How Is It Washington Journalists Don't Understand Elections?

This is just amazing to me. A lot of journalists and pundits seem to think that a candidate can lose the first three major primaries (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina) and still win the nomination. Rudy Giuliani thinks he can skip them and focus on the Feb 5 primaries. Now John Judis seems to think that Hillary will still be competitive is she loses all three to Barack Obama. Have these guys ever read a book on presidential primaries? Or watched a few races? Can someone please tell me the last time a candidate lost all the early primaries and still managed to win the nomination?


1976: Carter wins Iowa and New Hampshire. Nominee.
Ford wins Iowa and New Hampshire. Nominee.

1980: Reagan loses Iowa but wins New Hampshire. Nominee.
Carter wins Iowa and New Hampshire. Nominee.

1984: Mondale wins Iowa but loses New Hampshire. Nominee.

1988: Bush loses Iowa but wins New Hampshire. Nominee
Dukakis loses Iowa but wins New Hampshire. Nominee.

1992: Clinton skips Iowa, loses New Hampshire. Nominee
I would argue that Iowa, since it was uncontested (Harkin was running)
shouldn't be counted in this year, making the next major primary Georgia -
which was won by Clinton, the eventual nominee.

1996: Dole wins Iowa but loses New Hampshire. Nominee.

2000: Al Gore wins Iowa and New Hampshire. Nominee.
George Bush wins Iowa but loses New Hampshire. Nominee.

2004: John Kerry wins Iowa and New Hampshire. Nominee.

Get the picture? Nobody skips the first 2-3 major contested primaries and wins the nomination. It hasn't happened in 30 years and it's not going to happen now. A lot of folks seem to think that front-loading is going to diminish the role of Iowa and New Hampshire, but instead that role has been enhanced. I expect that if one candidate wins Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina, he/she will win most of the February 5 primaries and clinch the nomination. End of campaign.