Jimmy Carter
1980 George H.W. Bush Ronald Reagan Ronald Reagan
1984 Ronald Reagan (unopposed) Ronald Reagan Ronald Reagan
1988 Bob Dole George H.W. Bush George H.W. Bush
1992 George H.W. Bush (unopposed) George H.W. Bush Bill Clinton
1996 Bob Dole Bob Dole Bill Clinton
2000 George W. Bush George W. Bush George W. Bush
2004 George W. Bush (unopposed) George W. Bush George W. Bush

Percentage of Republican candidates that win the Iowa Caucus and subsequently the party's nomination: 75% ( 6 out of 8 )

Percentage of Republican candidates that win the Iowa Caucus and subsequently win the Election: 37.5% ( 3 out of 8 )

NEW HAMPSHIRE PRIMARY

Democratic Winners
























































Won the Primary
Won the Party Nomination
Won the Election
1976 Jimmy Carter Jimmy Carter Jimmy Carter
1980 Jimmy Carter Jimmy Carter Ronald Reagan
1984 Gary Hart Walter Mondale Ronald Reagan
1988 Michael Dukakis Michael Dukakis George H.W. Bush
1992 Paul Tsongas Bill Clinton Bill Clinton
1996 Bill Clinton (unopposed) Bill Clinton Bill Clinton
2000 Al Gore Al Gore George W. Bush
2004 John Kerry John Kerry George W. Bush

Percentage of Democratic candidates that win the New Hampshire Primary and subsequently the party's nomination: 75% ( 6 out of 8 )

Percentage of Democratic candidates that win the New Hampshire Primary and subsequently win the Election: 25% ( 2 out of 8 )

Republican Winners
























































Won the Primary
Won the Party Nomination
Won the Election
1976 Gerald Ford Gerald Ford Jimmy Carter
1980 Ronald Reagan Ronald Reagan Ronald Reagan
1984 Ronald Reagan (unopposed) Ronald Reagan Ronald Reagan
1988 George H.W. Bush George H.W. Bush George H.W. Bush
1992 George H.W. Bush George H.W. Bush Bill Clinton
1996 Pat Buchanan Bob Dole Bill Clinton
2000 John McCain George W. Bush George W. Bush
2004 George W. Bush (unopposed) George W. Bush George W. Bush

Percentage of Republican candidates that win the New Hampshire Primary and subsequently the party's nomination: 75% ( 6 out of 8 )

Percentage of Republican candidates that win the New Hampshire Primary and subsequently win the Election: 50% ( 4 out of 8 )

COMPARING THE TWO









































From 1976 to 2000

Won the Primary & Party Nomination
Won the Primary & the Election
Iowa
Democrats
62.5%
12.5%
Republicans
75%
37.5%
 
New Hampshire
Democrats
75%
25%
Republicans
75%
50%

Conclusion

It seems that the Iowa Caucus is more effective in determining who the party nomination will be for Republicans than Democrats ( 75% vs. 62.5% ). The New Hampshire Primary does a slightly better job in determining the nomination from both parties.

In case of winning the election, New Hampshire is better at predicting the Election winners for both Democrats and Republican than the Iowa Caucus. This is especially true for the Republicans (as they've won 5 out of the last 8 elections). Another way to say it is, if a Republican won the Presidential Election, then it's more likely that candidate won the New Hampshire Primary than the Iowa Caucus.

Source: Iowa Caucus [wiki] | New Hampshire Primary [wiki]


IMO, it's better for each year to *only* make comparisons with the party that ultimately wins the presidency. Was the ultimate electee properly predicted by his party?

Here's what I mean, using 1984 as an example. In this year, there was no way in hell anyone but Reagan would ultimately win -- it was a complete blowout. The Democrats had to pick *some* candidate in Iowa and New Hampshire, but it wasn't really important who it was since he would ultimately be crushed. So did it matter that Iowans liked Gary Hart over the ulimate nominee Mondale? No, not really. Using this point for prediction analysis distorts the reliability of the estimator -- each state will need to come up with one Democrat & one Republican, one of which will ultimately lose.

What is more interesting is when something like 1992 happens... In this case, Iowan Democrats went with Tsongas, but ultimately Clinton won the party nomination and the election. The party won, but Iowans came up with the wrong nominee. The same thing happened in 2000 with Republicans in NH when they went with McCain yet GWB won both the party nomination and the Presidency. In both of these examples, the respective state missed soundly.

