Iowa Caucus Results Thread (pg 148 - full results)

[bilaps]

I think this thread should stay for the results.

So, we're waiting for CD 1 satelites and name of the game is 601+ people showing up in 13 locations here. If it's that number they will be awarding around 12 SDE, and if it's below then it will be 5,6 SDE.

So if it's 601 advantage Sanders, if it's not advantage Buttigieg

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

It's nowhere near the gold standard, but seeing Biden's line basically drop straight down on 538's Democratic Primary forecast for a number of states is pretty jarring.  

He’s losing his home state of Delaware along with South Carolina to Bernie Sanders in their model.

In fact I think Bernie Sanders is favored to win in every state on 538’s model.

That sounds... unlikely to actually happen. The estsblishment will choose somebody and rally aroumd them, and that person will win a few states. If Booty-Judge did well with black voters, it would be him. It'll probably be Bloomberg. Their model probably doesn't have that kind of thing incorporated into it.

That’s exactly what many people were saying about Trump in 2016. Never happened.

Yes. Why would any of "moderates" give up while the rest doesn't?


Biden? He is still a frontrunner'ish and has blacks/non-whites.
Pete? He just "won" Iowa and has momentum!
Klobuchar? If Biden collapses and if she kills Pete in the debates, she might very well get a big share of it.
Bloomberg? He has quite literally a tons of money.


No one has incentives to drop out. No one. Quite similar to 2016.

[rhg2052]

Bernie got blown out in states like Texas and Virginia in 2016. There's no way he's winning them, unless the field is still very, very divided.

The field might still be very divided though. Klobuchar may drop out in February, but it looks like Biden, Buttigieg, Bloomberg, and Steyer will all still be in come Super Tuesday.

[DanPrazeres]

One thing that is funny is that in the beginning of the Iowa process (it looks like it was so long ago) a lot of people was kind "why the hell are we taking sattelites caucus so serious?" and now everything seems to depend on it.

[GeorgiaModerate]

One thing that is funny is that in the beginning of the Iowa process (it looks like it was so long ago) a lot of people was kind "why the hell are we taking sattelites caucus so serious?" and now everything seems to depend on it.

There was an exchange early in the thread (it's too long to dig it out) where someone asked what the satellite caucus results actually meant.  The response was that they'd mean nothing, unless everything turned out to be a tie in which case they'd be decisive.  That was prescient.

[BernieSamders]

Bernie got blown out in states like Texas and Virginia in 2016. There's no way he's winning them, unless the field is still very, very divided.

I wouldn’t lump Virginia and Texas together. Bernie’s Hispanic support is much stronger now

[Sbane]

People should wait until a state with significant non-white voters votes before writing Biden off.  A couple small republican states where the candidates can spend a lot of time is not representative of the entire democratic primary electorate and normal rules like incumbency, momentum, etc. don't apply as much anymore. 

Sanders won the non white vote though.....Maybe the rural south can stop Sanders on their own? We shall see. If you guys think diverse states are going to stop Sanders, be prepared to be wrong.

[jaichind]

Yes. Why would any of "moderates" give up while the rest doesn't?


Biden? He is still a frontrunner'ish and has blacks/non-whites.
Pete? He just "won" Iowa and has momentum!
Klobuchar? If Biden collapses and if she kills Pete in the debates, she might very well get a big share of it.
Bloomberg? He has quite literally a tons of money.


No one has incentives to drop out. No one. Quite similar to 2016.

The more PR-like nature of delegate allocation in the Dem primary process vs the GOP more winner-take-all  allocation process gives the Dem moderates an even greater incentive to stay in to get their fair share of delegates so they can have a seat a the table when the contested convention comes.  But of course this approach makes it much more likely that Sanders will emerge with a plurality of delegates and the risk of a Dem Civil War  if an alliance of moderates put in their candidate over Sanders in a contested convention.

[Gass3268]

People should wait until a state with significant non-white voters votes before writing Biden off.  A couple small republican states where the candidates can spend a lot of time is not representative of the entire democratic primary electorate and normal rules like incumbency, momentum, etc. don't apply as much anymore. 

Sanders won the non white vote though.....Maybe the rural south can stop Sanders on their own? We shall see. If you guys think diverse states are going to stop Sanders, be prepared to be wrong.

I'm not sure we should extrapolate that much of the non-white vote out of Iowa. While it looks like Sanders won the minority precincts in Des Moines, it looks like he lost them in Waterloo.

