NV Caucus Results Thread (doors close at 2 CT)

[2016]

So I'm guessing this confirms that the delegate split is:

Sanders - 24
Biden - 9
Buttigieg - 3

Greenpapers have 24/9/3 as you said
NBC has 22/7/3
CNN has 22/7/3
CBS has 22/7/3
ABC has 22/7/3
What's going on with the Networks?

[Sorenroy]

So I'm guessing this confirms that the delegate split is:

Sanders - 24
Biden - 9
Buttigieg - 3

Right, although the current split for pledged statewide PLEOs Sanders 3.49 -> 3, Biden 1.51 -> 2. I'm not an expert on the Nevada rules, but that seems like the kind of margin where Sanders could ask for a recount. There are several delegates decided narrowly, but that one is the closest.

I would imagine, Xing, that the 4 delegates the networks have up in the air come from some of the current narrow margins.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So I'm guessing this confirms that the delegate split is:

Sanders - 24
Biden - 9
Buttigieg - 3

Right, although the current split for pledged statewide PLEOs Sanders 3.49 -> 3, Biden 1.51 -> 2. I'm not an expert on the Nevada rules, but that seems like the kind of margin where Sanders could ask for a recount. There are several delegates decided narrowly, but that one is the closest.

I would imagine, Xing, that the 4 delegates the networks have up in the air come from some of the current narrow margins.

I don't think that's close enough that they would go for a recount.

[2016]

Updated Nevada Entrance Poll (Courtesy of NBC NEWS & CNN)

GENDER

Men (46 %)
Sanders 38
Biden 18
Buttigieg 16
Warren 10
Klobuchar 9
Steyer 8
Gabbard 0
Uncommitted 1

Women (54 %)
Sanders 30
Biden 17
Buttigieg 15
Warren 15
Klobuchar 11
Steyer 10
Gabbard 0
Uncommitted 1

RACE

White (65 %)
Sanders 29
Buttigieg 19
Biden 15
Warren 15
Klobuchar 13
Steyer 8
Gabbard 0
Uncommitted 1

Black (11 %)
Biden 38
Sanders 28
Steyer 17
Warren 11
Buttiegieg 2
Klobuchar 2
Gabbard 1
Uncommitted 1

Hispanic (19 %)
Sanders 50
Biden 17
Buttigieg 11
Steyer 9
Warren 7
Klobuchar 4
Gabbard 0
Uncommitted 1

Sanders won all Age safe for 65+.

https://edition.cnn.com/election/2020/state/nevada?xid=ec_crm_nv_d
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-primary-elections/nevada-results?icid=election_usmap

[Sorenroy]

It seems like, by just adjusting the different candidates up or down 2%, all four of the uncalled delegates are available for all three of Sanders, Biden, and Buttigieg. Also, it's not completely out of the question that Warren picks up a delegate in the second and third congressional districts, as she is only 0.74% and 1.58% off of viability respectively.

[Sorenroy]

So I'm guessing this confirms that the delegate split is:

Sanders - 24
Biden - 9
Buttigieg - 3

Right, although the current split for pledged statewide PLEOs Sanders 3.49 -> 3, Biden 1.51 -> 2. I'm not an expert on the Nevada rules, but that seems like the kind of margin where Sanders could ask for a recount. There are several delegates decided narrowly, but that one is the closest.

I would imagine, Xing, that the 4 delegates the networks have up in the air come from some of the current narrow margins.

I don't think that's close enough that they would go for a recount.

It definitely is. Even if the statewide error is as little as 0.15% in favor of Biden at the expense of Sanders, that would be enough to decide a national delegate. Weather or not Sanders will actually request a recount is another question.

[dax00]

Warren is 25 CCDs shy of viability in CD2.
Sanders is 42 CCDs shy of taking a PLEO away from Biden.

[Crumpets]

Sorry I've been away for several days. Its just that these results, the castro comments….Oh its too much! All I know is that my boyfriends wife is now on the Bloomberg train now after a bribe an awful weekend for the party!