BTW, in the titles for the tables, "Republication"is used instead of "Republican".
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
There is really not enough data to draw any kinds of general conclusions about the importance of Iowa and NH. Each election has been very different, you have to look at it case by case. Useless article.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Certainly it would also be more meaningful to throw out the years when the candidates were unopposed. These 'no-choice' years add favorable results that are not really indicators of these states' 'abilities' to 'choose' the winners.

With that in mind, Iowa's rankings are:
primary + nom (D) = 4/7 = 57%
primary + nom (R) = 3/6 = 50%

and New Hampshire's are:
primary + nom (D) = 5/7 = 71%
primary + nom (R) = 4/6 = 67%

It's also not really fair to straight-count the election results, as there can only be one winner, so that effectively forces a negative on one party's counts. The question for the general election should be whether either state predicted the winner at all, not whether both parties did in each state, which is impossible. Again, uncontested 'choices' don't really count. That leaves 13 total valid choices for each state through the years with both parties. Alternatively, we can count each of the 8 election years as one 'choice' and give incontesteds a half-point:

Iowa:
7 times a candidate won the primary of their party and then went on to win the general election = 7/13 = 54%
5 years with one winner chosen, but 4 of those were uncontested choices = 5/8 (63%) or 3/8 (38%) on points

New Hampshire:
9 times a candidate won the primary of their party and then went on to win the general election = 9/13 = 69%
6 years with one winner chosen, but 3 of those were uncontested choices = 6/8 (75%) or 4.5/8 (56%) on points

NH gets slightly better numbers overall, with the caveat that all these numbers are really too small to mean much.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
this doesn't relate to the predictability of the caucus event, but does relate to its process itself... and is kind of a "whine"...

i stood up for edwards last night in my first caucus (moved across the river from IL last year). after weeks reading Daily Kos and others rip on the state's status as first in the nation, and on the caucus process itself, i felt a little angered at the anti-*iowan* (the *people*, not the process) sentiments, but also understood some of the frustrations. and after last night, i'm pretty much still in that same boat - the taste of my first caucus was a little sweet but also a little sour.

our precinct's numbers meant we needed 69 people to be rooting for a "viable" candidate (you have to have 15% of the total vote, which was 458 people in our precinct - GREAT turnout). obama's crowd had 260 or so folks, hillary had 80-something, and we/edwards had... yup... 69 exactly. the way this whole process works means that if we were one person fewer than this number, we would have been now seen as equal to the group of 3 kucinich supporters - meaning, equal to ZILCH. what a crock of shit. i read a couple similar other stories last night. does this happen quite often? scary.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
So, if we try to make a conclusion based on the Iowa results:

Huckabee has a 75% chance of winning the Republican nomination.
Huckabee has a 37.5% chance of winning the presidency.

Obama has a 62.5% chance of winning the Democratic nomination.
Obama has a 12.5% chance of winning the presdidency.

That leaves 50% chance that a third party will win the presidency.

The only one I hear talked about seriously for that is Michael Bloomberg.

The Iowa results makes Bloomberg the most likely winner of the presidency in the general election with 50% chance.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Another problem with these statistics is that they show George W Bush winning the elections in 2000 and 2005. Al Gore and John Kerry, respectively, won these elections but were cheated out of taking office through manipulation of vote counting in Florida and Ohio and elsewhere. Which raises several questions--will 2008 also be rigged? And if so, what the hell difference does Iowa or New Hampshire make anyway?
We go on pretending that Bush won and is our legitimate president because facing the truth is just too overwhelming.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
@Rob-
1. There was no presidential election in 2005. Check your wayback machine, Peabody.

2. Manipulation of vote counting? You are just making yourself out to be a kook. The 2000 much-maligned Florida ballot (apparently not idiot-proof enough) was designed by a Democrat. There was no conspiracy to favor Republicans.

3. Florida recounted its votes a number of times and Bush came out the winner in each case. In no count did Gore win Florida.

4. Bush won outright on the first count, but because the margin was tight, there was (per state law) an automatic recount. Bush won that as well. Several of the counties wanted to AGAIN recount, but Florida law required that election results be certified within 7 days and a few said they couldn't finish in time. The Florida Supreme Court voted to allow recounting to continue, but did not establish standards on when to stop or how to uniformly count ambiguous ballots (these were punchcards and idiot voters could have trouble punching the holes completely).

4. By a vote of 7-2 (a pretty fair majority!) the US Supreme Court rejected the Florida Court's indefinite plan to continue recounting as unconsitutional. A subsequent decision said "game over, you've recounted enough times". Note again that on NONE of the counts did Gore wind up winning Florida. The Democratic plan was to keep counting the ballots manually until per chance (after enough handling and wear on the paper punches) Gore could win one of the counts. THEN they could sue to stop counting. Nice scheme, guys.

