Iowa Caucus Results Thread (pg 148 - full results)

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The fact that 2012 (R), 2016 (D), and 2020 (D) were all basically ties is just another reason to throw the Iowa caucuses in the dustbin of history.

This place doesn't decide a damn thing.  It just makes the election season start with a big confusing mess.

The Iowa caucus isn't supposed to decide anything conclusively.  What it does is readjust the perception of what's possible.  It showed that Obama could be a real challenge to Clinton and win over large numbers of heartland whites.  Santorum was polling in low single digits nationally before Iowa, and then became a major contender and finally Romney's main competition after additional wins in the Midwest.  Both Sanders and Buttigieg are benefiting from their performance and are seen as potential nominees much more than before.

[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).

1) Stop doing dumb numbered responses, especially when half of them aren't relevant to the discussion.

1) You realize that the EC count isn't based on an evenly proportionate number of the population, and even if it was, there are non-population aspects to it, right? Your objections are outside of the realm of what matters to the analogy.

No sh**t, sherlock. The point was that Iowa's system is even more unrepresentative, skewed and chock full of variance than the EC. You're the one being "pedantic" here by trying to overanalyze population rather than realize IA assigns SDEs based on voters in a handful of high-turnout situations while the EC does not.

2) You brought up how information doesn't come two months later and other points that have no bearing on the conversation. They are literally irrelevant.

It's literally the only argument that ever justified giving rural areas more representation. Rural areas are not some magically isolated enclave anymore. Their tangible interests aren't inherently different, either. The playing field for communications, transportation, education and commerce have been completely leveled or significantly, significantly reduced when compared to urban and suburban areas. There's no logical justification for giving rural areas more representation in the 21st century to compensate for disadvantages otherwise accumulated and manifested in the electoral and political process; the modern argument for it is simply the counterpart to the "we're urban and we're better than you": a sense of cultural superiority that isn't rooted in anything.

3) I don't understand what Democracy means, and clearly you don't. A democracy is a system in which the people vote in elections. There are different types of democracies. One is a Direct Democracy, where people vote on legislation. We have that to some extent with ballot initiatives. Another form is a Democratic Republic where people vote for representatives. We have this system to a large extent.

In any of the democratic systems, there is absolutely nothing forcing every vote to be the same. Votes can be grouped, weighted, etc. The ironic thing is that it is both true that each vote counts as the same and true that some areas have the votes count as more than other areas, it just matters what lens you put on the analysis.

No.

And you used the word, not I. We live in a democratic republic. If you advocate for democracy and believe in its core tenets, then you can't advocate for electoral systems that assign wildly different values to different groups of voters.

4) The system in Iowa does not benefit Sanders because he goes after the population centers, which are weighted less than the rural areas.

I made no mention of that to you, and whether it's true or not - or applies to any one candidate or not - is irrelevant in a critique of the system.

5) Next time, take on the issues rather than being pedantic.



6) Show me a single voter that had their vote invalidated.

That's not the crux of the argument, it had no part in the discussion, and you're not going to pivot to some tangent to try and steer an argument onto your turf.

[European Lefty]

If Bernard Sanders won
1. He was deprived a major prime time victory speech.

2. Pete Buttigieg got to claim victory, and set the narrative.

3. He lost (multiple) days of national headlines.

And people act like this was a fair proccess.

And yet Democrats are lining up in their promise to vote for whoever the Democrat is, despite this totally unfair process. They are sacrificing their vote to become a sheep. I chose to leave the Democratic Party rather than become a sheep, even though I have Liberal values.

Any Democrat is better than Trump.

Is blindly voting for the party worth allowing the party to do whatever they want, effectively sacrificing your vote? Trump at most will have one more term. You can lose your vote going forward forever. You are being taken advantage of by Party Bosses.

Except it isn't "blindly" voting. I am a member of the Labour Party here in the UK and we have a saying that "the very worst Labour government is still better than the very best Tory government". My party has some policy positions I don't like, some personalities I really don't like and might soon have a leader who would be potentially disastrous, but they are still and will always be the best option for government.

If I lived in the US, I would not be a registered Democrat because I'm much too left-wing. I would give my support mainly to leftist candidates. There are many Democrats in this race who I do not think would be good presidents. BUT for this one election only, every single Democrat would be noticeably better than the Republican on offer.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

https://twitter.com/tylerpager/status/1225272553255645184

[Grassroots]

https://twitter.com/tylerpager/status/1225272553255645184

Why did they have to post it online? Idiots.

[jaichind]

Tom Perez tweets "Enough is enough. In light of the problems that have emerged in the implementation of the delegate selection plan and in order to assure public confidence in the results, I am calling on the Iowa Democratic Party to immediately begin a recanvass."

