Iowa Caucus Results Thread (pg 148 - full results)

[Adam Griffin]

"Final" popular vote totals:

FIRST ROUND:
Sanders 24.91% (+3.49)
Buttigieg 21.42%
Warren 18.56%
Biden 15.05%
Klobuchar 12.82%
Yang 5.03%

FINAL ROUND:
Sanders 26.81% (+1.53)
Buttigieg 25.28%
Warren 20.34%
Biden 13.86%
Klobuchar 12.39%

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Bernie lost, the counting was incompetent but unbiased, and the conspiracy theorists need to STFU. Got it?

How do you feel about the Electoral College, Blairite?

I abhor it. I also acknowledge it's the legitimate way elections work and it determines the winner right now, even if it should be abolished. Besides, caucuses themselves are way more undemocratic than the SDE's are, so the whole process is f**ked up, but that doesn't change who won.

[AtorBoltox]

"Final" popular vote totals:

FIRST ROUND:
Sanders 24.91% (+3.49)
Buttigieg 21.42%
Warren 18.56%
Biden 15.05%
Klobuchar 12.82%
Yang 5.03%

FINAL ROUND:
Sanders 26.81% (+1.53)
Buttigieg 25.28%
Warren 20.34%
Biden 13.86%
Klobuchar 12.39%

Congratulations Senator Sanders on this victory!

[Antonio the Sixth]

"Final" popular vote totals:

FIRST ROUND:
Sanders 24.91% (+3.49)
Buttigieg 21.42%
Warren 18.56%
Biden 15.05%
Klobuchar 12.82%
Yang 5.03%

FINAL ROUND:
Sanders 26.81% (+1.53)
Buttigieg 25.28%
Warren 20.34%
Biden 13.86%
Klobuchar 12.39%

I think you must have omitted some small candidates. Those percentages are slightly inflated.

[BP🌹]

Call it a conspiracy theory all you want, but it's far more likely that there was some rigging here than it is that Tulsi is a Russian asset.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

This was a stolen ****ing election.

Come on, you're better than this.

Maybe not a stolen election, but there's willful manipulation of the results from CNN to serve an agenda. These bastards know what the **** they're doing.

Now there, I completely agree with you.  CNN's anti-Bernie bias has been disgusting.

[Adam Griffin]

"Final" popular vote totals:

FIRST ROUND:
Sanders 24.91% (+3.49)
Buttigieg 21.42%
Warren 18.56%
Biden 15.05%
Klobuchar 12.82%
Yang 5.03%

FINAL ROUND:
Sanders 26.81% (+1.53)
Buttigieg 25.28%
Warren 20.34%
Biden 13.86%
Klobuchar 12.39%

I think you must have omitted some small candidates. Those percentages are slightly inflated.

These are from the CNN results. If you're comparing to Dave's, then I'm not sure who else he's including (my guess is random nonsensical ballots for non-candidates, since Atlas usually does include all ballots for contests - joke candidates or otherwise).

[Antonio the Sixth]

"Final" popular vote totals:

FIRST ROUND:
Sanders 24.91% (+3.49)
Buttigieg 21.42%
Warren 18.56%
Biden 15.05%
Klobuchar 12.82%
Yang 5.03%

FINAL ROUND:
Sanders 26.81% (+1.53)
Buttigieg 25.28%
Warren 20.34%
Biden 13.86%
Klobuchar 12.39%

I think you must have omitted some small candidates. Those percentages are slightly inflated.

These are from the CNN results. If you're comparing to Dave's, then I'm not sure who else he's including (my guess is random nonsensical ballots for non-candidates, since Atlas usually does include all ballots for contests - joke candidates or otherwise).

NYT, DMR and AP.

[It’s so Joever]

Call it a conspiracy theory all you want, but it's far more likely that there was some rigging here than it is that Tulsi is a Russian asset.

LMAO

[brucejoel99]

Call it a conspiracy theory all you want, but it's far more likely that there was some rigging here than it is that Tulsi is a Russian asset.

🙄🙄

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

"Final" popular vote totals:

FIRST ROUND:
Sanders 24.91% (+3.49)
Buttigieg 21.42%
Warren 18.56%
Biden 15.05%
Klobuchar 12.82%
Yang 5.03%

FINAL ROUND:
Sanders 26.81% (+1.53)
Buttigieg 25.28%
Warren 20.34%
Biden 13.86%
Klobuchar 12.39%

I think you must have omitted some small candidates. Those percentages are slightly inflated.

