Iowa Caucus Results Thread (pg 148 - full results)

[Ebsy]

So the lesson for the future is that precincts captains should refuse to sign the worksheets to prevent them from becoming legally binding? What kind of nonsense is that explanation?

No. They should make sure the worksheets are right. In the IDP’s view, this is really no different than a county certifying election results and sending them to the state board of elections to certify the election. The state often takes the certification at face value - even when the county precinct numbers ultimately don’t add up.

I can point to a number of races I’ve mapped where the precinct data didn’t make sense and didn’t match the numbers reported to the state.

Yes but if there is a legal challenge then they go back and examine the records and see if anything is amiss. Just because something was written on a piece of paper doesn't make it legally binding forever and always.

[cinyc]

So the lesson for the future is that precincts captains should refuse to sign the worksheets to prevent them from becoming legally binding? What kind of nonsense is that explanation?

No. They should make sure the worksheets are right. In the IDP’s view, this is really no different than a county certifying election results and sending them to the state board of elections to certify the election. The state often takes the certification at face value - even when the county precinct numbers ultimately don’t add up.

I can point to a number of races I’ve mapped where the precinct data didn’t make sense and didn’t match the numbers reported to the state.

Yes but if there is a legal challenge then they go back and examine the records and see if anything is amiss. Just because something was written on a piece of paper doesn't make it legally binding forever and always.

It was unclear whether that explanation was only for their final count or any recount. But until a recount, it’s clear the IDP isn’t going to do anything about bad math in a certification.

[atheist4thecause]

So...despite the NYT having Sanders has the favorite for SDEs with 97% in, now that 100% of the vote is in, Sanders lost the SDEs by 0.1% (2) delegates. Well, actually I saw 100% of the vote is one place, NYT says 97%, and the DMR says 99.9% (missing 1 precinct). lol They can't even agree on how much has been counted at this point.

President Trump has played this perfectly. He has talked about the issues, but didn't go over-the-top about it. Last time, he won 10% of Sanders supporters. If he can get more this time around it's all over.

[atheist4thecause]

Iowa is over. Virtual tie. Who care. NH

Who cares about the election and voters of Iowa. Spoken like a true Socialist. Elections don't matter. Voters don't matter. All that matters is the Party, right?

[Xing]

Iowa is over. Virtual tie. Who care. NH

Your state better not blow this...

[Antonio the Sixth]

So the lesson for the future is that precincts captains should refuse to sign the worksheets to prevent them from becoming legally binding? What kind of nonsense is that explanation?

No. They should make sure the worksheets are right. In the IDP’s view, this is really no different than a county certifying election results and sending them to the state board of elections to certify the election. The state often takes the certification at face value - even when the county precinct numbers ultimately don’t add up.

I can point to a number of races I’ve mapped where the precinct data didn’t make sense and didn’t match the numbers reported to the state.

This is Kafkaesque.

American election administration is a disgrace at every conceivable level.

[Senator Spark]

What do the Iowa results tell us about neighboring states? Will Pete win the rural areas while Sanders wins urban areas?

[atheist4thecause]

What do the Iowa results tell us about neighboring states? Will Pete win the rural areas while Sanders wins urban areas?

Look towards the bottom: https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/iowa/

[cinyc]

So...despite the NYT having Sanders has the favorite for SDEs with 97% in, now that 100% of the vote is in, Sanders lost the SDEs by 0.1% (2) delegates. Well, actually I saw 100% of the vote is one place, NYT says 97%, and the DMR says 99.9% (missing 1 precinct). lol They can't even agree on how much has been counted at this point.

President Trump has played this perfectly. He has talked about the issues, but didn't go over-the-top about it. Last time, he won 10% of Sanders supporters. If he can get more this time around it's all over.

NYT had Sanders at something like a 54% chance of winning with 97% in. A 54% favorite isn't much of a favorite. Something that can happen 46% of the time happens a little less often than tails in a coin flip.

[catographer]

What do the Iowa results tell us about neighboring states? Will Pete win the rural areas while Sanders wins urban areas?

It's very difficult to tell based on caucus results alone. In 2016, Clinton won rural Iowa whereas Sanders won urban parts; in the rest of the Midwest and neighboring states, it was largely the opposite.

A good example of this is Nebraska. They held both a caucus and a primary in 2016. In the caucus, Sanders won cities like Lincoln and Omaha, while Clinton ran pretty even with him in rural counties. In the primary, the opposite was true; Clinton won Omaha and Lincoln whereas Sanders cleaned up in most of rural Nebraska.

[jimrtex]

So wait - the IDP didn’t skip the county delegate equivalent step when calculating the out-of-Iowa satellite caucuses, but did for the in-state satellite caucuses? And still somehow managed to screw up? Some of these screw ups appear to be on the official tally sheets. I think the IDP is taking the position that those can only be fixed at a recount requested by a candidate, if at all.

