PDA

View Full Version : History of Iowa caucus winners is bad?



Soflasnapper
01-04-2012, 11:43 AM
Generally speaking, the person who wins the Iowa caucuses does not go on to win the general election.

Only three presidents were winners in their contest in Iowa, and all three would appear on 'worst president ever' lists (variously, different ones for different people).

We start with the first one, the one who made Iowa seem important by using a win there as a springboard to the nomination and to the presidency, from nearly total abject obscurity: Jimmy Carter.

Sadly for him, and partially wrongly, Jimmy Carter was first on many lists of worst presidents ever, until... Happily for him, and most unhappily for the country, his crown was rudely wrenched from his head by the true title holder and STILL, the heavy weight champion of worst presidenting of all TIIIIIIIIIIMMMMEEESSS, GEEEEEOOOOOORGE...... DUBYAAAAAA.... BOOOOOOSH!!!!!! Dubya, y'all!!! Still, all-time champeen, for many of us.

Then, in a shocking development, just as Pete Sampras' candidacy for best men's tennis player of all time was threatened nearly immediately by the rise of Federer, and then Federer's impending coronation for that spot put in immediate jeopardy by Nadal, a new contender for WPOAT came forward, winning from Iowa for just the 3rd presidency so launched, ever. Yes, that would be Barack Obama. Surely many peoples' current nominee for WPOAT (although I'd argue those people have a too short memory problem).

To summarize then, Iowa winners normally don't become the president. When they do, rarely, all such presidents are on the short list of WPOAT.

Conclusion:

For the sake of the country, all must oppose whoever wins in Iowa.

LWW
01-04-2012, 11:45 AM
Thanks for realizing that Obama is at least among the 3 worst ever.

Today may have been the day the cabal turned the corner.

Gayle in MD
01-04-2012, 12:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Generally speaking, the person who wins the Iowa caucuses does not go on to win the general election.

Only three presidents were winners in their contest in Iowa, and all three would appear on 'worst president ever' lists (variously, different ones for different people).

We start with the first one, the one who made Iowa seem important by using a win there as a springboard to the nomination and to the presidency, from nearly total abject obscurity: Jimmy Carter.

Sadly for him, and partially wrongly, Jimmy Carter was first on many lists of worst presidents ever, until... Happily for him, and most unhappily for the country, his crown was rudely wrenched from his head by the true title holder and STILL, the heavy weight champion of worst presidenting of all TIIIIIIIIIIMMMMEEESSS, GEEEEEOOOOOORGE...... DUBYAAAAAA.... BOOOOOOSH!!!!!! Dubya, y'all!!! Still, all-time champeen, for many of us.

Then, in a shocking development, just as Pete Sampras' candidacy for best men's tennis player of all time was threatened nearly immediately by the rise of Federer, and then Federer's impending coronation for that spot put in immediate jeopardy by Nadal, a new contender for WPOAT came forward, winning from Iowa for just the 3rd presidency so launched, ever. Yes, that would be Barack Obama. Surely many peoples' current nominee for WPOAT (although I'd argue those people have a too short memory problem).

To summarize then, Iowa winners normally don't become the president. When they do, rarely, all such presidents are on the short list of WPOAT.

Conclusion:

For the sake of the country, all must oppose whoever wins in Iowa.


</div></div>

LOL, I'm sure this post of yours will be distorted beyond recognition, as usual.

Additionally, I'd like to add that President Obama was the all out winner last night!

Wonder if that has ever happened before, a sitting Democratic President, winning the Iowa Repiglican Caucas!


/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Soflasnapper
01-04-2012, 01:06 PM
I realize that is a common perception and claim, and that is my reference, not my agreement with that perception.

Personally, I would disclaim either Carter or Obama as high on the real (or at least my) worst ever list, but realize that opinions vary.

Someone like a Christopher Hitchins would put Bill Clinton high on that list, and again, I'd disagree, and I think most people now would disagree with that high placement. But you know what? As of '94, '95, many people would have agreed. I don't think Sam Smith of the Progressive Review has ever revised his opinion to that effect.

People used to think that of Harry S Truman, at the time of his leaving office (or years before that), and for years afterward, but as time has passed, opinions have been revised sharply upward. Possibly not by the same people, as his contemporaries have died off in the meantime.

LWW
01-04-2012, 04:56 PM
I wonder if those 4 ... Carter, Obama, Clinton, Truman ... had anything in common?

Soflasnapper
01-05-2012, 05:56 PM
They were all thought far too inexperienced, and too small of men on the world's stage, to be effective.

They were all far more able than thought, and very intelligent men, among the smartest presidents. (Truman was an autodidact.)

They were very underestimated by their opponents, much to their opponents' disadvantage.

All true, but I presume you are going for the 'D' aspect.

Maybe so, that as well, but I tell you, Gerald Ford's reputation once out of office was burnished, Nixon's was, Bush 41's was, and so was Bush 43's. And forget about Reagan-- he's all but been given sainthood.

Yes, I know you say they are really 'D's in disguise, but they surely were treated like 'R's when in office. So you cannot really go to your 'liberal media' supported them all throughout their terms, and then worked overtime after the left office to beatify them in retrospect because they were 'D's, considering something similar happened with the R presidents as well.