Iowa Caucus Results Thread (pg 148 - full results)

[jimrtex]

Through A-C counties Adair-Crawford

338 precincts

Errors 21 (6.21%)

Coin Flips 30, 2 with 3-sided coins (8.88%)

Potential Coin Flips 2 (if correction had been made. coin flip would be needed)

Beneficiary of Change:

Sanders gain, or Buttigieg loss: 6 (Sanders challenged all 6)
Buttigieg gain, or Sanders loss: 7 (Buttigieg challenged 4 of 7)
Neutral with respect to Buttigieg/Sanders: 7 (no challenges)
Ambigious (Biden was non-viable. If delegates recalculated, Sanders would have gained delegate. If Biden voters had realigned, Buttigieg may have benefited) (Buttigieg challenges).

Buttigieg made 9 additional challenges where there is no obvious error. He also duplicated one precinct.

[Sorenroy]

I've been seeing users in other threads saying that Iowa was a Buttigieg win and I wanted to push back on that idea for three main reasons.

First: The results aren't final. Perhaps the main point is that we don't yet have conclusive numbers out of Iowa. According to the Hill, the party will be recounting 23 precincts starting Tuesday and lasting two days. Until then, we don't know what the actual results are. And this isn't some Nevada-type blowout where we can infer the results without lots of numbers. The current count is 26.19% for Buttigieg and 26.18% for Sanders, a 0.004% lead.

Second: Sanders clearly won the two popular vote measures. While SDEs are still unclear, first and final alignment votes are. I know a lot of people think that SDEs should be the measure because "tradition", but beyond comparing results from one year to another, doesn't it make more sense to measure in terms of the popular vote? If we're trying to compair Iowa results to other states in the current cycle, we're not going to measure votes against SDes and national popular votes don't say that Sanders won 25% of the vote, 25% of Iowa's SDEs, and 45% of Nevadas CCDs, they find a common measure, the popular vote, and do comparisons based on that. Even if you're just looking at results internally to the state, entrance/exit polls were not measuring support by abstracting it to SDEs, they were using what the people had to say, and that will be what is looked at again in November, where SDEs don't exist at all.

Finally: Why should we care about SDEs? Back to the last point, the popular vote seems like a better inter- and intrastate comparison, and SDEs mean nothing past the state's finished caucus. If you don't want to use the popular vote, national pledged delegates seem like the best way to go, but then we run into the problem from the first post, where we don't actually know the final result. Essentially, Sanders won two of the measures, and is basically tied with the final two. At best, if someone is referring to Iowa, they should say that Buttigieg is leading, not that he won. And Sanders certainly did not lose.

[jimrtex]

I've been seeing users in other threads saying that Iowa was a Buttigieg win and I wanted to push back on that idea for three main reasons.

First: The results aren't final. Perhaps the main point is that we don't yet have conclusive numbers out of Iowa. According to the Hill, the party will be recounting 23 precincts starting Tuesday and lasting two days. Until then, we don't know what the actual results are. And this isn't some Nevada-type blowout where we can infer the results without lots of numbers. The current count is 26.19% for Buttigieg and 26.18% for Sanders, a 0.004% lead.

Second: Sanders clearly won the two popular vote measures. While SDEs are still unclear, first and final alignment votes are. I know a lot of people think that SDEs should be the measure because "tradition", but beyond comparing results from one year to another, doesn't it make more sense to measure in terms of the popular vote? If we're trying to compair Iowa results to other states in the current cycle, we're not going to measure votes against SDes and national popular votes don't say that Sanders won 25% of the vote, 25% of Iowa's SDEs, and 45% of Nevadas CCDs, they find a common measure, the popular vote, and do comparisons based on that. Even if you're just looking at results internally to the state, entrance/exit polls were not measuring support by abstracting it to SDEs, they were using what the people had to say, and that will be what is looked at again in November, where SDEs don't exist at all.

Finally: Why should we care about SDEs? Back to the last point, the popular vote seems like a better inter- and intrastate comparison, and SDEs mean nothing past the state's finished caucus. If you don't want to use the popular vote, national pledged delegates seem like the best way to go, but then we run into the problem from the first post, where we don't actually know the final result. Essentially, Sanders won two of the measures, and is basically tied with the final two. At best, if someone is referring to Iowa, they should say that Buttigieg is leading, not that he won. And Sanders certainly did not lose.

Why should there be national conventions?

[It’s so Joever]

Congrats Pete on winning Iowa!!!
Anyone who says otherwise should cry to former president Al Gore about it.

[John Dule]

Congrats Pete on winning Iowa!!!
Anyone who says otherwise should cry to former president Al Gore about it.

https://twitter.com/petebuttigieg/status/1105168289540517888?lang=en

[dax00]

I believe they're set to begin a partial recount on Tuesday, so this thing isn't over just yet.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Coming down to the wire!

Now that the stakes are so low, I'm actually looking forward to this. I do want Bernie to come out on top for the symbol of having won the first 3 states, but it's not gonna matter either way, and at least we're going to get final numbers that we can use to properly break down the results.

[jimrtex]

Through 526 precincts (Adair-Fremont) there were 34 errors (6.5%) and 42 coin flips (8.0%). There were an additional 4 precincts where there would have been coin flips had the results been done correctly.

Of the 11 precincts where a correction would favor Sanders (either a Sanders gain, or a Buttigieg loss), Sanders challenged 11.

Of the 12 precincts where a correction would favor Buttigieg (either a Buttigieg gain, or a Sanders loss), Buttigieg challenged 7.