I have not looked at the instate caucuses.

An oddity in the rules is that the number of state delegates for the OOSS is a dynamic whole number of state delegates, while for each CD the number of SDE is a dynamic percentage of the number of state delegates from traditional precincts in the caucus.

So the OOSS has four state delegates based on the total attendance (they then proceeded to mess this up because an extra "county" delegate from the Washington, DC satellite.

The calculation of SDE for the OOSS is straightforward once you understand what they are doing - I did not understand this from reading the rules.

The OOSS ws granted four SDE, and this was apportioned among the satellite caucuses in proportion to attendance.

The number of "county" delegate slots is based on the attendance at each satellite. The largest satellite had nine slots. These nine slots were allocated to the viable candidate groups rounded to the nearest 1/9th of the total participants at that satellite.

The total SDE for a satellite was divided by nine, so that each delegate slot received 1/9th of the SDE for that satellite.

The smallest satellites had four slots, so that each delegate slot was worth 1/4th of the SDE for that satellite.

Intermediate-sized satellites had between five and eight satellites.

There was a lot of quantizing, even though county delegates weren't actually chosen, and there was no county convention for the OOSS. If the IDP had not messed up, the total of SDE for the OOPS would have been exactly four.

For the in-state satellites, the SDE for each CD is in 1% steps of the number of state delegates from the traditional precincts in the district. So if there are 485 state delegates from IA-4. Then a 1% bonus is 4.85 SDE. There is no problem with mathematically allocating a mixed fraction number of SDE. But how do you choose 4.85 actual state delegates? Find a delegate who lost his arm in a meat processing plant or in a combine?

[Annatar]

Interesting data from Wasserman on Iowa turnout by education, looks like it was up a lot in Dallas county, small rises and falls elsewhere.

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1225806317740285952

[Mr. Morden]

https://twitter.com/jeneps/status/1226260142607474689

[Antonio the Sixth]

https://twitter.com/jeneps/status/1226260142607474689

Hopefully this will produce a full and accurate count, and we can put this debacle behind us. Hopefully.

[NOVA Green]

https://twitter.com/jeneps/status/1226260142607474689

Hopefully this will produce a full and accurate count, and we can put this debacle behind us. Hopefully.

Yes--- so hopefully we will somewhat accurate precinct results to play with soon...

[cinyc]

Des Moines Register article on the clustercluck that happened at the Iowa Democratic Party's war rooms on election night:

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2020/02/08/iowa-caucus-2020-inside-democrats-chaotic-call-center-boiler-room/4690263002/

Some takeaways:

-They only had 50 people in the results call center, who didn't have training on using the failed app.
-A lot of people were calling these 50 people. One accused CNN of phonebanking them to try to get info.
-Even when the CNN phone bankers got through, the call center was compartmentalized from the rest of the organization. They ran results to another room that was using Google Sheets to input results and check the caucus math. They only had 15 people doing data entry.
-One person in the data center/strategy room basically said that although the errors are likely minor, there's no guarantee that the results "are 100% accurate, and they will never be." Yikes!
-Some moron or group of morons (4chan?) started calling in some fake results after precinct captains started posting pictures of precinct results on Twitter - complete with PIN numbers.

[Gass3268]

What could go wrong?

https://twitter.com/meganmesserly/status/1226323087659941888?s=20

[Antonio the Sixth]

What could go wrong?

https://twitter.com/meganmesserly/status/1226323087659941888?s=20

There most certainly are tools involved in the organization of this caucus.

[cinyc]

What could go wrong?

https://twitter.com/meganmesserly/status/1226323087659941888?s=20

It's not an app! It's a tool!

Hopefully, they'll have more than 50 people in their phone bank in two weeks and won't publicize their hotline number so everyone under the sun can call them.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

https://twitter.com/tripgabriel/status/1226357866568863744

Yes that's absolutely fine

[Antonio the Sixth]

https://twitter.com/tripgabriel/status/1226357866568863744

Yes that's absolutely fine

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

THEN WHAT IS THE POINT OF ANY OF THIS

[cvparty]

https://twitter.com/tripgabriel/status/1226357866568863744

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?

[Adam Griffin]

[Mr. Morden]

https://twitter.com/tripgabriel/status/1226357866568863744

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?

It sounds like all they're allowed to fix are any data entry errors transcribing the caucus worksheets into the IDP's reported #s.  But any bad math on the caucus worksheets themselves can't be fixed:

https://twitter.com/tripgabriel/status/1226360407423627264

[Former Crackhead Mike Lindell]

What could go wrong?

https://twitter.com/meganmesserly/status/1226323087659941888?s=20

It's not an app! It's a tool!

Like a butcher knife or a harpoon, or an alligator!