Iowa Caucus Results Thread (pg 148 - full results)

[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.  

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

See above NYT article. The SDE measure is irreparably broken and is rendered meaningless. It almost certainly was for previous elections as well, we just never knew about it.

[atheist4thecause]

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.

This was literally the perfect scenario for Bloomberg, which is why I moved him way up in my internal rankings. These candidates mostly just blew their money on Iowa hoping to get a win to fundraise more and knock other candidates out so their donors can give to other candidates. None of that happened. Dems take a gigantic field into NH where donors are still splitting their money many ways, nobody got a clear lead out of Iowa, and Bloomberg has a huge head start in other states. He's been advertising all around the country. I know on TV by me it's nothing but Bloomberg ads every other one.

I still think Bloomberg has an uphill battle because at some point people turn against you spending loads of money. It looks like you are trying to buy the elections. It's also difficult to spend that money effectively. But you know, he's on track I heard to spend a Billion dollars in the election season. If so, he's going to way out-pace anything anybody else can come close to and at some point money does matter. Bloomberg is mostly hoping no candidate comes out of the first 4 states (which he's not competing in and are IA, NH, NV and SC) with momentum or a major delegate lead. Then Super Tuesday hits, and that's where money matters most. You can't make up for a lack of money by going to these states because there are too many at once, too big, and too spread around the country. Remember that CA moved theirs up to Super Tuesday this year. According to the latest polls, Bloomberg is in 4th nationally. He could easily sneak up on this field.

[They not like us]

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.

There will never be another caucus held in any state ever again after this cycle, mark my words.

[atheist4thecause]

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

See above NYT article. The SDE measure is irreparably broken and is rendered meaningless. It almost certainly was for previous elections as well, we just never knew about it.

There were plenty of questions in past elections, we were just told it all worked out that way because of some allocation method we were never told about because the Democrats choose not to be very transparent. Part of I know what prevented me from questioning even more is that usually it's up to the campaigns themselves to watch over everything and make sure things are being run fairly. If there is a mistake, whoever's campaign is getting screwed should have their representative speak up and point out the mistake to the vote tallier. Apparently, the campaigns weren't able to watch over the tallying as much as I had been led to believe.

[They not like us]

So let's just say that the IADP decides to correct the inconsistencies pointed out by the NYT and others, could we actually see "updated" results after the "official" result? Or will they just postpone an "official" winner until it is absolutely certain?

[Gass3268]

Human error is always going to be a factor when dealing with any election. Add more moving parts like a caucus and you are only going to increase that error.

[Adam Griffin]

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.

This talking point (or at least the more extreme variation of it that says "Sanders has no crossover appeal!") is awful and needs to stop. If you take Sanders as one "lane" and the three main moderate candidates (Buttigieg, Biden & Klobuchar) as another, then:

First Round: Sanders 24.89%, Moderates 49.19%
Final Round: Sanders 26.78%, Moderates 51.36%

What this shows is that in the first round, Sanders got 33.6% of the votes across these 4 candidates, and in the final round, he got 34.3%. His share of the vote in this comparison actually grew (though not by much) between the first and final rounds. If his support had remained stagnant or even shrank, then that argument would hold water. The only reason it's getting any traction is because Buttigieg managed to hoard a disproportionate share of moderate voters in the final round, because both Biden and Klobuchar flopped so badly and were nonviable in so many precincts.

[atheist4thecause]

What I don't understand is why can't the SDE all be centralized? Just have each county report their First and Final results, then have an HQ do the SDE calculation, possibly all at once. And, even if you are going to have the precincts/counties do the calculations, why have an app to do it rather than a website everybody can access? Or have the app but use a website as a backup that is simple and just has a SDE calculator. Then if the app and website are both down, there can be the call-in system (hopefully better staffed than this year). I mean, this doesn't seem complicated at all. I'm guessing the call-in system was there for the inevitable people that couldn't figure out how to use the app rather than it failing for nearly everyone.

[Grassroots]

Anyone know when the remaining 3% is coming in?

[atheist4thecause]

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.

This talking point (or at least the more extreme variation of it that says "Sanders has no crossover appeal!") is awful and needs to stop. If you take Sanders as one "lane" and the three main moderate candidates (Buttigieg, Biden & Klobuchar) as another, then:

First Round: Sanders 24.89%, Moderates 49.19%
Final Round: Sanders 26.78%, Moderates 51.36%

What this shows is that in the first round, Sanders got 33.6% of the votes across these 4 candidates, and in the final round, he got 34.3%. His share of the vote in this comparison actually grew (though not by much) between the first and final rounds. If his support had remained stagnant or even shrank, then that argument would hold water. The only reason it's getting any traction is because Buttigieg managed to hoard a disproportionate share of moderate voters in the final round, because both Biden and Klobuchar flopped so badly and were nonviable in so many precincts.