[Antonio the Sixth]

Tom Perez tweets "Enough is enough. In light of the problems that have emerged in the implementation of the delegate selection plan and in order to assure public confidence in the results, I am calling on the Iowa Democratic Party to immediately begin a recanvass."

Link or it didn't happen.

[n1240]

Tom Perez tweets "Enough is enough. In light of the problems that have emerged in the implementation of the delegate selection plan and in order to assure public confidence in the results, I am calling on the Iowa Democratic Party to immediately begin a recanvass."

Link or it didn't happen.

https://twitter.com/TomPerez/status/1225468833458245632

[jaichind]

Tom Perez tweets "Enough is enough. In light of the problems that have emerged in the implementation of the delegate selection plan and in order to assure public confidence in the results, I am calling on the Iowa Democratic Party to immediately begin a recanvass."

Link or it didn't happen.

https://twitter.com/TomPerez/status/1225468833458245632

[Antonio the Sixth]

Tom Perez tweets "Enough is enough. In light of the problems that have emerged in the implementation of the delegate selection plan and in order to assure public confidence in the results, I am calling on the Iowa Democratic Party to immediately begin a recanvass."

Link or it didn't happen.

Holy sh*t it's real.

https://mobile.twitter.com/TomPerez/status/1225468833458245632

[Tender Branson]

Peretz needs to resign.

The fish starts stinking from the head, the saying goes ...

[We Live in Black and White]

Oh my sweet holy mother of god.

[GeorgiaModerate]

So with the Perez tweet, it looks like we really won't get the Iowa results until after NH!

[Xing]

So with the Perez tweet, it looks like we really won't get the Iowa results until after NH!

Any word on when we're getting more results? Or is New Hampshire going to have all of its results in before Iowa?

And this was supposed to be a joke...

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Tom Perez tweets "Enough is enough. In light of the problems that have emerged in the implementation of the delegate selection plan and in order to assure public confidence in the results, I am calling on the Iowa Democratic Party to immediately begin a recanvass."

WHAAAAT? I don't know if it was a smart move...

[2016]

So with the Perez tweet, it looks like we really won't get the Iowa results until after NH!

I don't get it! Why not show us the Initial Results with 100 % first and then do a recanvass.

[Hydera]

So with the Perez tweet, it looks like we really won't get the Iowa results until after NH!

Which benefits Pete's handlers, exactly what they want is further "PETE WON!!" narrative. Like jesus just release everything and recount later. If buttigieg won after 100% reporting then it would had vindicated him. Instead they pull this sh**t.

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

just to reiterate:

AAAAAAAAAAA

[jaichind]

Mike Bloomberg now seems like genius.   He let all the other candidates throw in tons of money in IA hoping to get some momentum.  Instead after all that money spent there might not be a winner for a week if not longer.  In the meantime he throws all his money into Super Tuesday states. 

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Interesting how they pull this right as it looks like Bernie could take the lead in SDEs.

I have yet to see a good reason not to just declare Bernie the winner based on the popular vote. I hope he savages Pete over it at tomorrow's debate.

[We Live in Black and White]

So with the Perez tweet, it looks like we really won't get the Iowa results until after NH!

Which benefits Pete's handlers, exactly what they want is further "PETE WON!!" narrative. Like jesus just release everything and recount later. If buttigieg won after 100% reporting then it would had vindicated him. Instead they pull this sh**t.

What's ridiculous is that it won't do them any good. Buttigieg is only going to be able to control this narrative until Monday, when the best he'll be able to say is that he MASSIVELY SUCCEEDED in coming in a distant second to Bernie in New Hampshire.

The fact that Perez is trying to protect him just demonstrates how worthless he is as a DNC chair. Buttigieg has no primary or national viability as a candidate.

[GeneralMacArthur]

It's for the best.  This is just ludicrous and slapdash.  At least with a recanvass we can have a modicum of faith in the final count.  Any impact that Iowa was going to have on New Hampshire has already been blown.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

So with the Perez tweet, it looks like we really won't get the Iowa results until after NH!

I don't get it! Why not show us the Initial Results with 100 % first and then do a recanvass.

[Ebsy]

Hmm wonder why Tom Perez is calling for a recanvass. Could it be related to the fact that Sanders is likely to take the leads in SDEs in the next update?

[Arizona Iced Tea]

Folks, can we just acknowledge that it was released to screw over Sanders. This is just basic logic here.
Do people seriously think this was a fair process? They released only 62% of the results, such a weird number. It had Buttigieg in his highest lead possible. We were given 62% for a full afternoon and evening, allowing Buttigieg to call his victory. Slowly, more results trickle in and lower Buttigieg's margin. Now we are at 97% and Buttigieg holds a slight lead, by only .1%! Why not just release all 100% of the results, what is the 3% hiding. Sanders might have won the SDE and they don't want that. Now the DNC chair is asking for a recanvasing before all the results are in.