Iowa Caucus Results Thread (pg 148 - full results)

[Antonio the Sixth]

La France ressent le Bern!

[Antonio the Sixth]

La France ressent le Bern!

Oh nevermind

[Antonio the Sixth]

what an absolute debacle

[Antonio the Sixth]

OK, I signing out. See you in NH. F**k this f**king abomination of a party.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Jeff Zeleney says he doesn’t think there will be anymore results tonight... again, people need to lose their jobs.

Wait they just said there would be another vote dump tonight. WTF?

[Antonio the Sixth]

For fun, here's the current Iowa map, done Atlas-style.

Is this first round, final round or SDE?

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Pete probably has won the SDEs (although our edgy friend is right to point out that 74% is not 100%), but so what? This is a meaningless, arcane and structurally biased metric that only matters for the allocation of convention delegate (where Pete will net maybe one over Bernie at most). Bernie won both popular vote metrics (as he probably did in 2016), and that should be what actually matters. This is the proof that he was right to request full transparency about the reporting of results. It would be ridiculous if the only reported metric had shown Pete ahead when Bernie is objectively more popular among caucusgoers.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Pete probably has won the SDEs (although our edgy friend is right to point out that 74% is not 100%), but so what? This is a meaningless, arcane and structurally biased metric that only matters for the allocation of convention delegate (where Pete will net maybe one over Bernie at most). Bernie won both popular vote metrics (as he probably did in 2016), and that should be what actually matters. This is the proof that he was right to request full transparency about the reporting of results. It would be ridiculous if the only reported metric had shown Pete ahead when Bernie is objectively more popular among caucusgoers.

Winning with 30% is not really a win, be it Buttigieg or Sanders. Who wants to be the dumbass that claims victory when 70% picked someone else? This is just a 3-way or 4-way draw effectively once the national delegates are allocated in the end.

Fair, I agree that proportional elections shouldn't be interpreted based on winners and losers anyway. But the media is obsessed about declaring a "winner", and if they really want a "winner", then that winner should be Bernie.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I made the mistake of getting some alcohol into my system (not that much, but apparently enough) and now I'm kinda tipsy, so I'm down for the urban riots if y'all are.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The fix is in

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lD_ag67tH3I

[Antonio the Sixth]

So are we getting those few more results ore not? Are people in the news talking about it?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Does anybody know where all of these (1250) precincts came from compared to the original (1111) precincts?

NYT has the map

[Antonio the Sixth]

NYT forecasted final SDE count (comparison with previous forecast):

Pete 560 (+3)
Bernie 529 (+3)
Warren 386 (-2)
Biden 306 (-1)
Klob 251 (=)
Others 23 (+2)

That adds up to 5 more SDEs than before so the math must be a little wonky, but the big takeaway is that not much has changed.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The SDE breakdown among the new batch of votes that just came in:

Pete 26.1%
Bernie 25.9%
Warren 19.0%
Biden 14.4%
Klob 12.6%
Yang 1.0%
Steyer 0.6%
Uncommitted 0.3%
Gabbard 0.1%

So by and large similar to the previous batch. Marginally better for Bernie and Warren, slightly worse for Pete and Biden, but very marginally.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The SDE breakdown among the new batch of votes that just came in:

Pete 26.1%
Bernie 25.9%
Warren 19.0%
Biden 14.4%
Klob 12.6%
Yang 1.0%
Steyer 0.6%
Uncommitted 0.3%
Gabbard 0.1%

So by and large similar to the previous batch. Marginally better for Bernie and Warren, slightly worse for Pete and Biden, but very marginally.

Because I'm obsessed, here's the first preference pattern among this batch as well.

Bernie 24.0%
Pete 21.3%
Warren 18.1%
Biden 15.0%
Klob 13.1%
Yang 5.4%
Steyer 2.1%
Others 1.0%

Interestingly, this is the opposite pattern as for the SDEs. Bernie and Warren doing marginally worse than in the first batch, Biden and Klobuchar (and Yang and Steyer) doing marginally better. Still all very small differences. By and large we're seeing more of the same.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I think this caucus has evolved into a substantial argument against gov size reduction (giving out services for private groups to do). Not saying that's my position now, but it's a pretty good argument against it.

There was a book written after the 2000 election called Downsizing Democracy and that title feels more relevant than ever.

[Antonio the Sixth]

SDE breakdown of the new batch:
- Pete 28.5%
- Bernie 24.4%
- Biden 19.1%
- Warren 15.3%
- Klob 11.3%

Final round breakdown:
- Pete 29.6%
- Bernie 24.7%
- Biden 19.5%
- Warren 14.4%
- Klob 9.4%

Inderesting that Bernie was only marginally underrepresented in this particular batch compared to SDEs (in fact Pete was underrepresented more). Still, very unrepresentative batch. Let's hope that the rural precincts push Biden under 15%.

[Antonio the Sixth]

So Pete won Iowa, but Bernie also "won" Iowa.

Other way around.

[Antonio the Sixth]

So Pete won Iowa, but Bernie also "won" Iowa.

Other way around.

I think Pete gets the official victory here, Bernie gets the ability to say he got the most votes.

Pete gets the "official" "victory" because of the DNC spinning their ridiculous measurement and the media falling for it. So Pete has "won" in the mathematical abstractions of a bullsh*t media bubble, while Bernie has won in the real world of real people.

[Antonio the Sixth]

https://twitter.com/idaveprice/status/1225148653653975040

Thank God for that. It would have been a shame if we had just gotten 4% of precincts.

I mean for all we know, it could be another 4%.

[Antonio the Sixth]

So Pete won Iowa, but Bernie also "won" Iowa.

Other way around.