[atheist4thecause]

The NYT's tracker went from over a 95% chance for Buttigieg to win to now a 54% chance Sanders will win, and that's based on delegate count. Buttigieg declared victory, but Sanders is likely to take the first vote victory, final vote victory, and delegate victory.

Sanders supporters have every right to declare the process unfair yet again. Given the history, the Democratic Party should not be given the benefit of the doubt. I hope Sanders supporters continue to see (like I did) that the only way to reform and save the Democratic Party is to leave it until they change.

[jaichind]

I'm not sure we should extrapolate that much of the non-white vote out of Iowa. While it looks like Sanders won the minority precincts in Des Moines, it looks like he lost them in Waterloo.

The entrance polls had Sanders winning 43% of the non-White vote.  If the IA Dem caucus was all white then Buttigieg wold have won the popular vote.

Furthermore Buttigieg beat Biden 15-13 in the Non-White vote in a sign that the assumption that Buttigieg cannot win any non-White votes is not true either.

[Gass3268]

It's gonna be a while until we have a clear winner:

https://twitter.com/geoffreyvs/status/1225425267788845057?s=20

https://twitter.com/FHQ/status/1225426865239789568?s=20

[atheist4thecause]

It's gonna be a while until we have a clear winner:

https://twitter.com/geoffreyvs/status/1225425267788845057?s=20

Serious question: Given that we haven't gotten the full results even once and that the end result is going to be exceptionally close, can any candidate call for a recount? That would just be the icing on the cake to this atrocity.

[Ljube]

The NYT's tracker went from over a 95% chance for Buttigieg to win to now a 54% chance Sanders will win, and that's based on delegate count. Buttigieg declared victory, but Sanders is likely to take the first vote victory, final vote victory, and delegate victory.

Sanders supporters have every right to declare the process unfair yet again. Given the history, the Democratic Party should not be given the benefit of the doubt. I hope Sanders supporters continue to see (like I did) that the only way to reform and save the Democratic Party is to leave it until they change.

Proportional system is the problem here.
It was incredibly difficult to calculate the SDEs.

[jaichind]

It's gonna be a while until we have a clear winner:

https://twitter.com/geoffreyvs/status/1225425267788845057?s=20

https://twitter.com/FHQ/status/1225426865239789568?s=20

If would be funny if the official winner of IA Dem caucus takes place at the same time as the NH primary results are out.   Then you can have a split screen of two victory speeches at the same time by two different candidates.

[atheist4thecause]

It's nowhere near the gold standard, but seeing Biden's line basically drop straight down on 538's Democratic Primary forecast for a number of states is pretty jarring. 

Any model that changes that drastically (which is typical for 538 early on in any of their political/sports seasons) shouldn't be trusted. People need to stop using 538 as an authority. It is totally unproven and has no credibility.

[Sir Mohamed]

It's gonna be a while until we have a clear winner:

https://twitter.com/geoffreyvs/status/1225425267788845057?s=20

https://twitter.com/FHQ/status/1225426865239789568?s=20

This is so screwed up, no matter who in the end gets "declared winner" has little to gain. IA was just a wash. The only lession to learn is that Biden has a serious excitement problem and Sanders difficulty to widen his appeal as his 2nd round votes didn't increase much. And Butti will struggle after NH due to lack of minority support. This could indeed be some sort of opening for Bloomberg.

[Ljube]

This is so screwed up, no matter who in the end gets "declared winner" has little to gain. IA was just a wash. The only lession to learn is that Biden has a serious excitement problem and Sanders difficulty to widen his appeal as his 2nd round votes didn't increase much. And Butti will struggle after NH due to lack of minority support. This could indeed be some sort of opening for Bloomberg.

Iowa was not a wash and will cost your candidate a decent finish in New Hampshire and then the nomination.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/06/upshot/iowa-caucuses-errors-results.html
Many Errors Are Evident in Iowa Caucus Results Released Wednesday
Vote counts are riddled with inconsistencies, though there is no evidence that the mistakes were intentional

Results from the Iowa Democratic caucuses were delayed by “quality control checks” on Monday night. Days later, quality control issues have not been resolved.

The results released by the Iowa Democratic Party on Wednesday  were riddled with inconsistencies and other flaws. According to a New York Times analysis, more than 100 precincts reported results that were internally inconsistent, that were missing data or that were not possible under the complex rules of the Iowa caucuses.

In some cases, vote tallies do not add up. In others, precincts are shown allotting the wrong number of delegates to certain candidates. And in at least a few cases, the Iowa Democratic Party’s reported results do not match those reported by the precincts.

