Here’s What You Didn’t Realize About New Hampshire

Obviously, there is a lot of excitement, anxiety, and passion that revolves around the first two presidential primaries of Iowa and New Hampshire. On one hand, this is perfectly understandable, as these two states are the first real taste of which candidates and ideals are appealing to the American voters. On the other hand, how much influence do these two primaries actually have over which candidates win the respective nominations? Perhaps these two states are less (or more!) important than you might initially think.

For instance, in the Iowa primaries of 1996, Iowa predicted the eventual Republican nominee Bob Dole, while Bill Clinton ran unopposed. In the following election of 2000, both parties’ nominees won Iowa by a fair margin: Al Gore and George Bush. In fact, since 1996, the only Iowa caucuses to not be won by the eventual nominee were Mike Huckabee in 2008, and Rick Santorum in 2012. Notably, the 2008 GOP nominee, John McCain, came in fourth place in Iowa before securing the nomination.

New Hampshire is an entirely different story. In 1996, Patrick Buchanan secured the New Hampshire primary, before losing the nomination to Bob Dole. In 2000, John McCain won New Hampshire, but lost the overall nomination to George Bush, while Al Gore narrowly won New Hampshire and the eventual nomination. During the following cycle, Democratic nominee John Kerry won New Hampshire, while Bush won there also, virtually unopposed. In 2008, Barack Obama lost New Hampshire to Hillary Clinton, while McCain won the state and the nomination. In 2012, nominee Mitt Romney won New Hampshire, while Barack Obama won as well.

To simplify: Iowa has predicted the GOP nominee in 1996 and 2000. Twice out of the past 5 election cycles. New Hampshire predicted the GOP nominee in 2004, 2008, and 2012. Exclusively, they have a 40% success rate and a 60% success rate. However, when both are considered, it leads to the conclusion that the winners of the two states are the only potential nominees.

On the Democrats’ side, Iowa predicted the nominee in 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012. In and of itself, Iowa has a 100% success rate in the past 5 elections. New Hampshire successfully predicted in 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2012.

These statistics should be read with the fact in mind that in ’96, Clinton ran unopposed, while in 2004, George Bush ran unopposed, as did Barack Obama in 2012.

So what do these statistics mean for the upcoming 2016 election? While many will agree that this cycle is radically different from those prior, the first two primary results will undoubtedly have a lasting effect on the election. With Iowa having been won by Ted Cruz and by Hillary Clinton (at a margin of 0.25%), the real speculation can begin on Wednesday, following the New Hampshire primary. However, assuming that New Hampshire is won by the leading pollsters, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, is it safe to proclaim 2016 a four-way race? Possibly. Considering that the Democrats are left with only two viable candidates, the night will be highlighted by the GOP race. Currently, New Hampshire could easily go to Trump, Rubio, Kasich, Bush, or Cruz, with the unlikely possibility of Christie surging. The real results will likely determine which candidate will stand beside Ted Cruz to face Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

Like this:

Like Loading…