Iowa Caucus Results Thread (pg 148 - full results) (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 02, 2024, 08:09:47 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2020 U.S. Presidential Election (Moderators: Likely Voter, YE)
  Iowa Caucus Results Thread (pg 148 - full results) (search mode)
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Iowa Caucus Results Thread (pg 148 - full results)  (Read 152600 times)
cvparty
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,099
United States


« on: February 03, 2020, 04:46:30 PM »

I wonder if Amy Klobuchar doing so well in Florida among Iowans means that she's bound to do well in Florida among Flordinians.
florida’s democratic electorate isn’t comprised of wealthy white retirees
Logged
cvparty
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,099
United States


« Reply #1 on: February 03, 2020, 09:25:38 PM »

i can't start my homework until this is over >:(
Logged
cvparty
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,099
United States


« Reply #2 on: February 03, 2020, 10:01:57 PM »

there's clearly way less final votes than first votes reported so why is everyone freaking out???
Logged
cvparty
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,099
United States


« Reply #3 on: February 04, 2020, 01:36:21 AM »

So, according to Bernie, these are the Iowa results:

1) Bernie
2) Pete
3) Warren
4) Biden
5) Amy

Warren in 3rd is undisputed.

those numbers only account for ~40% of the state. on the other hand, buttigieg’s campaign claims they have 77% (i think) and that they won, but didn’t release any numbers. honestly this is just such a hot mess
Logged
cvparty
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,099
United States


« Reply #4 on: February 04, 2020, 01:43:20 AM »

So, according to Bernie, these are the Iowa results:

1) Bernie
2) Pete
3) Warren
4) Biden
5) Amy

Warren in 3rd is undisputed.

those numbers only account for ~40% of the state. on the other hand, buttigieg’s campaign claims they have 77% (i think) and that they won, but didn’t release any numbers. honestly this is just such a hot mess

Sanders' campaign released data for 40% where they have accurate details & it was mixture of rural & urban areas. Nowhere are they claiming that it for the whole state.

It was in response to Pete who was trailing (In 3rd place) when initial reports came, claiming victory.

The DNC should announce the result & get this mess over with.
doesn’t mean he won though. not saying i’m believing anything, but we really just have to wait until tomorrow
Logged
cvparty
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,099
United States


« Reply #5 on: February 04, 2020, 02:04:38 AM »

if i *had* to guess the order right now i would predict:
1) buttigieg
2) sanders
3) warren
4) klobuchar
5) biden
1/2 and 4/5 are iffy though
Logged
cvparty
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,099
United States


« Reply #6 on: February 04, 2020, 06:17:03 AM »


Pete’s Comm Director just casually tweets out the login pin.

We should nullify the results for that reason...
Check the rounding on the sheet as well. He rounded 3.2 up to 4 delegates despite the directions asking them to do the opposite.
it's because there are 8 delegates total?
Logged
cvparty
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,099
United States


« Reply #7 on: February 04, 2020, 06:26:12 AM »


Pete’s Comm Director just casually tweets out the login pin.

We should nullify the results for that reason...
Check the rounding on the sheet as well. He rounded 3.2 up to 4 delegates despite the directions asking them to do the opposite.
it's because there are 8 delegates total?
Wouldn’t they have done a coin toss for that last delegate? I’m not saying you are wrong but just interested to know as to why Pete would pick up that last candidate
coin flips happen when multiple candidates have the same number of supporters, but there's only one last delegate available
Logged
cvparty
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,099
United States


« Reply #8 on: February 04, 2020, 05:11:15 PM »

Pete must have had a good ground game, at the very least he overperformed quite a bit.

biden underperforming and klobuchar being just too short in support obviously helped buttigieg a lot with realignment
Logged
cvparty
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,099
United States


« Reply #9 on: February 04, 2020, 05:23:48 PM »

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.
depends which precincts remain though. if urban, then it helps sanders; suburban helps buttigieg
Logged
cvparty
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,099
United States


« Reply #10 on: February 04, 2020, 08:07:01 PM »

i know the data isn't complete yet, but here are some maps showing pete vs. bernie's support


Logged
cvparty
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,099
United States


« Reply #11 on: February 04, 2020, 09:19:04 PM »

Working out the math based on NYT's predictions for outstanding SDEs gives these numbers:
- Pete 27.2%
- Bernie 25.7%
- Warren 18.9%
- Biden 15.0%
- Klobuchar 12.2%
- Yang 0.7%
- Steyer 0.2%

The most significant figure is Biden's. Right now, NYT projects him to fall just short of the fated 15% line, by literally one SDE. If that holds, then he won't qualify to win any at-large or PLEO delegate, and will be left with only a couple district delegates. If he does any better than expected, he'll end up with a healthy share. That really seems to be the only suspense at this point.