Some of these inconsistencies may prove to be innocuous, and the irregularities do not indicate an intentional effort to compromise or rig the result. There is no apparent bias in favor of the leaders Pete Buttigieg or Bernie Sanders, meaning the overall effect on the winner’s margin may be small.

But not all of the errors are minor, and they raise questions about whether the public will ever get a completely precise account of the Iowa results. With Mr. Sanders closing to within 0.1 percentage points with 97 percent of 1,765 precincts reporting, the race could easily grow close enough for even the most minor errors to delay a final projection or raise doubts about a declared winner.

The errors suggest that many Iowa caucus leaders struggled to follow the rules of their party’s caucuses, or to adopt the additional reporting requirements introduced since 2016. They show that the Iowa Democratic Party, despite the long delays, failed to validate all of the results fully before releasing them to the public.

Read the whole story. Incredible.

[Sir Mohamed]

This is so screwed up, no matter who in the end gets "declared winner" has little to gain. IA was just a wash. The only lession to learn is that Biden has a serious excitement problem and Sanders difficulty to widen his appeal as his 2nd round votes didn't increase much. And Butti will struggle after NH due to lack of minority support. This could indeed be some sort of opening for Bloomberg.

Iowa was not a wash and will cost your candidate a decent finish in New Hampshire and then the nomination.

If you read my entire post, I said Biden has a serious excitement problem. It's premature to determine is ultimate faith, but his performance has significantly hurt his prospects. IA is a wash in the sense to nobody comes out with huge momentum.

[atheist4thecause]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/06/upshot/iowa-caucuses-errors-results.html
Many Errors Are Evident in Iowa Caucus Results Released Wednesday
Vote counts are riddled with inconsistencies, though there is no evidence that the mistakes were intentional

Results from the Iowa Democratic caucuses were delayed by “quality control checks” on Monday night. Days later, quality control issues have not been resolved.

The results released by the Iowa Democratic Party on Wednesday  were riddled with inconsistencies and other flaws. According to a New York Times analysis, more than 100 precincts reported results that were internally inconsistent, that were missing data or that were not possible under the complex rules of the Iowa caucuses.

In some cases, vote tallies do not add up. In others, precincts are shown allotting the wrong number of delegates to certain candidates. And in at least a few cases, the Iowa Democratic Party’s reported results do not match those reported by the precincts.

Some of these inconsistencies may prove to be innocuous, and the irregularities do not indicate an intentional effort to compromise or rig the result. There is no apparent bias in favor of the leaders Pete Buttigieg or Bernie Sanders, meaning the overall effect on the winner’s margin may be small.

But not all of the errors are minor, and they raise questions about whether the public will ever get a completely precise account of the Iowa results. With Mr. Sanders closing to within 0.1 percentage points with 97 percent of 1,765 precincts reporting, the race could easily grow close enough for even the most minor errors to delay a final projection or raise doubts about a declared winner.

The errors suggest that many Iowa caucus leaders struggled to follow the rules of their party’s caucuses, or to adopt the additional reporting requirements introduced since 2016. They show that the Iowa Democratic Party, despite the long delays, failed to validate all of the results fully before releasing them to the public.

Read the whole story. Incredible.

I wish the rest of the article wasn't behind a pay wall. One thing I'll say is that I don't like how much people are jumping to the conclusion that there was no intention going on. Maybe there wasn't, but you don't root out corruption by assuming corruption isn't taking place.

[bandg]

There is only one path forward at this point and its quite simple. The IDP must scrap the SDEs for THIS election, pretend like it never happened, and only report the 1st and final preference vote. They can then allocate the pledged delegates based on one of those measures.  

[jaichind]

The spikes in the IA Dem winners market over the last 3 days are pretty funny

https://www.electionbettingodds.com/Iowa2020.html

[Gass3268]

There is only one path forward at this point and it quite simple. The IDP must scrap the SDEs for THIS election, pretend like it never happened, and only report the 1st and final preference vote. They can then allocate the pledged delegates based on one of those measures.  

They can't do that because in some places they don't have the correct preference vote recorded.

[jaichind]

There is only one path forward at this point and its quite simple. The IDP must scrap the SDEs for THIS election, pretend like it never happened, and only report the 1st and final preference vote. They can then allocate the pledged delegates based on one of those measures.  

Then Buttigieg will have a legit case that this process is rigged against him by having the rules changed after the fact