Iowa Caucus Results Thread (pg 148 - full results)

[kelestian]

I've read some Russian and Ukrainian publications today, and almost all of them declared Buttigieg as "the winner of Iowa Caucus". Shameful

[GoTfan]

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.

Are you for real?

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

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.

The only one pushing conspiracy theories around here is you.

Sanders and his campaign have been incredibly patient given how horribly this was all handled.

[Badger]

So the media is calling this a virtual tie between Sanders and buttigieg.

I call b*******. Sanders won the popular vote, particularly the initial ballot, handedly.

I'm not totally on the Bernie bus yet, because, yet again, I think mine is the candidate who will most be able to withstand the Republican attack machine due to familiarity, but since he has no chance in New Hampshire I'm very very tentatively rooting for Bernie as something of a do-over

[kelestian]

So the media is calling this a virtual tie between Sanders and buttigieg.

I call b*******. Sanders won the popular vote, particularly the initial ballot, handedly.

I'm not totally on the Bernie bus yet, because, yet again, I think mine is the candidate who will most be able to withstand the Republican attack machine due to familiarity, but since he has no chance in New Hampshire I'm very very tentatively rooting for Bernie as something of a do-over

Probably Bernie win is the best possible outcome for Dems at this point. If someone else (who?)  win in the end or there is a brokered convention, Berniebros will riot.

[Smash255]

So the media is calling this a virtual tie between Sanders and buttigieg.

I call b*******. Sanders won the popular vote, particularly the initial ballot, handedly.

I'm not totally on the Bernie bus yet, because, yet again, I think mine is the candidate who will most be able to withstand the Republican attack machine due to familiarity, but since he has no chance in New Hampshire I'm very very tentatively rooting for Bernie as something of a do-over

Whether or not we agree with the rule.  SDE's determine the winner of the Iowa Caucus just like it did in the past.  Reporting the First & Final Alignment #'s gives us more information, and is more transparent to have (no matter how blundered it has been), but it doesn't change what a winner is based off of.

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/1225780087959818240

[Gass3268]

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1225806317740285952?s=20

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1225806317740285952?s=20

The suburban realignment continues...

[cvparty]

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1225806317740285952?s=20

The suburban realignment continues...

population growth too. dallas's growth is crazy for a midwestern county

[2016]

Doesn't look like anyone will file a Request for a Recanvass here so expect Major Networks calling the Race for Buttigieg after 1pm ET.

[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.

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.

Thank you for being the one person not to fling out a lazy, low-effort insult.  Again, it's annoying how the same group of posters follow me around from thread to thread and just spam the thread with insult replies.

There are two things I wanted to respond to in your post.  First, your saying that you "hate almost everything Buttigieg stands for" just seems crazy.  I know you guys all think Buttigieg is a sellout to billionaires and wants poor people to not get health care, neither of which are true, but even if they were that's only like two issues.  He's a solid liberal Democrat with pretty far-left ("progressive") stances on a number of issues.  In that WaPo candidate quiz I only agreed with Pete on 8/20 issues, and I still like him.  I bet you actually agree with him more than me.

I've said it time and time again but the Sanders supporters really have turned their movement into this insular, hateful thing.  When you spend too much time inside that bubble you get trained to hate every other candidate and presented with this caricature of them that's completely divorced from reality.  They're doing it to Buttigieg now ("rat" "CIA agent" "loved to fire people" "Mayor Cheat") and they've already started on "American Oligarch" Bloomberg.

Second, as Jon Stewart said repeatedly back when The Daily Show was good, the mainstream media doesn't have much of a bias towards one side or the other.  What they have a bias towards is sensationalism and whatever will get people's attention.  That means no matter what they were going to declare a winner as soon as the results come in and spend all day talking about that winner.  If it had been Sanders, they would have celebrated Sanders as the winner, despite it being unfair to name a winner with only 62% of the results in.