The Moderates didn't flop, they got beat out by other Moderates. Sanders also has way more money right now, but if you combined the money of the Moderates then it would be much closer. This is a terrible way to show crossover support, even if you are right.

[2016]

Anyone know when the remaining 3% is coming in?

In the next 2-3 Hours I think.

[Adam Griffin]

What I don't get is why are the SDEs even needed in the modern era? If the caucus itself is so sacred and important - and truth be told, in the context of primaries, I believe the process should be somewhat restrictive - then why not just use it in conjunction with a simple popular vote?

The simple truth is this: at some point, this system was created to maximize some people's influence and minimize others. The same mindset that governs the use of SDEs et al is the same mindset that created my home state's county unit system and the modern-day Democratic Party State Committee member allocation (minimum of 1 member per county). The system was designed to benefit certain voters and help certain candidates: it's a feature, not a bug.

Does that mean it was specifically rigged against Sanders? No, of course not: in fact, it probably benefited him in 2016 (not convinced Sanders voters > Clinton voters in IA in '16). Additionally, this kind of crap has been in place for decades. Thankfully, his campaign did insist upon a revision of the system that now brings this nonsense to light. Can you imagine how many idiot precinct workers et al have been falsely calculating delegates for the entirety of this system's history?

[2016]

One thing we shouldn't all underestimate:

From the New Hampshire Trackers that we have Buttigieg has been gaining on Sanders since the first Iowa Results were announced Tuesday Late Afternoon.

If Sanders ends up being declared the Winner at some Point today it stops Pete's Mojo and keeps Bernie ahead in NH.

[Adam Griffin]

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.

This talking point (or at least the more extreme variation of it that says "Sanders has no crossover appeal!") is awful and needs to stop. If you take Sanders as one "lane" and the three main moderate candidates (Buttigieg, Biden & Klobuchar) as another, then:

First Round: Sanders 24.89%, Moderates 49.19%
Final Round: Sanders 26.78%, Moderates 51.36%

What this shows is that in the first round, Sanders got 33.6% of the votes across these 4 candidates, and in the final round, he got 34.3%. His share of the vote in this comparison actually grew (though not by much) between the first and final rounds. If his support had remained stagnant or even shrank, then that argument would hold water. The only reason it's getting any traction is because Buttigieg managed to hoard a disproportionate share of moderate voters in the final round, because both Biden and Klobuchar flopped so badly and were nonviable in so many precincts.

The Moderates didn't flop, they got beat out by other Moderates. Sanders also has way more money right now, but if you combined the money of the Moderates then it would be much closer. This is a terrible way to show crossover support, even if you are right.

The presumptive frontrunner wasn't viable in like 40% of caucus sites. Klobuchar is basically a nobody and so we can't criticize her too much, but the point stands that moderates voting for moderates when their preferred moderates aren't viable isn't some grand indictment on Sanders. People see Buttigieg's losing margin going from 6k to 2k and suddenly want to act like Sanders is the problem are delusional.

[Gass3268]

What I don't get is why are the SDEs even needed in the modern era? If the caucus itself is so sacred and important - and truth be told, in the context of primaries, I believe the process should be somewhat restrictive - then why not just use it in conjunction with a simple popular vote?

The simple truth is this: at some point, this system was created to maximize some people's influence and minimize others. The same mindset that governs the use of SDEs et al is the same mindset that created my home state's county unit system and the modern-day Democratic Party State Committee member allocation (minimum of 1 member per county). The system was designed to benefit certain voters and help certain candidates: it's a feature, not a bug.

Does that mean it was specifically rigged against Sanders? No, of course not: in fact, it probably benefited him in 2016 (not convinced Sanders voters > Clinton voters in IA in '16). Additionally, this kind of crap has been in place for decades. Thankfully, his campaign did insist upon a revision of the system that now brings this nonsense to light. Can you imagine how many idiot precinct workers et al have been falsely calculating delegates for the entirety of this system's history?

This is my theory as well. I'm just thankful that Nevada is the only caucus of this nature remaining. Wyoming is using a ranked choice ballot.

[Annatar]

Turnout is now 172,510 with 97% in, was 171,109 in 2016. If remaining precincts are same size, total turnout will be roughly 178,000 votes or around 4% higher than 2016.

[jimrtex]

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.

The request must be made by 12 midnight on February 7, and include an explanation of how it might effect the national delegate count. The party will respond within 48 hours about how much they will charge for the recanvass, and how long it will take.

The IDP might make enough money to pay the app developer enough to fix it.

[atheist4thecause]

What I don't get is why are the SDEs even needed in the modern era? If the caucus itself is so sacred and important - and truth be told, in the context of primaries, I believe the process should be somewhat restrictive - then why not just use it in conjunction with a simple popular vote?

