Dem
51
GOP
49
Going to New Hampshire and praising corn-based ethanol doesn't get you a lot of votes. And the two earliest states are very different in many other ways as well. Republican candidates trying to figure out where to campaign need to grasp this.
For one thing, winning Iowa doesn't actually mean much. Since 1980, the winner of the Iowa Republican caucuses when there was no Republican incumbent president has lost the nomination all but twice. In 1996, Bob Dole won Iowa, and in 2000, George W. Bush won Iowa, but both were frontrunners well before the caucuses. In all other competitive years, the winner in Iowa lost the nomination. The message here to candidates is roughly: "Don't put much effort into Iowa."
It is not just dumb luck that it has worked out like this. First, Iowa Republicans are very conservative and very religious. Candidates who appeal to these voters rarely appeal to the crusty Yankees in northern New Hampshire or the suburban Bostonians in southern New Hampshire. Since New Hampshire is a much better microcosm of the country than Iowa, winning New Hampshire is a much better indicator of how popular a candidate is than winning Iowa.
Second, Iowa is very agricultural with corn and pigs playing a huge role in the state's economy. It is the #1 pork-producing state in the country by a country mile. The next four are Minnesota, North Carolina, Illinois and Indiana, but in none of these does it dominate the economy there. Thus a piggish campaign doesn't travel well. New Hampshire is #45 in pork production, beating out only Nevada, Alaska, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and New Mexico. Pigs don't do well in Alaska.
A third big difference between the two earliest states is income. New Hampshire is #8 in the country in median household income and Iowa is #30. Things that appeal to Iowans don't necessarily appeal to New Hampshirites. One has to address the economy differently in the two states. As an aside, the 10 richest states in the country are all blue and nine of the 10 poorest are red (New Mexico is the tenth).
Fourth, in terms of percentage of adults with at least a bachelor's degree, the difference between New Hampshire and Iowa is also stark. New Hampshire is #9 and Iowa is #39. This also requires a different kind of campaign in each one. Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) is running a policy-driven campaign and he is likely to have more success in New Hampshire than in Iowa with that. As an aside here again, the top 10 most college-educated states are all blue and nine of the bottom ten are red (Nevada is the tenth).
In short, these two states are very different and require different campaigns. In view of the fact that Iowa has a terrible track record, spending a lot of time in Iowa, winning, and then flaming out elsewhere does not appear to be a good strategy. Most of the Republican candidates do not seem to have absorbed this message and are in Iowa most of the time. Only Chris Christie, who probably can't tell a hog from a Harley, is completely focused on New Hampshire. (V)