I remember in 2008 when Obama was the darling of the mainstream media.  He was the very definition of sensationalism.  What a superstar, and the first black president to boot.  Compare that to Clinton, already loathed by the media and a re-tread of the last Democratic presidency.  And yet, when Hillary won New Hampshire, the next week was the media glorifying her and celebrating her candidacy!  Why would the media celebrate and glorify a candidate they loathe, at the expense of a candidate they love?  Because Clinton's NH comeback win was sensational, and that's what matters.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Doesn't look like anyone will file a Request for a Recanvass here so expect Major Networks calling the Race for Buttigieg after 1pm ET.

Oh well. Letting this go is the smart thing for the Sanders campaign to do: he's already won based on the popular vote and trying to contest the SDEs would just be petty. Let Pete have his little moment.

I'm just annoyed that the historical record will forever contain numbers that are riddled with errors, but oh well. That was probably true of previous caucus results as well.

[Arizona Iced Tea]

As much as it is tragic, only the SDE determine the winner. Sanders can talk on about winning the first and second alignment, but Buttigieg will be projected the winner as he has the most SDE's.

[Gass3268]

Doesn't look like anyone will file a Request for a Recanvass here so expect Major Networks calling the Race for Buttigieg after 1pm ET.

Oh well. Letting this go is the smart thing for the Sanders campaign to do: he's already won based on the popular vote and trying to contest the SDEs would just be petty. Let Pete have his little moment.

I'm just annoyed that the historical record will forever contain numbers that are riddled with errors, but oh well. That was probably true of previous caucus results as well.

Let's just hope this kills the traditonal caucus as we know it. At the bare minimum a state should have to do a firehouse caucus or a party run primary.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

So the media is calling this a virtual tie between Sanders and buttigieg.

I call b*******. Sanders won the popular vote, particularly the initial ballot, handedly.

I'm not totally on the Bernie bus yet, because, yet again, I think mine is the candidate who will most be able to withstand the Republican attack machine due to familiarity, but since he has no chance in New Hampshire I'm very very tentatively rooting for Bernie as something of a do-over

Whether or not we agree with the rule.  SDE's determine the winner of the Iowa Caucus just like it did in the past.  Reporting the First & Final Alignment #'s gives us more information, and is more transparent to have (no matter how blundered it has been), but it doesn't change what a winner is based off of.

What “rule”? Being the “winner” is an arbitrary distinction; it’s not like how the electoral college actually makes you president, it’s just an odd way of apportioning delegates. Bernie got more votes in both alignments.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Let's just hope this kills the traditonal caucus as we know it. At the bare minimum a state should have to do a firehouse caucus or a party run primary.

Yeah. I like the spirit of caucuses, and I think it's useful to open the primaries cycle with one as a way to gauge people's preferences in a deeper way than just casting ballots, but the process needs to be completely overhauled. Maybe implementing full-on RCV would be a good place to start.

What “rule”? Being the “winner is an arbitrary distinction”; it’s not like how the electoral college actually makes you president, it’s just an odd way of apportioning delegates. Bernie got more votes in both alignments.

Yeah, there is no such thing as a winner "by the rules" because the rules do not exist for the sake of designating a winner.

[Gracile]

Doesn't look like anyone will file a Request for a Recanvass here so expect Major Networks calling the Race for Buttigieg after 1pm ET.

Oh well. Letting this go is the smart thing for the Sanders campaign to do: he's already won based on the popular vote and trying to contest the SDEs would just be petty. Let Pete have his little moment.

I'm just annoyed that the historical record will forever contain numbers that are riddled with errors, but oh well. That was probably true of previous caucus results as well.

Let's just hope this kills the traditonal caucus as we know it. At the bare minimum a state should have to do a firehouse caucus or a party run primary.

A ranked-choice primary where all candidates that get <15% on the first round reallocate to the viable candidates seems like a good alternative.