I think Pete gets the official victory here, Bernie gets the ability to say he got the most votes.

Pete gets the "official" "victory" because of the DNC spinning their ridiculous measurement and the media falling for it. So Pete has "won" in the mathematical abstractions of a bullsh*t media bubble, while Bernie has won in the real world of real people.

As somebody else in this thread previously suggested, this is akin to saying on November 9th, 2016, that "Trump got the "official" "victory" because of the USA spinning their ridiculous measurement and the law falling for it. So Trump has "won" in the mathematical abstractions of a bullsh*t Electoral College, while Hillary has won in the real world of real people."

The bottom line, of course, was that Trump still won.

Considering that, when it comes to a presidential primary, delegates are all that matter, Pete gets the official victory because he is the delegate winner. Plain & simple, end of.

Nobody cares about Iowa because of its delegate count. It's 1% of the final convention total, for f**k's sake. People care about Iowa for the narrative it sets about which candidates are most able to demonstrate support. The best indicator of candidate support is the popular vote.

Anyway, if you really want to award this based on delegates, then it's national convention delegates you should care about (where Pete might come out on top, but it's just as likely to be tied). SDEs are a meaningless counting trick that amount to nothing in itself.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Black Hawk County Iowa supervisor, fed up with waiting, posted the full county results on Facebook

1. Sanders 2,149 votes 155 County Delegates
2. Buttigieg 1,578 votes 111 County Delegates.
3. Warren 1,244 votes, 87 County Delegates.
4. Biden 986 votes, 85 County Delegates.
5. Klobuchar 862 votes, 55 County Delegates.
6. Yang 33 Votes, 4 County Delegates
7. Steyer 27 votes, 4 Delegates.

Full SDE count in the county based on these numbers:

Sanders: 31.25
Buttigieg: 22.38
Warren: 17.54
Biden: 17.14
Klobuchar: 11.09
Yang: .81
Steyer: .81

Compared to NYTimes projection:

Sanders: 31.11
Buttigieg: 23.64
Warren: 18.38
Biden: 13.13

Holy crap, Biden overperforming by a full 4 SDEs. OK, at this rate he's definitely going to be above 15% statewide.

[Antonio the Sixth]

So Pete won Iowa, but Bernie also "won" Iowa.

Other way around.

I think Pete gets the official victory here, Bernie gets the ability to say he got the most votes.

Pete gets the "official" "victory" because of the DNC spinning their ridiculous measurement and the media falling for it. So Pete has "won" in the mathematical abstractions of a bullsh*t media bubble, while Bernie has won in the real world of real people.

As somebody else in this thread previously suggested, this is akin to saying on November 9th, 2016, that "Trump got the "official" "victory" because of the USA spinning their ridiculous measurement and the law falling for it. So Trump has "won" in the mathematical abstractions of a bullsh*t Electoral College, while Hillary has won in the real world of real people."

The bottom line, of course, was that Trump still won.

Considering that, when it comes to a presidential primary, delegates are all that matter, Pete gets the official victory because he is the delegate winner. Plain & simple, end of.

Nobody cares about Iowa because of its delegate count. It's 1% of the final convention total, for f**k's sake. People care about Iowa for the narrative it sets about which candidates are most able to demonstrate support. The best indicator of candidate support is the popular vote.

Anyway, if you really want to award this based on delegates, then it's national convention delegates you should care about (where Pete might come out on top, but it's just as likely to be tied). SDEs are a meaningless counting trick that amount to nothing in itself.

But the national delegates are allocated based on the SDEs, which is why they are the most important number.

This is utterly absurd logic. Either you're concerned with the ultimate material outcome, and thus you care about national convention delegates, or you're concerned with actual support, in which case you care about the popular vote. Touting some intermediate mathematical construct as the "true" arbiter of who won makes no sense under either standpoint.

[Antonio the Sixth]

So Pete won Iowa, but Bernie also "won" Iowa.

Other way around.

I think Pete gets the official victory here, Bernie gets the ability to say he got the most votes.

Pete gets the "official" "victory" because of the DNC spinning their ridiculous measurement and the media falling for it. So Pete has "won" in the mathematical abstractions of a bullsh*t media bubble, while Bernie has won in the real world of real people.

As somebody else in this thread previously suggested, this is akin to saying on November 9th, 2016, that "Trump got the "official" "victory" because of the USA spinning their ridiculous measurement and the law falling for it. So Trump has "won" in the mathematical abstractions of a bullsh*t Electoral College, while Hillary has won in the real world of real people."

The bottom line, of course, was that Trump still won.

Considering that, when it comes to a presidential primary, delegates are all that matter, Pete gets the official victory because he is the delegate winner. Plain & simple, end of.

Nobody cares about Iowa because of its delegate count. It's 1% of the final convention total, for f**k's sake. People care about Iowa for the narrative it sets about which candidates are most able to demonstrate support. The best indicator of candidate support is the popular vote.

Anyway, if you really want to award this based on delegates, then it's national convention delegates you should care about (where Pete might come out on top, but it's just as likely to be tied). SDEs are a meaningless counting trick that amount to nothing in itself.

But the national delegates are allocated based on the SDEs, which is why they are the most important number.

This is utterly absurd logic. Either you're concerned with the ultimate material outcome, and thus you care about national convention delegates, or you're concerned with actual support, in which case you care about the popular vote. Touting some intermediate mathematical construct as the "true" arbiter of who won makes no sense under either standpoint.

Gonna have to agree to disagree.

This. As great as actual support is, it always comes secondary to the "ultimate material outcome." The ultimate material outcome is what gives us a President Trump when Hillary wins on actual support. Is this right? Of course not, no. But it is what it is.

Love how you're quoting my post when it's obvious you didn't read it.