Winning and Losing in Iowa

So I just finished reading another piece about how if (candidate) WINS in Iowa -- or DOESN'T win in Iowa...

I've learned that several sPresidents didn't come in first or at times even second in Iowa (and then there's NH, and then...)

My question is -- what is considered a WIN in Iowa?

First place: Winner?

Second place: Winner?

Third place: Winner?

How about a 4th place STRONG SHOWING, for example? Winner?


Thanks.

If you're expected to win and don't, it's a loss. If you're expected to lose and win, it's a win. If you are expected to do well and don't, it's a loss.

So if Hillary doesn't come in first in Iowa, she loses because she is expcted to win big. If she finishes 3rd or worse, it's catastrophic for her.

If Edward finishes 3rd, no one will notice.

Lately the Hillary people have been saying that she doesn't have to win Iowa. They are trying to lower expectations.

The prize for 4th place? You're fired.

fun article from the last Iowa caucus.
I'm sure it will help some people understand the convoluted process.
It is bizarre and probably should be put out of its misery

"If you liked the Florida recount, you'll love the Iowa caucuses."

"If you like the Electoral College, you'll love the Iowa Democratic caucuses. Here's how they work. You meet in a room with all the other registered Democrats in your precinct who decide to show up.


It can take hours. First you have to choose local party officers and sit through a lot of talk about party activities. Then the caucus chair asks everybody to express their preferences among the presidential candidates. She tells the Howard Dean people to stand in this corner, the Dick Gephardt people in that corner, the John Kerry people in the other corner, etc. There's also a corner for "uncommitted." You go to your corner. The chair counts how many people are in each group. That's the raw vote."



for the rest..link

http://www.slate.com/id/2094034/