Iowa results: Harkin 76.4%, Tsongas 4.1%, CLINTON 2.8%, Kerrey 2.4%

[Paragon]

1992, that is.

:D

[jpgray]

1. Exactly. Still anyone's game, folks. (nt)

[Clark Can WIN]

9. Meaningless................. Nobody ran against Harkin in Iowa

That would just be stupid.

[Paragon]

20. How'd Wes do tonight?

:D

[kstewart33]

2. Electability

Enough said.

[Fenris]

3. Perhaps

But remember, this is not 1992. The times have changed, for better or worse (mostly worse), and the criteria for a candidate has changed.

[Fenris]

8. And besides, Harkin was from Iowa

He was expected to win. Look at the margin. That upsets the rest of the results.

[Jackson Smith]

4. I'm wondering when you will give it up. Dean is no Clinton.

This situation is entirely different from '92. If anyone's Clinton here it's Edwards or Clark.

[Paragon]

15. Get back to me when you reach 100 posts.

:eyes:

[Jackson Smith]

18. Still sniping huh? Keep it up. You seem to be helping Dean.

:eyes:

[Paragon]

19. 77!

Proud of ya!

[elperromagico]

21. Please! Let's not do this. n/t

[bhunt70]

26. if you judge people on post count

then I can see what impresses you about Dean.

[jfiling]

29. LOL

nt

[Paragon]

30. Needs work.

Back to remedial Comedy School for you.

[Kahuna]

28. Exactly. Dean will have to "reinvent" himself after this beat down..

and that won't go over well. Not in NH, and certainly not in the south.

[sistersofmercy]

31. You are absolutely correct! Harkin swept Iowa because he's from there

and I believe Harkin endorsed Dean this time. It is totally different. Welcome to DU! :hi:

[AP]

5. Clinton didn't run in Iowa. Dean made huge claims about Iowa.

[ronnykmarshall]

6. Verrlllllyyyyyy interesting.......

Good point.

[elperromagico]

7. But how was Clinton performing in state and national polls at the time?

Was he the national frontrunner? I'm not asking to be rude; I'm genuinely curious.

[economic justice]

10. ACTUALLY.......Iowa Results in 1992

The Iowa cauces were NOT CONTESTED in 1992 because of Harkin. But the results were:

1992
Tom Harkin 76.4%
Uncommitted 11.9%
Paul Tsongas 4.1%
Bill Clinton 2.8%
Bob Kerrey 2.4%
Jerry Brown 1.6%
Others .6%

[Paragon]

14. You're right, of course. Thank you.

:yourock:

[mistertrickster]

11. Heh, heh, I love it! If this isn't proof of why we should change the

primary system, I don't know what is . . .

In general, Iowa backs more losers than winners.

[BeatleBoot]

12. spin, spin, spin

[ACPS65]

16. Exactly.

Dean looked like a defeated man tonight.

Oh wait, he was.

[Paragon]

17. My point being...

...you might be doing a bit of spinning yourself, making Iowa something bigger than it is.

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

13. Dean ran hard in Iowa, nobody ran against Harkin

The Dean defeat (HAMMERING) is significant. He will now lose NH. And he never had a chance in SC.

Goodbye.

[Paragon]

22. Bye.

Can't say I'll miss you.

[LynneSin]

23. Remind me, how did that governor from a small state do in 1992?

Especially after losing the Iowa caucus?

I forget, was he able to win any other states or have any luck in the other elections?

:eyes:

I think Dean did well. He'll be fine with this loss just like Clinton was in 1992. Thanks for posting this thread. I was about to do the same

[Paragon]

24. You're welcome.

Obviously, this needs to stay kicked.

[Kahuna]

25. We know. That's what we've been telling YOU for months now...

Were just havin' fun with you all.

[Paragon]

27. *wink*

Fair enough. Nice to read a decent post from a Clark supporter, thanks.