Interesting.

[YE]

Desticking.

Honestly my final takeway is Biden did better than I expected in select Las Vegas suburbs (mostly in Henderson) while Bernie flat out overpreformed anywhere. Klobuchar and Buttigeg tanked in the non-Summerlin Las Vegas suburbs. Biden really did bad outside of Las Vegas but did well in Clark. His 5th place showing in Washoe doesn't bear well for him in primaries with similar WWC areas.

[beaver2.0]

Steyer has Mineral County.  I am officially geeked.

[Epaminondas]

Steyer has Mineral County.  I am officially geeked.

Yes, what happened there? Steyer didn't make the top 4 in any county except that Mineral where he won outright.

[Gass3268]

I remember seeing total votes by county for the 2016 caucus on here. Does anyone have that are remember where that was?

[jimrtex]

Lincoln County:

2020:     (47 Total Attendance)

Pete---         19 Votes      (40.4%)                        25 County Delegates
Bernie---      18 Votes      (38.3%)     (-1.6%)        24 County Delegates
Steyer--        7 Votes       (14.9%)                          6 County Delegates
Biden---        1 Vote        (2.1%)                            2 County Delegates
Warren---      1 Vote        (2.1%)                            1 County Delegate

How does having more county delegates than actual people showing up to the actual vote work out in the long run?

I have been to such a caucus in the past. Assuming NV rules are the same, the local chair strongly encourages every person there to be a delegate, and remaining delegates go unfilled. In this case, that means the precinct gets at most 46 delegates to the next higher level caucus.

But I dont know if they can pick delegates from among early voters in NV, or for that matter if the identity of early voters is even known for them to contact.

Nevada permits any registered Democrat in the precinct to be nominated as a county delegate, regardless of presence at the caucus. Early voters sign their ballots. They may have had an option to indicate they were willing to be a county delegate.

Nevada law also provides that if a precinct elects more delegates than caucus participants, all participants are automatic delegates. Presumably, this would apply to early voters (especially since it appears early voters were around 2/3 of all voters).

And finally, the allocation of national delegates is locked in based on election of county delegates. Nevada effectively uses SDE's, it is just that county delegates are apportioned uniformly across the state.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Final batch of CCDs:
Bernie 45.6%
Pete 25.9%
Biden 12.6%
Steyer 6.9%
Warren 5.7%

Not too bad for Bernie, given that the rurals were hugely overrepresented in this sample. Really bad batch for Biden (as pointed out above, almost to the point of making him lose a delegate). Good for Pete, but obviously too little too late. Bad for Warren, and cost her any chance of reaching viability in CD2. So the delegate apportionment stays the same.


Here's the full breakdown (showing only candidates over 10%).

Statewide
Bernie 46.8%, 5.59 (6) at large, 3.49 (3) PLEO
Biden 20.2%, 2.41 (2) at large, 1.51 (2) PLEO
Pete 14.3%, Non-viable

CD 1
Bernie 59.4%, 3.63 (4)
Biden 22.4%, 1.37 (1)

CD 2
Bernie 41.7%, 4.07 (4)
Pete 19.7%, 1.93 (2)
Warren 14.3%, Non-viable
Klob 10.9%, Non-viable

CD 3
Bernie 42.8%, 3.16 (3)
Biden 19.5%, 1.44 (2)
Pete 19.0%, 1.40 (1)
Warren 13.4%, Non-viable

CD 4
Bernie 43.2%, 3.57 (4)
Biden 29.4%, 2.43 (2)
Pete 11.8%, Non-viable

So yeah, 24-9-3 is how it ends, barring a recount.

[Sbane]

Two blatantly obvious points I think

1) The GOP call every Democrat a socialist from Joe Manchin to Ilhan Omar. It is an attack line that is perhaps not as strong as it once was, to put it rather charitably.
2) The GOP essentially spent most of the last decade as a crypto-fascist party and they're doing fine. I would suggest on that basis that a Sanders nomination would not be the end of the world.