I can't remember the exact figures, but initial counts were suggesting that Sanders and Buttigieg each were looking at like 12 or 13 delegates to Biden's 8. If Biden falls and ends up getting like 2 delegates out of IA, does this mean there's a chance Sanders (and Buttigieg) could each net like 15 delegates over Biden out of IA?

For what it's worth, Biden on a good day in SC where Sanders remains viable wouldn't net more than 20-25 delegates overall...
i would nut if biden fails to break 15%
Logged
cvparty
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,099
United States


« Reply #12 on: February 05, 2020, 02:25:48 AM »

Weld got a delegate.

someone claimed that it’s the first time in iowa history that a challenger has won a delegate against a presidential incumbent? hmm
Logged
cvparty
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,099
United States


« Reply #13 on: February 05, 2020, 03:05:40 AM »

apparently people don't understand population distribution
Logged
cvparty
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,099
United States


« Reply #14 on: February 05, 2020, 04:28:42 PM »

nvm i just saw the deval patrick numbers lmao
Logged
cvparty
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,099
United States


« Reply #15 on: February 05, 2020, 04:40:37 PM »

i get human error and all but this really is a hot mess
Logged
cvparty
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,099
United States


« Reply #16 on: February 05, 2020, 04:53:56 PM »
« Edited: February 05, 2020, 04:57:47 PM by cvparty »

So did Pete win the final alignment votes or not??? WTF?
if we correct the steyer/patrick precincts and give those votes to sanders/warren then no
Logged
cvparty
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,099
United States


« Reply #17 on: February 05, 2020, 05:04:29 PM »


no
Logged
cvparty
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,099
United States


« Reply #18 on: February 05, 2020, 05:47:21 PM »

Buttigieg seems to be slowly chipping away Bernie's "Final Vote" margin. He could end up overtaking him.
pretty much all of des moines is in, so most of the outstanding polk vote is in suburban territory which should help buttigieg. but also bernie-leaning counties like woodbury, pottawattamie and story still have a decent number of oustanding votes (not to mention the satellite caucuses too)
Logged
cvparty
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,099
United States


« Reply #19 on: February 06, 2020, 01:20:06 AM »

omg i took a nap and i missed all of THIS wtf
Logged
cvparty
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,099
United States


« Reply #20 on: February 06, 2020, 03:49:56 PM »

remember when people were joking that we wouldn’t get an iowa winner until after new hampshire aHAAHA
Logged
cvparty
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,099
United States


« Reply #21 on: February 06, 2020, 09:15:58 PM »

uh there’s still one missing precinct from warren?
Logged
cvparty
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,099
United States


« Reply #22 on: February 06, 2020, 09:18:53 PM »

I should also observe in the interest of honesty that under my preferred voting system for races that are supposed to yield a single winner--statewide IRV--I don't think it's at all clear that Bernie would have won. A strong argument can be made based on the candidates' ideologies and presentations of themselves to the voters that, had there been a final-round binary choice between Bernie and Pete, Pete might in fact have won fairly comfortably. But, unlike the actual first-round and final-round popular vote totals, we simply don't have those numbers.
yeah i agree wholeheartedly. the whole primary process is so flawed without ranked choice voting and with such a large field of candidates :/
Logged
cvparty
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,099
United States


« Reply #23 on: February 07, 2020, 11:29:54 AM »



The suburban realignment continues...
population growth too. dallas's growth is crazy for a midwestern county
Logged
cvparty
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,099
United States


« Reply #24 on: February 09, 2020, 12:36:35 AM »



Yes that's absolutely fine

........................

THEN WHAT IS THE POINT OF ANY OF THIS
maybe he’s saying that they’ll correct the errors and update the results, but the original worksheets can’t be physically altered?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.043 seconds with 11 queries.