5. In the end, Gore had more popular votes, but fewer electoral votes. The US elects its presidents on the basis of electoral votes, though, so this is ultimately what matters. It's always been this way, was done for a reason, and is nothing new. The rules apply to all candidates of all parties and are fair, so stop whining.

6. Fast forward to 2004. Here, Bush carried BOTH the popular and electoral vote. Now what are you whining about? The results in Ohio you are crying about were not even disputed by Kerry! Four states wound up being tighter races than Ohio, in fact -- Wisconsin & New Hampshire (14 electoral votes total) went narrowly to Kerry and Iowa & New Mexico (12 electoral votes total) went narrowly to Bush. Bush won Ohio by over 2% of the vote -- it was close, but not a real nailbiter.

7. If liberals like you want anyone to blame for Democratic narrow losses in 2000 & 2004, blame Ralph Nader. The votes he pulled DIRECTLY from Gore in Florida in 2000 ensured Gore lost that state and the election. In 2004, Nader's impact was a little less clear cut, but Iowa & New Mexico (the 2 narrow Bush wins) would have been even tighter had not Nader sucked away votes from Kerry.

8. Stop whining about the past. If you don't like who is in office now, I can promise you somebody new in a year. Vote for the one you like this November and stop being a sore loser. Even Gore and Kerry are not the crybabies their supporters have turned out to be...
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Hi, Sid.

You make valid arguments. However, you miss one crucial point. There is a concerted effort by Republicans to purge thousands (even tens of thousands) of legitimate, lawful voters from the rosters, or to deny such citizens the opportunity to vote outright. Such strategic efforts, unsurprisingly, are targeted to districts where voters are disenfranchised (i.e., poor, and therefore without realistic legal recourse) and where they would likely vote for the Democratic candidate. Specifically, I'm referring to African American, Latino and Native American communities.

This says nothing of the electronic voting machines that do not have an accompanying paper trail for purposes of recounts. The proprietary software of voting machines is not allowed to be investigated, and programmers have testified that, in some cases, it was rigged to deliver a tally result (by a narrow margin) for whatever candidate they chose. Doesn't that warm the cockles of your heart?

There are other voting abuses, like willfully neglecting to count absentee ballots (again, in specific districts), but I won't bother to go into details, as this is merely a 'comment' on an otherwise happy-go-lucky blog. One can do his own research, if he happens to care about the legitimacy of our democracy.

In an election that is decided by hundreds of votes, or even one single vote, you can see how voting irregularities add up and have an effect. Third party candidates, like Ralph Nader or Ross Perot, don't cause the "major" candidates to lose an election. In fact, our democracy would benefit from more third party candidates. That's another story, for another time.

You can wave your hands all day, spouting appellations of "kook, whiner, cry baby, sore loser," but it doesn't change the reality. People are standing up for a healthy democracy, not merely the appearance of one that goes through the motions.

Regardless of either party's machinations, though, a greater voter turnout -- and greater civic participation, in general -- will begin to reclaim the democratic ideal of a government of, by and for the people.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I can't believe people are still whining about losing elections 4 and 8 years ago. Bush won fairly both times, no matter what you want to believe.

Do you really think that only half of the politicians would try to do anything they could to win elections. I'd be willing to bet there are quite a few from both sides. I doubt we'll ever hear about most of the unscrupulous activities.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Dogrun,

Bush won, but not fairly. Are these voting abuses new to the election process, or unique to one party? Doubtful. But with low voter turnout (civic apathy), it does matter. Ultimately, we as citizens are to blame. We need fundamental changes throughout the election process, such as making election day a national holiday (or half work day), so more people can get to the polls. Or using "instant runoff voting" so candidates can win with a real and viable majority. And so on...
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Yes, it's a small data set (only 8 data points), but to paraphrase Rumsfeld, we work with the data we have, not with the data we wished we had.

Originally, I tossed out the years where a candidate ran unopposed, but the result is almost the same (New Hampshire was the better predictor), so I kept all of the data points in.

The usual caveats about this little quick and dirty exercise in statistics apply: There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. (Mark Twain/Benjamin Disraeli)
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
According also to http://www.wmbriggs.com/, a candidate needs to win EITHER the Iowa caucuses OR the New Hampshire primary to have a shot at the nomination.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Login to comment.
Click here to access all of this post's 14 comments




Email This Post to a Friend
"Iowa Caucus Vs. New Hampshire Primary: Which is the Better Predictor?"

Separate multiple emails with a comma. Limit 5.

 

Success! Your email has been sent!

close window
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
 
Learn More