[Gass3268]

Let's just hope this kills the traditonal caucus as we know it. At the bare minimum a state should have to do a firehouse caucus or a party run primary.

Yeah. I like the spirit of caucuses, and I think it's useful to open the primaries cycle with one as a way to gauge people's preferences in a deeper way than just casting ballots, but the process needs to be completely overhauled. Maybe implementing full-on RCV would be a good place to start.

What “rule”? Being the “winner is an arbitrary distinction”; it’s not like how the electoral college actually makes you president, it’s just an odd way of apportioning delegates. Bernie got more votes in both alignments.

Yeah, there is no such thing as a winner "by the rules" because the rules do not exist for the sake of designating a winner.

This is what Wyoming is doing this year.

[Ljube]

Doesn't look like anyone will file a Request for a Recanvass here so expect Major Networks calling the Race for Buttigieg after 1pm ET.

Oh well. Letting this go is the smart thing for the Sanders campaign to do: he's already won based on the popular vote and trying to contest the SDEs would just be petty. Let Pete have his little moment.

I'm just annoyed that the historical record will forever contain numbers that are riddled with errors, but oh well. That was probably true of previous caucus results as well.

Let's just hope this kills the traditonal caucus as we know it. At the bare minimum a state should have to do a firehouse caucus or a party run primary.

A ranked-choice primary where all candidates that get <15% on the first round reallocate to the viable candidates seems like a good alternative.

The problem here is not the manner in which the voters express their preference (caucus vote counts can be obtained in no time, while ranked-choice calculation takes time), but proportional allocation of delegates, because the proportional allocation method used is the largest remainder method, which is incredibly complicated to calculate properly and very prone to errors.

[n1240]

https://twitter.com/JTHVerhovek/status/1225837650776641539

[elcorazon]

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.

Thank you for being the one person not to fling out a lazy, low-effort insult.  Again, it's annoying how the same group of posters follow me around from thread to thread and just spam the thread with insult replies.

There are two things I wanted to respond to in your post.  First, your saying that you "hate almost everything Buttigieg stands for" just seems crazy.  I know you guys all think Buttigieg is a sellout to billionaires and wants poor people to not get health care, neither of which are true, but even if they were that's only like two issues.  He's a solid liberal Democrat with pretty far-left ("progressive") stances on a number of issues.  In that WaPo candidate quiz I only agreed with Pete on 8/20 issues, and I still like him.  I bet you actually agree with him more than me.

I've said it time and time again but the Sanders supporters really have turned their movement into this insular, hateful thing.  When you spend too much time inside that bubble you get trained to hate every other candidate and presented with this caricature of them that's completely divorced from reality.  They're doing it to Buttigieg now ("rat" "CIA agent" "loved to fire people" "Mayor Cheat") and they've already started on "American Oligarch" Bloomberg.

Second, as Jon Stewart said repeatedly back when The Daily Show was good, the mainstream media doesn't have much of a bias towards one side or the other.  What they have a bias towards is sensationalism and whatever will get people's attention.  That means no matter what they were going to declare a winner as soon as the results come in and spend all day talking about that winner.  If it had been Sanders, they would have celebrated Sanders as the winner, despite it being unfair to name a winner with only 62% of the results in.

I remember in 2008 when Obama was the darling of the mainstream media.  He was the very definition of sensationalism.  What a superstar, and the first black president to boot.  Compare that to Clinton, already loathed by the media and a re-tread of the last Democratic presidency.  And yet, when Hillary won New Hampshire, the next week was the media glorifying her and celebrating her candidacy!  Why would the media celebrate and glorify a candidate they loathe, at the expense of a candidate they love?  Because Clinton's NH comeback win was sensational, and that's what matters.

This is a good post.

I will also add that we should all stop quibbling over these SDE's. The only reason such a tiny number of delegates matters is the perception. a percent either way really no longer matters. Perhaps the IDC can figure out the allocation correctly and fix it at any time. All the candidates will spin the results how they want (like they always do) and try to win more votes in the next primaries. That's just how this works. Move on...