These are from the CNN results. If you're comparing to Dave's, then I'm not sure who else he's including (my guess is random nonsensical ballots for non-candidates, since Atlas usually does include all ballots for contests - joke candidates or otherwise).

NYT, DMR and AP.

Is there a link to the AP results?   I couldn't find one.

[Adam Griffin]

Out of curiosity, I wanted to see who won where in terms of population and average Democratic vote share over the past several years. The results:

[GeneralMacArthur]

I'd put good money on Sanders not asking for a recanvass.

He's already declared victory and his supporters have already found the cognitive dissonance to believe he won.  He has little to gain from actually winning, were the results to fall his way.

However, the way things are now his team can spend the rest of the year claiming that he probably actually did win Iowa but the DNC and evil Mayor Cheat rigged it against him.  And when anyone says "why didn't he ask for a recanvass then" they can say, well obviously the DNC would have just rigged it against him more in a recanvass.

There's no reasoning with conspiracy theorists.

[Antonio the Sixth]

"Final" popular vote totals:

FIRST ROUND:
Sanders 24.91% (+3.49)
Buttigieg 21.42%
Warren 18.56%
Biden 15.05%
Klobuchar 12.82%
Yang 5.03%

FINAL ROUND:
Sanders 26.81% (+1.53)
Buttigieg 25.28%
Warren 20.34%
Biden 13.86%
Klobuchar 12.39%

I think you must have omitted some small candidates. Those percentages are slightly inflated.

These are from the CNN results. If you're comparing to Dave's, then I'm not sure who else he's including (my guess is random nonsensical ballots for non-candidates, since Atlas usually does include all ballots for contests - joke candidates or otherwise).

NYT, DMR and AP.

Is there a link to the AP results?   I couldn't find one.

https://elections.ap.org/dailykos/results/2020-02-03/state/IA/race/P/raceid/17278

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

"Final" popular vote totals:

FIRST ROUND:
Sanders 24.91% (+3.49)
Buttigieg 21.42%
Warren 18.56%
Biden 15.05%
Klobuchar 12.82%
Yang 5.03%

FINAL ROUND:
Sanders 26.81% (+1.53)
Buttigieg 25.28%
Warren 20.34%
Biden 13.86%
Klobuchar 12.39%

I think you must have omitted some small candidates. Those percentages are slightly inflated.

These are from the CNN results. If you're comparing to Dave's, then I'm not sure who else he's including (my guess is random nonsensical ballots for non-candidates, since Atlas usually does include all ballots for contests - joke candidates or otherwise).

NYT, DMR and AP.

Is there a link to the AP results?   I couldn't find one.

https://elections.ap.org/dailykos/results/2020-02-03/state/IA/race/P/raceid/17278

Thanks

[Tender Branson]

Could you please unsticky this thread now ?

All the "results" are "in" and there's just lame debate about what might have been if things were different etc. etc.

We need to focus on NH now.

Dump IA.

[Sorenroy]

Could you please unsticky this thread now ?

All the "results" are "in" and there's just lame debate about what might have been if things were different etc. etc.

Please don't. All results are not in: there are glaring errors and the results have not been called. If it ends up being the case that no campaign asks for a recanvass and/or it's the day before New Hampshire then lets move on, but it's still the top thing happening in the primary right now.

[Devout Centrist]

I'd put good money on Sanders Clinton not asking for a recanvass
recount.

She's already declared victory and her supporters have already found the cognitive dissonance to believe she won. She has little to gain from actually winning, were the results to fall her way.

However, the way things are now his team can spend the rest of the year claiming that she probably actually did win Iowa the 2016 election but the RNC and evil Mayor Cheat Russia rigged it against her.  And when anyone says "why didn't she ask for a recanvass recount then" they can say, well obviously the DNC Russia would have just rigged it against her more in a recanvass recount.
 
There's no reasoning with conspiracy theorists.

[GeneralMacArthur]

I'd put good money on Sanders Clinton not asking for a recanvass
recount.

She's already declared victory and her supporters have already found the cognitive dissonance to believe she won. She has little to gain from actually winning, were the results to fall her way.

However, the way things are now his team can spend the rest of the year claiming that she probably actually did win Iowa the 2016 election but the RNC and evil Mayor Cheat Russia rigged it against her.  And when anyone says "why didn't she ask for a recanvass recount then" they can say, well obviously the DNC Russia would have just rigged it against her more in a recanvass recount.
 
There's no reasoning with conspiracy theorists.

