Iowa Caucus Results Thread (pg 148 - full results)

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Another mystery is why only 31% of people in the exit poll voted for Sanders in 2016... where did all his other voters go?  My guess, the answer to both these questions is that all of Sanders older voters voted for Trump and didn't look back (or perhaps, more charitably, some of them became disaffected with the political process and are no longer engaged).

I thought that was weird as well. I think there is a chance some entrance poll respondents might have got confused and checked off that they supported Clinton in the 2016 caucus, thinking it was asking about the 2016 general election. Otherwise it makes no sense - Clinton got less than 50% of caucus supporters in 2016 - with 37% of caucus goers being first time attendees, and turnout being about the same, the entrance poll, taken at face value (saying 54% supported Clinton in 2016, and that was of the full sample, not just 2016 attendees) literally does not add up.

Without geographic analysis undertaken, my guess is that a significant chunk of the 'Bernie' vote was just an anti-Clinton vote in 2016 and that those people are no longer Democrats or at least no longer active Democrats. Iowa may be a more unique state for that phenomenon along with places like Appalachia (Ohio) and Oklahoma.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

With 29% outstanding for reporting, Sanders still has a decent shot to win overall?

20% according to the Needle.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/02/03/us/elections/results-iowa-caucus-live-forecast.html?action=click&module=ELEX_results&pgtype=Interactive&region=Component

[jaichind]

So at this rate, Bernie will be losing Iowa again.

The thing with Bernie is that 25% is fine, but it's clear in the 2nd round what is his problem is. He doesn't have crossover appeal beyond his die-hards. That's the reason Buttigieg got such a good 2nd realignment #.

I agree, but as defense, in terms of PV it was:


Pete  21.4% tom 25.2% (+3.8 )
Sanders 24.4% to 26.2% (+1.8 )
Warren 18.8% to 20.6% (+1.4)
Biden   14.7 to 13.2 (-1.5)
Klobuchar 12.8 to 12.5 (-0.3)

that is Sanders may be was hurt by strong Warren. I don't know how much you can extrapolate from this.

Either Sanders got a lot less Yang transfers than expected or, more likely, the Sanders-Warren mutual transfers was less than expected due to the Sanders-Warren spat during the last debate.  If so in the end both Sanders and Warren lost that exchange in the last debate.

[2016]

With 29% outstanding for reporting, Sanders still has a decent shot to win overall?

There is a very low chance, but there are still quite some votes left in urban areas. Too bad the Iowa dems haven't uttered a single word about when to expect the final results. I'm feeling completely burned out, at this point.

Sanders is running even with Buttigieg in most of the urban areas so I doubt Bernie is going to catch up to Pete.
By tonight we will probably know who won Iowa. Once the IADP releases their next batch of Results they will probably have counted between 85-90 of Precincts.

[Minnesota Mike]

Doing the delegate math in CD-04 right now each of the top 5 get 1 delegate. Warren is very close to the 15% threshold, if she falls below Buttigieg  would pick up one.

[BlueSwan]

It’s a bit silly that it even matters whether Pete or Bernie just narrowly edges ahead of the other one. Both had great nights. Both could claim “victory”

[Dr. Arch]

It’s a bit silly that it even matters whether Pete or Bernie just narrowly edges ahead of the other one. Both had great nights. Both could claim “victory”

The important thing is whether Biden falls below the 15% threshold.

[Annatar]

I have to say this, how can it take 2 days to count 180,000 votes, its not like 180 million votes have to be counted manually, how can it take 2 days to count just 180,000 votes, you can count that many votes with a few volunteers in a day.

[2016]

I have to say this, how can it take 2 days to count 180,000 votes, its not like 180 million votes have to be counted manually, how can it take 2 days to count just 180,000 votes, you can count that many votes with a few volunteers in a day.

Because of the Coding Error in the App the IADP in conjunction with the DNC Helpers have to collect all these Preference Cards.

[Annatar]

I have to say this, how can it take 2 days to count 180,000 votes, its not like 180 million votes have to be counted manually, how can it take 2 days to count just 180,000 votes, you can count that many votes with a few volunteers in a day.

Because of the Coding Error in the App the IADP in conjunction with the DNC Helpers have to collect all these Preference Cards.

So its 180,000 preference cards then that have to be manually counted,  in many countries where you have 100,000 votes cast per seat, it takes a very short time for a few volunteers to count those votes.

[Dr. Arch]

I have to say this, how can it take 2 days to count 180,000 votes, its not like 180 million votes have to be counted manually, how can it take 2 days to count just 180,000 votes, you can count that many votes with a few volunteers in a day.

Because of the Coding Error in the App the IADP in conjunction with the DNC Helpers have to collect all these Preference Cards.

So its 180,000 preference cads then that have to be manually counted,  in many countries where you have 100,000 votes cast per seat, it takes a very short time for a few volunteers to count those votes.

It's not votes. Votes are straightforward; caucus preference cards are a nightmare.

[Tintrlvr]

So at this rate, Bernie will be losing Iowa again.

The thing with Bernie is that 25% is fine, but it's clear in the 2nd round what is his problem is. He doesn't have crossover appeal beyond his die-hards. That's the reason Buttigieg got such a good 2nd realignment #.

I agree, but as defense, in terms of PV it was:


Pete  21.4% tom 25.2% (+3.8 )
Sanders 24.4% to 26.2% (+1.8 )
Warren 18.8% to 20.6% (+1.4)
Biden   14.7 to 13.2 (-1.5)
Klobuchar 12.8 to 12.5 (-0.3)

that is Sanders may be was hurt by strong Warren. I don't know how much you can extrapolate from this.