[Antonio the Sixth]

https://twitter.com/JTHVerhovek/status/1225837650776641539

So no official declaration of the SDE until the day before NH.

[jimrtex]

I can make sense of the out-of-state satellite caucuses. There are two errors.

Total attendance was 1186. IDP rules provided 2 state delegates for between 1-500, and one additional for every additional 500 participants. The OOSS caucuses will thus have 4 state delegates. The actual delegates will be chosen by party preference among those persons who expressed a willingness to attend the state convention (there will be no virtual county convention). This would produce one each for Klobuchar, Warren, Buttigieg, and Biden (Sanders finished fifth).

The 4.000 SDE's are divided at the satellite caucus level. For example, the largest satellite caucus in Queen Creek, AZ had 162 participants. Queen Creek is southeast of Phoenix and Mesa on the Maricopa-Pinal county line. That caucus received 162/1186 x 4 SDE or 0.5464 SDE. This is logical, but is not obvious from the rules in the delegate selection plan.

Because the number of participants was greater than 100 the caucus received 9 county delegate positions. These were allocated in the usual fashion after viability determinations and realignment.

Initial: Klobuchar 53, Buttigieg 39, Biden 30, Warren 25, Sanders 7, Bloomberg 2, Steyer 2, Other 1, Uncommitted 3. It in unknown whether the Other voter wore a MAGA hat.

Viability was 15% or 24.3 rounds to 25. Four candidates were viable. Warren was just barely viable, but could have been made viable based on transfers.

2nd Alignment: Klobuchar 54 (+1), Buttigieg 41 (+2), Biden 33 (+3), Warren 31 (+6), uncommitted 3 (0). It is unknown whether the uncommitted were the same three persons throughout. In some caucuses in mainland Iowa, it appears that voters from nonviable groups who did not realign, were accounted for as uncommitted. In other caucuses, they just disappeared. It would appear that most Sanders supporters switched to Warren.

Delegate positions before rounding: Klobuchar 3.000, Buttigieg 2.278, Biden 1.833, Warren 1.722.

Delegate positions after rounding: Klobuchar 3, Buttigieg 2, Biden 2, Warren 2. Since this totals to 9, it is the final allocation. Had this been a conventional precinct, "county" delegates would have been elected.

The SDE's were then allocated. Remember that the satellite had been allocated 0.5464 state delegates as its proportional share of the 4 OOSS state delegates. This is then 0.0607 SDE per delegate. Klobuchar 0.1821, Buttigieg 0.1214, Biden 0.1214, Warren 0.1214.

The IDP shows Klobuchar 0.1820, Buttigieg 0.1213, Biden 0.1213, Warren 0.1213. I can not account for the discrepancy. I though it possible that there was one additional participant who did not participant in the initial alignment. But that does not appear to match the results. I would have to see the IDP spreadsheet to find the error, but it amounts to a tiny fraction of an SDE.

The largest error was in Washington, DC, which had exactly 100 participants. With 81-100 participants there should be 8 delegates. With 0.3373 SDE, that is 0.0422 SDE per delegate position. That matches the numbers on the IDP results. What does not match is the number of delegate positions. There were 9 delegate slots.

The SDE were calculated by the IDP. The delegate positions may have been calculated by the precinct leader in DC. The 9th delegate position was won by Warren. Warren should lose 0.042 SDE. This also brings the national delegates for the OOSS to 4 total.

The second error was in Fairfax, VA (George Mason). There were 15 participants, choosing 4 delegate positions. Therefore viability was 15 x 15% = 2.25, rounds up to 3.

The first alignment was Warren 8, Sanders 4, Klobuchar 2, Gabbard 1. The Gabbard supporter apparently realigned to Sanders. Klobuchar could have become viable if the Gabbard delegate had switched to her. Perhaps the caucus was aware of that possibility, and so the Klobuchar group did not realign.