Of the 10 precincts where a correction would favor neither of Buttigieg or Sanders, neither challenged.

[Epaminondas]

Final results should come out this evening.

[Sorenroy]

https://cbs2iowa.com/news/local/idp-to-hold-state-central-committee-meeting-to-certify-caucus-results

IDP to hold State Central Committee meeting to certify caucus results

DES MOINES, Iowa — The Iowa Democratic Party will hold a State Central Committee meeting to certify the results of the 2020 Iowa Caucuses.

The meeting will be held Saturday February 29th, 2020 in Altoona. The announcement comes on the day the party said a recount of recanvass results was to be completed.

Not sure if this means we won't get results until the 29th or that results just won't be certified until the 29th, but I've been refreshing Google every hour and this seems to be the only news from "this evening."

[Xing]

It looks like we won't actually know the results until Saturday. Unbelievable, we need to let another state go first next time.

[Volrath50]

It looks like we won't actually know the results until Saturday. Unbelievable, we need to let another state go first next time.

Wow. We may actually know the results from South Carolina before Iowa.

After this debacle, Iowa should be forced to go dead last in 2024.

[Sorenroy]

It looks like we won't actually know the results until Saturday. Unbelievable, we need to let another state go first next time.

There may be some hope left:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez48Eunzb24

Iowa Caucus Recount Results

"After two days of recounting and weeks after Iowans took to the caucus, Iowa's first in the nation event may finally be over. The Democratic party began recounting 20 precincts on Tuesday at the request of the Sanders and Buttigieg campaigns. Those final results are expected to be released at the end of today, ending the troubled caucus that saw confusion, technical issues, and frustration from Democrats across Iowa as well as the country."

Looks like results are coming by "the end of today" after all. Although, no information on what "end of today" actually means.

[Oryxslayer]

https://twitter.com/JakeDaveWebster/status/1233185537285996544?s=19

Not sure if final, but if so then Pete wins Iowa.

[Sorenroy]

Post Recount SDE Results:
Buttigieg — 26.17% (-0.01%)
Sanders — 26.13% (-0.05%)
Warren — 18.06% (+0.03%)
Biden — 15.82% (+0.03%)
Klobuchar — 12.27% (+0.00%)
Yang — 1.02%
Steyer — 0.31%
Bloomberg — 0.01%
Gabbard — 0.01%
Other — 0.03%
Uncommitted — 0.17%

Buttigieg expands his lead by an order of magnitude, from 0.004% to 0.043%.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Well, congrats Pete on winning a bullsh*t mathematical abstraction I guess. He got screwed over by Nevada's bullsh*t math, so it's all good in the end.

Margin after initial count: 2.774
Margin after recanvass: 0.080
Margin after recount: 0.933

[Antonio the Sixth]

Statewide Allocation (9)
Pete 2.733 (3)
Bernie 2.729 (3)
Warren 1.886 (2)
Biden 1.652 (1)

PLEO Allocation (5)
Pete 1.518 (2)
Bernie 1.516 (1)
Warren 1.048 (1)
Biden 0.918 (1)

I don't have the exact results by CD, so I can't calculate the delegate math for those, but iirc that has been set in stone since the initial results were posted.

Note that if all 14 at-large delegates were actually apportioned together, the breakdown would actually be Pete 4 Bernie 4 Biden 3 Warren 3. So, in addition to the stupidity of the SDEs, Pete also gained a delegate thanks to the stupidity of the PLEOs (at Biden's expense).

[Xing]

Apparently Weaver is challenging this, but it’s probably safe to say that Buttigieg won SDEs (barely.) Given the way the race is headed, though, it’s a Pyrrhic victory for him.

[ibagli]

Not that it really matters at this point, but there are still a bunch of problems.

https://twitter.com/Taniel/status/1233302569461534720

[Tender Branson]

With 41/49 delegates awarded it is - officially:

14 ButtiPete (+1)
12 Sanders
  8 Warren
  6 Biden (+2)
  1 Klobuchar

8 additional delegates are unpledged (3 Members of Congress, 5 unknown DNC members).

Of the 3 members of Congress, 2 have endorsed Biden and 1 ButtiPete.

Even if all 5 DNC members go for Biden, he won't get a majority.

Sanders would need 4/5 DNC members to get a majority.

[brucejoel99]

And on this, the 1-year anniversary of the Iowa caucuses, we remember a simpler time, back when we all thought that it was the worst thing that could possibly go wrong in the year 2020. Boy oh boy, were we in for a penny, in for a pound.

[Gracile]

This feels like a lifetime ago.

[jimrtex]

And on this, the 1-year anniversary of the Iowa caucuses, we remember a simpler time, back when we all thought that it was the worst thing that could possibly go wrong in the year 2020. Boy oh boy, were we in for a penny, in for a pound.

Do we know who won yet?

[Motorcity]

And on this, the 1-year anniversary of the Iowa caucuses, we remember a simpler time, back when we all thought that it was the worst thing that could possibly go wrong in the year 2020. Boy oh boy, were we in for a penny, in for a pound.

Do we know who won yet?

Better question, who won the 2016 caucus. Not the stupid rules for delegates, the raw vote. Because the DNC never reveled the raw vote in 2016. Its entirely possible Sanders won which could have changed the dynamic of the race

[Tender Branson]

Despite ButtiPete „winning“ it, I hope they kill off the Iowa (and any other) caucus in 2024 and forever.

I hate caucuses. They are a big mess.