Is that supposed to be clever or something?  Nobody thinks Clinton won the 2016 election lmao.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Could you please unsticky this thread now ?

All the "results" are "in" and there's just lame debate about what might have been if things were different etc. etc.

Please don't. All results are not in: there are glaring errors and the results have not been called. If it ends up being the case that no campaign asks for a recanvass and/or it's the day before New Hampshire then lets move on, but it's still the top thing happening in the primary right now.

[NOVA Green]

I would argue against removing the sticky note from the thread as well...

Not that the fundamentals will change, nor that the arguments about "who won" will ever disappear, but rather that we still have precinct level corrections that are not reflected in official results, and although this may or may not impact the SDE numbers, I would like to be able to review updates so as we receive the "fix" of the data errors at least those of us who choose to, can data mine to collect actual raw votes for the first time and match against Demographic and precinct level data....

I do trust that the IDP and the DNC wish this s**tstorm is resolved, but a delegate or so does not mean we should not have a thread continue that at least posts updates about the actual results.

Perhaps a compromise might be a thread with a sticky about IA Precinct result Updates with a link at the top to this ~(150) page thread???

Might take some of the trolls out of the mix and those angry and frustrated or trying to score cheap political points for/against candidates that they are passionate about in either direction....

[kelestian]

What are the chances that Bernie had won popular vote in 2016 too?

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

I'd put good money on Sanders not asking for a recanvass.

He's already declared victory and his supporters have already found the cognitive dissonance to believe he won.  He has little to gain from actually winning, were the results to fall his way.

However, the way things are now his team can spend the rest of the year claiming that he probably actually did win Iowa but the DNC and evil Mayor Cheat rigged it against him.  And when anyone says "why didn't he ask for a recanvass then" they can say, well obviously the DNC would have just rigged it against him more in a recanvass.

There's no reasoning with conspiracy theorists.

Oh no, I have no problems with a recanvass. When every vote comes in, every SDE is double-checked for errors, every satellite district is counted correctly, and every vote is counted, I may have been wrong. Buttigieg may keep his lead.

And if he does, then good for him. He'll have won the election fair and square. As I said, I hate almost everything that Buttigieg stands for. The only thing standing between me and the #NeverPete brigade is his support for the Portugal model. But at the very least, it's a massive historical step.

Where I draw the line is when people who are ostensibly supposed to be reporting the news declaring an election over prematurely based on 60% of the results. I also have a problem with them declaring a victor with a margin this razor-thin with major discrepancies left to be resolved by a state party that's been horrifically incompetent in reporting results. Maybe I was wrong and this isn't a conspiracy by the media to rat**** Bernie. Maybe the Buttigieg is an end result of the race for clips. But when the same media that anointed this "winning candidate" has handled his candidacy with kid gloves, you really start to wonder.

Where I also draw the line is the national party deciding to pick and choose which discrepancies matter and which don't matter. You have to question when the party is ostensibly fine with the reporting errors, but not the distribution of satellite caucuses, especially when the party has shown an endemic bias against the candidate which satellite caucuses benefited the most.

Look through my posts and you'll largely see defenses against most of the conspiratorial elements. I don't think there's any bias within the IADP, and I don't think Shadow is openly manipulating results. I'm not even sure about the DNC. But I do think that outside elements (namely the media) are boosting this as a Pete "victory" to hurt Bernie's campaign.

[John Dule]

I'd put good money on Sanders not asking for a recanvass.

He's already declared victory and his supporters have already found the cognitive dissonance to believe he won.  He has little to gain from actually winning, were the results to fall his way.

However, the way things are now his team can spend the rest of the year claiming that he probably actually did win Iowa but the DNC and evil Mayor Cheat rigged it against him.  And when anyone says "why didn't he ask for a recanvass then" they can say, well obviously the DNC would have just rigged it against him more in a recanvass.

There's no reasoning with conspiracy theorists.

You are beyond parody.

[T'Chenka]

I'd put good money on Sanders not asking for a recanvass.

He's already declared victory and his supporters have already found the cognitive dissonance to believe he won.  He has little to gain from actually winning, were the results to fall his way.

However, the way things are now his team can spend the rest of the year claiming that he probably actually did win Iowa but the DNC and evil Mayor Cheat rigged it against him.  And when anyone says "why didn't he ask for a recanvass then" they can say, well obviously the DNC would have just rigged it against him more in a recanvass.

There's no reasoning with conspiracy theorists.

You are beyond parody.

Sanders probably took his grandma to a nice steak dinner in the 60's and never called her back.