![[cecil]](http://cecilvortex.com//monkey/graphics/ceciliconm.gif)
![[vortex]](http://cecilvortex.com/monkey/graphics/vortexiconm.gif)
Susan Estrich, on Fox last night, put out an interesting piece of misinformation, asking "When was the last time a first-time Democract won Iowa and went on to win the presidency." The answer, it turns out, is 1976 (forgetting for a moment the oddity that in '76 Carter was actually beaten by "uncommitted).
Her implication was that Obama's victory isn't significant because the Iowa winner almost always loses. "Wow -- so I guess Iowa doesn't really matter does it? Good to know." Um. Not quite.
The more honest question to ask would have been, "Since 1976, how many Iowa caucus winners went on to win their party's nomination?" That filters out the fact that there have only been two first-time Democractic victories since 1976 -- Clinton and Carter (so basically, all Estrich proves in her factoid is that Bill Clinton lose Iowa and won the presidency).
Turns out that actually, in six of the last eight elections, the winner of the Iowa Democractic caucus went on to win the Democractic nomination. On the Republican side? Exactly the same number – six out of eight.
(As an aside, conservative radio host Laura Ingraham was on the panel and seemed bizarrely honest and sane in her assessment of the body blow to the GOP last night, in the enthusiasm mismatch. She even backtracked from saying "Democract" instead of "Democractic" when called on it by Shep Whatshisface. Exactly what is the world coming to?)
![[cecil2]](http://monkeyvortex.com/graphics/cecil3.gif)
cec, this may be the first time you're posting fox news misinformation. two thoughts.
first, this is the tidbit you chose? topical it is, but it may rank #420 among the most egregious and insane fox info frauds.
second, if this becomes a recurring theme, you're going to need a staff of thousands, and sponsors.
sign me up.