Iowa Caucus Results Thread (pg 148 - full results)

[cvparty]

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

[RI]

Atlas is using the first round results: https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2020&fips=19&f=0&off=0&elect=1

[RI]

Bernie won the popular vote in every county in Iowa with a notable number of Hispanics (Buena Vista, Crawford, Louisa, Marshall, Muscatine, Woodbury). Yang also did above average in these counties (his victory in the Louisa County precinct was in the most Hispanic part of the county), while Klobuchar did notably worse and Buttigieg slightly worse.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

Yang’s win in a Louisa precinct is solid irrefutable proof of yangmentum.

#INFORTHEYANGBANG

[BP🌹]

Mayor Cheat hasn't definitively won yet.

[Sestak]

Am keeping a count of which precincts appear to have clear errors somewhere in their counts here (and as I haven't looked at many yet, there seem to be a LOT of them): https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=357665.0

If you find any others, please post them in the replies there.

[Badger]

Results not expected until Midday tomorrow now apparently

Ffs

F*** this. Peace out folks. I'm hitting the hay.

Gets up and drives to work.

Checks Atlas for latest updates on Iowa caucuses.

Reviews thread, shakes head.

Puts phone down and prays  Iowa catches fire

Finishes long day at work. Decides to go on Atlas to check what has to be the completed Iowa results.

Rdads updated thread. Bangs had loudly on keyboard. Shuts off computer and wishes nothing but Everlasting perdition for Iowa.

[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.

[Gass3268]

Mayor Cheat hasn't definitively won yet.

But he does have a 74% chance of winning.

[Roblox]

Does anyone's national numbers get significantly affected by this, or is it too overshadowed by now by the general mess and the other political news going on?

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/merica/status/1224786551571222529

[BP🌹]

Mayor Cheat hasn't definitively won yet.

But he does have a 74% chance of winning.

26% isn't nothing

[GoTfan]

Mayor Cheat hasn't definitively won yet.

But he does have a 74% chance of winning.

26% isn't nothing

It seems pretty defenitive to me.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Mayor Cheat hasn't definitively won yet.

But he does have a 74% chance of winning.

26% isn't nothing

It seems pretty defenitive to me.

President Hillary Clinton agrees with you.

[Reluctant Republican]

If these results hold I tend to think they're pretty good for Sanders. Obviously it would have been better for him had he won, but Buttigieg is probably the candidates his people would be happiest with taking it-- A Warren win would have elevated her and won back some of the former supporters of her who made their way into Sanders camp, while a Biden one would have essentially won him the nomination.

But the muddled way these results came about means none of the moderate lane immediately drop out, which is good news for Sanders. If he can win both New Hampshire and Nevada, and if Biden can be forced into at least third in one or both states, I think it's hard not to see him as the frontrunner, with his other two main competitors being Buttigieg and Bloomberg both competing to be the establishment candidate, with Biden likely staying in and complicating things further on that side until at least Super Tuesday. By the time they narrow it down to one figure, I'm guessing Sanders consolidates his hold on his side of the party.

But yeah, I think Sanders needs to win NH by at least 10 to project strength going forward.

[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.

[Adam Griffin]

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...

[Sorenroy]

The Needle
(praise be)

First Alignment:
Sanders (87%) - Buttigieg (12%)

Final Alignment:
Sanders (61%) - Buttigieg (38%)

State Delegates:
Buttigieg (74%) - Sanders (27%)

[StateBoiler]

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.

[cvparty]

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%

[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.

[GM Team Member and Acting PPT WB]

the fact that it looks like Bernie won the PV and is (likely) not going to be 1st in Delegates is quite infuriating. Another point in the "caucuses are undemocratic" column.

[Gass3268]

the fact that it looks like Bernie won the PV and is (likely) not going to be 1st in Delegates is quite infuriating. Another point in the "caucuses are undemocratic" column.

Too bad the Sanders campaign wanted to keep caucuses.

[Gass3268]

https://twitter.com/tylerpager/status/1224886331274297346?s=20

[Badger]

the fact that it looks like Bernie won the PV and is (likely) not going to be 1st in Delegates is quite infuriating. Another point in the "caucuses are undemocratic" column.

I suppose the one Saving Grace here, and Bernie can play this up, is that the relatively minor difference in delegates compared to the overall nomination race is not even the tip of the iceberg numbers-wise. What matters, and what Bernie should beat like a drum, is he won the popular vote, period end of sentence.