Sadly, just another creationist bit of nonsense, albeit more poorly written than most. Contains numerous lies about how most zoologists believe there are pterosaurs alive in New Zealand. This isn't neat, it's just crazy.
Certainly it would also be more meaningful to throw out the years when the candidates were unopposed. These 'no-choice' years add favorable results that are not really indicators of these states' 'abilities' to 'choose' the winners.
With that in mind, Iowa's rankings are: primary + nom (D) = 4/7 = 57% primary + nom (R) = 3/6 = 50%
and New Hampshire's are: primary + nom (D) = 5/7 = 71% primary + nom (R) = 4/6 = 67%
It's also not really fair to straight-count the election results, as there can only be one winner, so that effectively forces a negative on one party's counts. The question for the general election should be whether either state predicted the winner at all, not whether both parties did in each state, which is impossible. Again, uncontested 'choices' don't really count. That leaves 13 total valid choices for each state through the years with both parties. Alternatively, we can count each of the 8 election years as one 'choice' and give incontesteds a half-point:
Iowa: 7 times a candidate won the primary of their party and then went on to win the general election = 7/13 = 54% 5 years with one winner chosen, but 4 of those were uncontested choices = 5/8 (63%) or 3/8 (38%) on points
New Hampshire: 9 times a candidate won the primary of their party and then went on to win the general election = 9/13 = 69% 6 years with one winner chosen, but 3 of those were uncontested choices = 6/8 (75%) or 4.5/8 (56%) on points
NH gets slightly better numbers overall, with the caveat that all these numbers are really too small to mean much.
"Welcome to South Caroline - we're too small to be a republic, but too big to be an insane asylum."
1. Kisai RPM LED Watch
2. Joystick-It iPhone Arcade Stick (Mobile)
With that in mind, Iowa's rankings are:
primary + nom (D) = 4/7 = 57%
primary + nom (R) = 3/6 = 50%
and New Hampshire's are:
primary + nom (D) = 5/7 = 71%
primary + nom (R) = 4/6 = 67%
It's also not really fair to straight-count the election results, as there can only be one winner, so that effectively forces a negative on one party's counts. The question for the general election should be whether either state predicted the winner at all, not whether both parties did in each state, which is impossible. Again, uncontested 'choices' don't really count. That leaves 13 total valid choices for each state through the years with both parties. Alternatively, we can count each of the 8 election years as one 'choice' and give incontesteds a half-point:
Iowa:
7 times a candidate won the primary of their party and then went on to win the general election = 7/13 = 54%
5 years with one winner chosen, but 4 of those were uncontested choices = 5/8 (63%) or 3/8 (38%) on points
New Hampshire:
9 times a candidate won the primary of their party and then went on to win the general election = 9/13 = 69%
6 years with one winner chosen, but 3 of those were uncontested choices = 6/8 (75%) or 4.5/8 (56%) on points
NH gets slightly better numbers overall, with the caveat that all these numbers are really too small to mean much.