The simple truth is this: at some point, this system was created to maximize some people's influence and minimize others. The same mindset that governs the use of SDEs et al is the same mindset that created my home state's county unit system and the modern-day Democratic Party State Committee member allocation (minimum of 1 member per county). The system was designed to benefit certain voters and help certain candidates: it's a feature, not a bug.

Does that mean it was specifically rigged against Sanders? No, of course not: in fact, it probably benefited him in 2016 (not convinced Sanders voters > Clinton voters in IA in '16). Additionally, this kind of crap has been in place for decades. Thankfully, his campaign did insist upon a revision of the system that now brings this nonsense to light. Can you imagine how many idiot precinct workers et al have been falsely calculating delegates for the entirety of this system's history?

The system is much like the Electoral College where it weights rural areas heavier than cities to make the whole state matter. Look how every county in Illinois votes Republican but because Chicago votes Democrat, the entire state flips. Nobody needs to ever go outside of Chicago. Republicans basically just avoid the state because of it. That's not good for Democracy. As Andrew Yang said, do you really want a few cities like NY and LA to determine the elections?

[Walmart_shopper]

One thing we shouldn't all underestimate:

From the New Hampshire Trackers that we have Buttigieg has been gaining on Sanders since the first Iowa Results were announced Tuesday Late Afternoon.

If Sanders ends up being declared the Winner at some Point today it stops Pete's Mojo and keeps Bernie ahead in NH.

Maybe. It's possible that a lot of voters are only now giving Buttigieg a serious look because of the media attention he's gotten post-Iowa. It's Bernie's state to lose but I don't think the Pete for Prez polling bump is simply because everyone thought he won 26.2% instead of 26% of the SDEs that he actually got. He still basically tied Iowa. It's just that by tricking everyone into thinking he won totally blunted Bernie's NH momentum.

[UWS]

Is it me or they are recounting the votes in Iowa?

https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/state/iowa?xid=crm_20200203_IA_D

[jimrtex]

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.

They have signed ballot cards (assuming they have not been lost).

The open Iowa caucus is much superior to the secretive ballot system used elsewhere.

[Adam Griffin]

What I don't get is why are the SDEs even needed in the modern era? If the caucus itself is so sacred and important - and truth be told, in the context of primaries, I believe the process should be somewhat restrictive - then why not just use it in conjunction with a simple popular vote?

The simple truth is this: at some point, this system was created to maximize some people's influence and minimize others. The same mindset that governs the use of SDEs et al is the same mindset that created my home state's county unit system and the modern-day Democratic Party State Committee member allocation (minimum of 1 member per county). The system was designed to benefit certain voters and help certain candidates: it's a feature, not a bug.

Does that mean it was specifically rigged against Sanders? No, of course not: in fact, it probably benefited him in 2016 (not convinced Sanders voters > Clinton voters in IA in '16). Additionally, this kind of crap has been in place for decades. Thankfully, his campaign did insist upon a revision of the system that now brings this nonsense to light. Can you imagine how many idiot precinct workers et al have been falsely calculating delegates for the entirety of this system's history?

The system is much like the Electoral College where it weights rural areas heavier than cities to make the whole state matter. Look how every county in Illinois votes Republican but because Chicago votes Democrat, the entire state flips. Nobody needs to ever go outside of Chicago. Republicans basically just avoid the state because of it. That's not good for Democracy. As Andrew Yang said, do you really want a few cities like NY and LA to determine the elections?

Invalidating vast sums of voters' influence isn't good for democracy either.

I want the will of the people of Iowa to determine the electoral outcome of the state of Iowa. I want the will of the American people to determine the electoral outcome of America. If you're going to use the word "democracy", then understand what that means. Otherwise, just say that you think some people should count more than others. This isn't 1790 and rural America isn't populated by vast sums of farmers who get their news 2 months after it's published and have to walk a full day to cast their votes.

IA is also not at all like the Electoral College, because it isn't based on population and the SDEs assigned can vary quite wildly for areas of identical population (or even registered voters).

[Adam Griffin]

Is it me or they are recounting the votes in Iowa?

https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/state/iowa?xid=crm_20200203_IA_D

CNN is just a joke. See their exit poll hijinks on election night where you could refresh every minute and their sample sizes would go from 1000 to 300 to 500 and back again.

[Florida Man for Crime]

Some sort of Bernie Sanders news conference is apparently coming up, might or might not have to do with the Iowa results.

[Walmart_shopper]

Is it me or they are recounting the votes in Iowa?

https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/state/iowa?xid=crm_20200203_IA_D

The graphic does that when they have no clue what's going on or they're updating data. The NYT graphic does that, too.

You can't do a recount because people vote by sitting on a bleacher and raising their hand. If you mess up a caucus count you can't fix it.