Iowa Caucus Results Thread (pg 148 - full results)

[Tintrlvr]

So the Warren supporter didn't realign to Sanders, so is their vote "exhausted"?

I think there isn't viability and non-viability for the satellite and international caucuses, they just get added in to the various other caucus totals (as they don't elect state delegates themselves, and that's what site-by-site viability is for). But I'm not certain on that.

[Tintrlvr]

I don't want to read too much into these super tiny early caucuses, but it is a little bit strange that there hasn't been anyone showing up for Biden yet. It'd be kinda funny if he just absolutely blows out every other caucus and ends up winning >30% lol

I mean, it's been a total of <30 people caucusing so far. Remember how often we get weird results in those tiny towns in New Hampshire that vote early?

[Tintrlvr]

Biden seems to be collapsing before our eyes. Unless there is just a totally different dynamic in the precinct caucuses, he is in huge trouble.

I agree. The results in the various caucuses are not necessarily representative, and I think overall the demographics of these early sites is very favorable to Sanders in particular and to the left-wing candidates more generally, but the fact that Biden is doing poorly even in caucuses consisting exclusively of elderly Iowans in Florida is a real flashing warning sign, and, in addition, the early caucuses will be discussed and used to influence alignments when the bulk of caucuses start, which could make things even worse for Biden if his supporters think they might as well back Klobuchar/Buttigieg/Steyer/etc. in the first round (since no one really supports Biden qua Biden, they're just supporting the ostensibly electable moderate establishment pick). I'd be more surprised by a third-place or better finish than a fifth-place one for him at this point.

[Tintrlvr]

If Biden flops tonight and Bernie dominates, will we hear about a potential independent Bloomberg run?

Bloomberg has not only said that he will endorse any Democratic nominee (not quite naming Sanders, but he said he'd support even candidates with whom he has significant disagreements) but also that he would make his electoral apparatus available to any Democratic nominee. So the answer is clearly a resounding no.

Howard Schultz might make a comeback, though! Remember him?

[Tintrlvr]

RESULTS: A bigger landslide than expected!

Now this is quality content. That Justinian-level Byzantine Empire... delicious.

[Tintrlvr]

Well, the idiots in the Iowa Democratic Party who paid somebody's relative the big bucks to develop a cOoL hIp ApP to report the results when pen and paper would have worked just as well as they have for decades will hopefully be fired and the house cleaned, and they've probably successfully killed the Iowa caucus for 2024/2028.

Yet more evidence that the digitalization of elections is not only dangerous, it's also stupid, wasteful and pointless.

[Tintrlvr]

can anyone tl;dr me what's going on?

1) Complete chaos. App isn't working properly.

2) But there's backup, so results should be announced later today.

3) Buttigieg and Sanders' camps are both more or less claiming victory.

4) Likely Sanders and Buttigieg are 1/2, Warren is 3, Biden and Klobuchar are 4/5.

5) Sanders supporters see conspiracies everywhere.

How did Buttgieg out of everybody surged to the top?

Looks like he did well in second choices, and the delegate allocation was good to him due to which precincts he was stronger in.

Also, Buttigieg seems to have had a pretty even spread of support, which at the low 20s in first round means he was viable most places. Whereas Sanders dominated some sites but was more geographically concentrated so was non-viable in more places. Warren also more like Buttigieg, Biden more like Sanders (but an inverted pattern). Klobuchar also more evenly spread but with lower support so she was failing viability in a lot of places anyway.

[Tintrlvr]

Anything short of a Bernie win now and his supporters legitimately cry foul.

If he loses the nomination they’ll all point to this as evidence of DNC conspiracy and a good chunk of them will boycott the eventual nominee.  The Iowa caucus could be what pushes Trump to re-election.

All because of these vote reporting errors.

They had one job and years to do it.  This is a travesty.

Honestly, when cluster****s like these only seem to continually hurt one candidate, and benefit the establishment candidates — can you blame them?

I can’t, and I’m #BlueNoMatterWho.