Either Sanders got a lot less Yang transfers than expected or, more likely, the Sanders-Warren mutual transfers was less than expected due to the Sanders-Warren spat during the last debate.  If so in the end both Sanders and Warren lost that exchange in the last debate.

It's pretty clear looking at precinct results that Warren-Klobuchar was nearly as large or as large a transfer group as Warren-Sanders, with Warren-Buttigieg also being a very large group, so talking about Warren transfers is not that meaningful.

[Mehmentum]

Another thing to keep in mind the the 2nd alignment, if you aren't viable in a precinct that will be reflected in the 2nd alignment.  It looks like Sanders' results are more inconsistent, winning some precincts handily, while being non-viable in others- that would hurt him in the 2nd alignment.

Buttigeig's support was well balanced across age and cities/suburbs/rural areas, which means he lost very few votes to non-viability.

[Oryxslayer]

I have to say this, how can it take 2 days to count 180,000 votes, its not like 180 million votes have to be counted manually, how can it take 2 days to count just 180,000 votes, you can count that many votes with a few volunteers in a day.

Because of the Coding Error in the App the IADP in conjunction with the DNC Helpers have to collect all these Preference Cards.

So its 180,000 preference cads then that have to be manually counted,  in many countries where you have 100,000 votes cast per seat, it takes a very short time for a few volunteers to count those votes.

It's not votes. Votes are straightforward; caucus preference cards are a nightmare.

Especially since this is kinda similar to Ranked Choice when it comes to viability between round 1 and 2. RCV even when done with experienced counters takes a long time to enumerate: Ireland and Australia offer good examples in this regard.

[J. J.]

AP has D turnout at about 2000.  That can't be right.  Anybody have better numbers?

200000, you mean? With 71% reporting thus far, somewhere between 180-210k is the likely range of outcomes once everything is counted.

No, they are reporting about 2500, which can't be right. 

[AdamSarny]

AP has D turnout at about 2000.  That can't be right.  Anybody have better numbers?

200000, you mean? With 71% reporting thus far, somewhere between 180-210k is the likely range of outcomes once everything is counted.

No, they are reporting about 2500, which can't be right. 

I'm assuming you're looking at the state delegate-equivalent numbers, not the actual popular vote totals.

[Annatar]

Some data on finalised turnout in a few rural counties, looks like decline in democratic strength in rural Iowa probably led to turnout falling in small town counties whereas it held up in the big cities.

https://twitter.com/SteveKornacki/status/1225064859773079552

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Some data on finalised turnout in a few rural counties, looks like decline in democratic strength in rural Iowa probably led to turnout falling in small town counties whereas it held up in the big cities.

https://twitter.com/SteveKornacki/status/1225064859773079552

That's a bad sign if Dems want to win IA back.

[Annatar]

If I were democrats I would be more worried about what small town Iowa could mean for small town Wisconsin, Iowa was won by Trump by 9.4%, its not really competitive in 2020, however trends in rural Iowa could provide an indication of what might happen in Wisconsin.

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

If I were democrats I would be more worried about what small town Iowa could mean for small town Wisconsin, Iowa was won by Trump by 9.4%, its not really competitive in 2020, however trends in rural Iowa could provide an indication of what might happen in Wisconsin.

If that trend keeps up across the primaries, too, then I'll agree in that the Democrats are going to have issues this November in small towns. 

[DrScholl]

Or perhaps there just isn't much enthusiasm in this primary period. No one in this race is particularly exciting or inspiring to the electorate as a whole.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Are county delegates required to vote for state delegates that will support who they caucused for? I don't think it matters for media narrative, but I saw on Twitter about a Bernie caucus-goer in a non-viable precinct was forced to caucus for Warren or Pete. All of the traditional supporters left before delegate selection, and she was left to be selected as the county convention delegate, vowing to vote for progressive policy planks. Are the policy planks all that's left to control? Did the Ron Paul people taking over half the caucuses cause rule changes on delegates being locked in?

[redjohn]

So are they just going to trickle the results until nobody cares anymore? I truly don't understand why/how we don't have 99% of the votes by now.

[Tintrlvr]

My personal opinion is people shouldn't make to much of turnout not being much higher for the democrats then 2016. Iowa is a state that's rapidly trending Republican, it voted 11.5% more Republican than the country in 2016, there are probably a lot of people who used to be democrats in Iowa that are now Republicans so the actual democratic base in Iowa has shrunk so getting higher turnout is difficult.

I daresay even many of the people who showed up to attend the Iowa caucuses this time will be Republican by 2024, for example the woman who didn't like the fact Buttigieg is gay, culturally conservative voters like her will continue to switch and she herself will probably be voting Republican in 2024.

I think the counterargument to that is that unlike 2016 IA caucus pretty much all factions of the Dem party coalition are represented in the 2020  IA caucus (sort of like the 2016 GOP IA caucus) so one would expect turnout to surge relative to 2016.  It is strange that it did not.

Having a lot of options doesn't necessarily make people feel more represented; instead, they just feel overwhelmed by the options, some of whom they are torn between, and develop less passion about any particular choice. I'm not surprised.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Because of the 15% threshold for viability by CD, is is very possible in almost any Dem primary for one candidate to win the most votes but another candidate to win more delegates.  In this case, which candidate is “declared” the winner?  Why should Iowa be any different?

(For the record, I don’t support either Bernie or Pete.)