Why Was Hillary's 29% Showing in Iowa a "Devastating Loss?"
With Obama surging in New Hampshire, I can understand why some journalists are saying that a loss in New Hampshire would be a devastating loss for Clinton, but what I didn’t understand was why they were saying that Clinton’s 29% showing in Iowa was a “devastating loss.” For example, see these news stories: the result of her devastating loss in Iowa (Time), a devastating and humiliating loss (Fox News), critically wounded by her devastating loss in Iowa (NY Post).
You get the idea. I know Clinton was favored to win Iowa a year ago when the polls were meaningless, but more recently, most of the polls had Obama winning the caucus and Edwards and Clinton fighting it our for second place. No one has been saying that Edwards’ 30% showing in Iowa was a devastating loss. So if Clinton’s 29% was expected, why was her loss so devastating? Maybe a left-wing media conspiracy? All kidding aside, I’m just perplexed by the post-Iowa news coverage.
P.S. Does anyone remember Bill finishing fourth in Iowa with 3% (yes, Harkin the Iowa native was in that caucus) and second in NH with 24.8% going on to win the nomination?
Comments
Sure, I remember 1992. I also remember that Bill Clinton’s main competitor, the winner of the New Hampshire primary, was Paul Tsongas, who came from a neighboring state, had no charisma, had no money, and had vulnerable issue positions.
Posted by: jonm![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.themonkeycage.org/nav-commenters.gif)
|
January 8, 2008 11:57 AM
It’s the expectations game, right? Hillary has raised nearly $100 million dollars, seriously contested the state, and head some of the heaviest hitters in Iowa politics (e.g., Vilsack) working on her side. Topping that off, she was the clear “front runner” and looked almost unbeatable as little as six months ago. In that context, this is a pretty serious blow.
Now…is the media overreacting? Sure, but they always do that when it makes a good story.
I never got the reaction to Howard Dean in 2004. I always thought he’s lose in Iowa; his positions were a bad match for the state. But we all know what happened there…
Posted by: Scott McClurg![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.themonkeycage.org/nav-commenters.gif)
|
January 8, 2008 02:20 PM
I’d note that two of the headlines you quote are from rather right-wing sources. The left-wing conspiracy comment was a joke, but is there something to “opposite-party” media covering that party differently? e.g. does Fox News cover the Democrats in more unflattering ways than other outlets?
Posted by: Jason W. | January 9, 2008 03:27 PM