Oh, I don’t blame them for seeing this as a conspiracy.  This is a mess and it looks horrible.

I’ll blame them if they don’t get over it by November though.

Tbh, I'll blame them if they don't get over it by next Tuesday (NH primary). Stupid conspiracy theories are stupid.

[Tintrlvr]

Why should anyone care who won the most “SDEs”?   We might care about who won the most delegates to the national convention, since this actually determines who gets nominated.  And we might care about who won the most votes, since early states are mostly about momentum.  But why should the public pay attention to some abstract, technical, and interstitial step like SDEs?

Because that's what AP is using, and so, most media.

It's also historically been the only information released by the Iowa Democratic Party, so it provides historical continuity. First-round votes are not that meaningful because voters can realign and often choose tactically who to align with on the first round. I agree that final-round votes would be a decent measure, too.

SDEs is also basically the same thing as national delegates ultimately, especially now that state delegates are bound.

[Tintrlvr]

The real question we should all be asking is: "How should Iowa be punished for this?"

There must be punishment. It would be unfair to the voters (who are not the ones to blame) to simply strip Iowa of its 2020 delegates, and it would also be unfair to the winner (apparently Bernie) and would bailout the biggest loser of the caucus (indisputably Biden).

So my suggestion is that in 2024, Iowa should be made to go last-in-the-nation, rather than first in the nation. Iowa can still call its primary a "caucus," but de facto it will be effectively like a primary, with a secret ballot and they just count everyone's first choices, in the same way as the Iowa GOP "caucus." If Iowa refuses to comply with this, then they will be stripped of all their 2024 delegates. And in 2024, Nevada should take Iowa's place as the 1st in the nation Caucus.

Don't reward Nevada too quickly. They are using the same poorly made app that Iowa used.

[Tintrlvr]

The real question we should all be asking is: "How should Iowa be punished for this?"

There must be punishment. It would be unfair to the voters (who are not the ones to blame) to simply strip Iowa of its 2020 delegates, and it would also be unfair to the winner (apparently Bernie) and would bailout the biggest loser of the caucus (indisputably Biden).

So my suggestion is that in 2024, Iowa should be made to go last-in-the-nation, rather than first in the nation. Iowa can still call its primary a "caucus," but de facto it will be effectively like a primary, with a secret ballot and they just count everyone's first choices, in the same way as the Iowa GOP "caucus." If Iowa refuses to comply with this, then they will be stripped of all their 2024 delegates. And in 2024, Nevada should take Iowa's place as the 1st in the nation Caucus.

Don't reward Nevada too quickly. They are using the same poorly made app that Iowa used.

I bet you they will keep using the sh**tty app and it will fail once again.

To be fair to Nevada, it's probably too late to change course at this point, though they should be urgently looking into hiring some temporary phone line staffers to make it easier to call in results (and I think Nevada has a lot fewer caucus locations and isn't doing the four-different-results nonsense, which will make it somewhat easier to keep track).

[Tintrlvr]

https://twitter.com/studentactivism/status/1224748446743175168

So stupid. It's really unfortunate that the calls of "rigged" from so many directions in 2016 have normalized this type of behavior.

[Tintrlvr]

I'm cross-posting this from another thread.

https://twitter.com/schwartzbCNBC/status/1224760784221327363

This is Biden's real problem.  It's a lack of money that kills campaigns, and that's the challenge he's facing right now.  Say what you will about the ultimate electability of Sanders and Warren, but both of them have more than a million individual donors each.  They're both going to have the resources for the long haul, and that's no sure thing for Biden.

Yeah, once you stop winning, the big donors disappear, and only small donors will stick around, and Biden doesn't have any small donors because literally no one is excited about his campaign, just a lot of people who think he's fine, maybe not as bad as others. Biden's campaign is going to be very short on cash during February.

[Tintrlvr]

Price is apologizing on stage rn.

He better resign at the end of the speech.

[Tintrlvr]

Gonna report 62% of precincts.

