Betfair Official Blog

The Implications of Iowa: two schools of thought

Click here to view market

Chickendinner take a look at why the result of the Iowa caucus has significant implications for the candidates, and why it does not...

They'll be sweeping up the election rubbish in Iowa, taking down the banners, burning the unused campaign literature, binning the cold pizza, nailing the campaign office door shut for another four years. The drama's over, the results are logged and those candidates still standing are now bellowing their slogans at the people of New Hampshire.

But while Iowa goes back to sleep, the results are still rippling across the planet, with Democrat Barack Obama [3.7] to become the next president with Betfair, [2.32] to win the nomination and Republican Mike Huckabee [17.0] to become next president, [6.0] to win the nomination the convincing winners of their respective races. Does this mean they can start picking out the White House wallpaper, or does history offer a glimmer of hope for the Iowa also-rans?

School of thought 1: The result in Iowa is a snapshot of the future

* Five of the Democrats' last seven presidential candidates began their campaigns by winning the Iowa caucus. Five of the Republicans' last six presidential candidates did the same.

* A good result in Iowa can thrust a candidate into pole position in the quest for his party's backing. John Kerry - who contested the 2004 presidential election with George W. Bush - was not the Democratic front-runner until he won the Iowa caucuses of that year.

* Similarly, a bad result in Iowa can have a serious impact on a candidate's chances. Democrat Howard Dean was leading his party's polls in 2004, but after finishing third in Iowa his campaign never recovered. His infamous, disturbing war whoop didn't help.

* The results in Iowa can shed light on how voters are thinking. Obama won - in spite of his race - in a state where voters have a reputation for being "too white, too religious, too old and too extreme", according to the BBC's North America Editor Justin Webb. Furthermore, the increased turnout of Democrat voters at the Iowa caucuses (239,000, compared to 124,000 in 2004) suggests Obama is delivering on his promise to reach out to new voters.

School of thought 2: the Iowa result is insignificant

* Only four of the last eight presidential elections were won by men who triumphed in the Iowa caucuses, and three of those were standing unopposed as incumbent presidents. The only non-incumbent candidate to win his party's Iowa caucus and go on to win the general election was George W. Bush in 2000. Neither Reagan nor Clinton won in Iowa prior to their first terms in office.

* Iowa's political make-up means it can't be seen to represent the views of the majority of states. 50% of Republican voters interviewed at the caucuses were either born-again or evangelical Christians.

* New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg ([20.0]) could still step into the race if there appears to be widespread public dissatisfaction with the victorious Democratic and Republican candidates.

* Some of the big guns in the presidential race accept defeat in Iowa and actively focus their resources elsewhere. Rudy Giuliani ([8.6] pres./[3.55] nom) has been concentrating on larger states such as Florida, which holds its primary on January 29. "We're ahead in maybe 16, 18 of the 29 states that are coming up," he said.

* Hillary Clinton ([2.72] pres./[1.86] nom) has ploughed her resources into 'Super Tuesday' at the beginning of February, when New York, New Jersey and California will be among the big states she expects to win. Furthermore, there is less time between Iowa and Super Tuesday this year, which means less time for a winner to build up momentum and for a loser to lose ground.

* An Iowa victory is no guarantee of national success. The 1992 winner for the Democrats was Tom Harkin but trailing in his wake in third place was Bill Clinton, who went on to capture the presidency. Third place in this year's Iowa Democrat race? Hillary Clinton.