The final alignment was Warren 8, Sanders 5, (Klobuchar 2). If the caucus leader thought that Klobuchar was viable, there would have been no reason to realign. If they failed to realign, they should not have been awarded delegates.

The final delegate allocation was Warren 2, Sanders 1, Klobuchar 1.

Had both Klobuchar delegates re-aligned to Warren, it would have been Warren 3, Sanders 1. Had one of the Klobuchar delegates re-algned to Warren, and the other switched to uncommitted it would have been Warren 3, Sanders 1. Had one or both Klobuchar delegates switched to Sanders it would have been Warren 2, Sanders 2. Had both delegates remained uncommitted it would have been Warren 2, Sanders 2.

The fairest solution might be to strip Klobuchar of the delegate, and assign it to uncommitted (indeterminate).

The following table shows the extra Warren delegate in Washington, DC; the erroneous Klobuchar delegate in Fairfax, VA; and does not show a Bllomberg delegate in Miramar Beach, FL or a Yang delegate in St. Paul, MN.

Caucus	Part.	SDE	Del.	Biden	Buttigieg	Klobuchar	Sanders	Warren
Queen Creek, AZ	162	0.5464	9	2	2	3	0	2
Port Charlotte, FL	135	0.4553	9	2	3	4	0	0
Palm Springs, CA	108	0.3642	9	3	2	4	0	0
St. Petersburg, FL	105	0.3541	9	1	2	4	0	2
Washington, DC	100	0.3373	8	2	2	0	1	4
Tucson, AZ	72	0.2428	7	2	1	2	1	1
Miramar Beach, FL	60	0.2024	6	2	1	2	0	0
New York, NY	56	0.1889	6	0	0	0	2	4
Cambridge, MA	51	0.1720	6	0	1	0	3	2
Green Valley, AZ	50	0.1686	6	1	2	3	0	0
Gulf Breeze, FL	42	0.1417	6	2	1	3	0	0
St. Paul, MN	32	0.1079	5	0	0	0	2	2
Stanford, CA	30	0.1012	5	0	0	1	2	2
Chicago, IL	24	0.0809	5	0	1	0	2	2
Chicago, IL	20	0.0675	4	0	0	1	2	1
Glasgow, GB	19	0.0641	4	0	1	0	2	1
Paris, FR	17	0.0573	4	0	0	1	1	2
Tucson, AZ	16	0.0540	4	2	2	0	0	0
Fairfax, VA	15	0.0506	4	0	0	1	1	2
Philadelphia, PA	14	0.0472	4	0	1	0	2	1
Brooklyn, NY	11	0.0371	4	0	0	0	3	1
Northfield, MN	11	0.0371	4	0	0	0	2	2
Providence, RI	10	0.0337	4	0	0	0	2	2
Ann Arbor, MI	9	0.0304	4	0	0	0	2	2
Milwaukee, WI	7	0.0236	4	0	0	1	1	2
Nashville, TN	7	0.0236	4	0	1	0	2	1
Tbilisi, GE	3	0.0101	4	0	0	0	4	0

The effect of the corrections in SDE.

Candidate	Correct	Original	Change
Biden	0.7068	0.7068	0.0000
Bloomberg	0.0337	0.0337	0.0000
Buttigieg	0.7709	0.7709	0.0000
Klobuchar	1.0531	1.0657	-0.0126
Sanders	0.5644	0.5644	0.0000
Warren	0.8368	0.8789	-0.0422
Yang	0.0216	0.0216	0.0000
Uncommitted	0.0126	0.0000	0.0126

[jimrtex]

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1225806317740285952?s=20

Since these areas were compensated in terms of state delegates based on the 2016 and 2018 election results, the variance in participants per state delegate was likely reduced.

In 2016, Rural Counties Had Less Caucus Goers Per Delegate