Reply #14: As to why Kerry captured everyone so quickly, you

[karynnj]

are in a better position to know than the rest of us. The winner in Iowa doesn't usually win in NH, Kerry did and you were there. From a distance in a state with a late primary, it seemed NH was important this year because after the Iowa caucus, there were 8 candidates (Graham and then Gephardt dropped out).

Of the 8 candidates, most people acknowledge that Sharpton, Braun and Kuchinich weren't going to win. That left Kerry, Edwards,Dean, and Lieberman (in the order they finished in Iowa) and Clark, who opted out of Iowa. Four of these people had reasons they should have done well in NH. Kerry, Dean and Lieberman were from neighboring or near neighboring states and Clark had devoted the majority of his time their (he spent some time in the next group of states).

Lieberman should have dropped out at this point as he came in 5th - though he declared a 3 way tie for third. I really think that Dean's loss to Kerry and Clark's mediocre performance, gave Kerry the push he needed.

That Kerry outdid Edwards on Super Tuesday, with the concentration of Southern states - sealed it. (The South clearly thought Edwards too weak. One question could be did Clark hurt Edwards.)

This was an anomaly - in that, if you really look at it the primary order is biased towards a southern candidate winning. Look at 92, Clinton won neither Iowa or NH - but then won big on super Tuesday. In 2008, if you had the same order, Vilsack, if he runs, could win Iowa. The winner of NH, on the basis of wimming NH, will not have a lot of momentum.