Wonder if these match Bernie's numbers.

Sanders was only reporting data from 40% of precincts, so they won't.

[Tintrlvr]

This of course is just mumbo-jumbo.

[Tintrlvr]

It appears that while Klobuchar and Biden won some counties from 4th and 5th, Warren didn't win any counties at all.

[Tintrlvr]

It appears that while Klobuchar and Biden won some counties from 4th and 5th, Warren didn't win any counties at all.

Although she is tied with Buttigieg in Iowa County so I suppose could end up in front there. She's also close to Sanders or Buttigieg in first in a couple of others.

[Tintrlvr]

Warren didn't win a single county yet. Wow.

She is tied for first with Buttigieg in Iowa County, which is something.

[Tintrlvr]

Polk, Story and Scott are biggest remaining votes left. It could go to Sanders if he wins Polk

Buttigieg and Sanders are very close in Polk right now, so it's unlikely to make much difference.

[Tintrlvr]

So WaPo still has this listed as "SDEs" and the %s match that, but looking at the actual numbers next to it, it looks like almost 30,000 new votes have appeared in the past few minutes? There aren't 134,000 SDEs, after all.

WaPo front page:



WaPo full results:

The first one was the final alignment votes erroneously entered as the number of SDEs, and the second one is actually the number of SDEs but is multiplied by 100 for all candidates for some reason. The numbers line up with NYT/CNN.

[Tintrlvr]

Cohn is now saying he doesn't see Sanders coming back.

In Iowa, or the entire primary?

He means Iowa. He's just talking about the actual results, doesn't see there being room for Sanders to overtake Buttigieg in SDEs.

[Tintrlvr]

The fix is in

https://twitter.com/CANCEL_SAM/status/1224871237937258497?s=19

And none for Gretchen Sanders!

[Tintrlvr]

So at this rate, Bernie will be losing Iowa again.

The thing with Bernie is that 25% is fine, but it's clear in the 2nd round what is his problem is. He doesn't have crossover appeal beyond his die-hards. That's the reason Buttigieg got such a good 2nd realignment #.

I agree, but as defense, in terms of PV it was:


Pete  21.4% tom 25.2% (+3.8 )
Sanders 24.4% to 26.2% (+1.8 )
Warren 18.8% to 20.6% (+1.4)
Biden   14.7 to 13.2 (-1.5)
Klobuchar 12.8 to 12.5 (-0.3)

that is Sanders may be was hurt by strong Warren. I don't know how much you can extrapolate from this.

Either Sanders got a lot less Yang transfers than expected or, more likely, the Sanders-Warren mutual transfers was less than expected due to the Sanders-Warren spat during the last debate.  If so in the end both Sanders and Warren lost that exchange in the last debate.

It's pretty clear looking at precinct results that Warren-Klobuchar was nearly as large or as large a transfer group as Warren-Sanders, with Warren-Buttigieg also being a very large group, so talking about Warren transfers is not that meaningful.

[Tintrlvr]

My personal opinion is people shouldn't make to much of turnout not being much higher for the democrats then 2016. Iowa is a state that's rapidly trending Republican, it voted 11.5% more Republican than the country in 2016, there are probably a lot of people who used to be democrats in Iowa that are now Republicans so the actual democratic base in Iowa has shrunk so getting higher turnout is difficult.

I daresay even many of the people who showed up to attend the Iowa caucuses this time will be Republican by 2024, for example the woman who didn't like the fact Buttigieg is gay, culturally conservative voters like her will continue to switch and she herself will probably be voting Republican in 2024.

I think the counterargument to that is that unlike 2016 IA caucus pretty much all factions of the Dem party coalition are represented in the 2020  IA caucus (sort of like the 2016 GOP IA caucus) so one would expect turnout to surge relative to 2016.  It is strange that it did not.

Having a lot of options doesn't necessarily make people feel more represented; instead, they just feel overwhelmed by the options, some of whom they are torn between, and develop less passion about any particular choice. I'm not surprised.