Essentially some of you need to get a f!cking grip.

This. Particularly on the scare-word socialism.

This is exactly what Democrats do to Republicans, except about Fascism. How many times has Trump been called a Fascist? And of course they have their bigotry scare words as well.

The difference is that our claims are objectively true. If it walks like a fascist, talks like a fascist, and s**ts like a fascist, chances are it's a fascist.

Perfect example of Democrats using Fascism as a boogeyman through total delusion. Will Dems ever get sick of being hypocrites by complaining about Socialism being a boogeyman and then not standing up to those using Fascism as one?

Socialism in a social democratic framework is actually a good thing, fascism is a horrific ideology that lead to mass devastation, war and genocide......

What you call Socialism in a Social Democratic framework is actually Capitalism with more regulation and taxes than what the USA traditionally has.

Which is what Bernie is advocating for.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Alternative scenarios with proportional allocation.

Using D'Hondt (DNC uses Largest Remainder):
Bernie 26
Biden 7
Pete 3
Bernie gains two delegates from Biden (one in the PLEOs, and one in CD 3).

Viability threshold at 10% (results are the same with LR or D'Hondt):
Bernie 21 (loses a delegate in CD 2, 4 and AL)
Biden 7 (loses a delegate in CD 3 and PLEO)
Pete 5 (gains a delegate in CD 4, AL and PLEO; loses a delegate in CD 2)
Warren 2 (gains a delegate in CD 2 and 3)
Klob 1 (gains a delegate in CD 2)

All delegates awarded statewide (15% threshold):
Bernie 25
Biden 11

All delegates awarded statewide (10% threshold):
Bernie 21
Biden 9
Pete 6

[atheist4thecause]

Two blatantly obvious points I think

1) The GOP call every Democrat a socialist from Joe Manchin to Ilhan Omar. It is an attack line that is perhaps not as strong as it once was, to put it rather charitably.
2) The GOP essentially spent most of the last decade as a crypto-fascist party and they're doing fine. I would suggest on that basis that a Sanders nomination would not be the end of the world.

Essentially some of you need to get a f!cking grip.

This. Particularly on the scare-word socialism.

This is exactly what Democrats do to Republicans, except about Fascism. How many times has Trump been called a Fascist? And of course they have their bigotry scare words as well.

The difference is that our claims are objectively true. If it walks like a fascist, talks like a fascist, and s**ts like a fascist, chances are it's a fascist.

Perfect example of Democrats using Fascism as a boogeyman through total delusion. Will Dems ever get sick of being hypocrites by complaining about Socialism being a boogeyman and then not standing up to those using Fascism as one?

Socialism in a social democratic framework is actually a good thing, fascism is a horrific ideology that lead to mass devastation, war and genocide......

What you call Socialism in a Social Democratic framework is actually Capitalism with more regulation and taxes than what the USA traditionally has.

Which is what Bernie is advocating for.

I know Bernie advocates for a system under Capitalism, but you are changing the subject. The subject was about scare words. People were complaining that Republicans use Socialism as a scare word to attack Bernie while I pointed out they were using Fascism as scare word to attack Trump. Hypocrites.

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

Please stop quoting that giant Truman picture

[Epaminondas]

Thanks for the alternative methods, Trendz. Nice to see Bernie actually benefitted from the counting method, if no more than Biden.

And what's not to love about that Truman poster?
It's a quote for the ages, on par with another scorcher:

"Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke.
They stand four-square for the American home --  but not for housing.
They are strong for labour -- but they are stronger for restricting labour's rights.
They favor minimum wage -- the smaller the minimum wage the better.
They endorse educational opportunity for all -- but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools.
They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine -- for people who can afford them.
They consider electrical power a great blessing -- but only when the private power companies get their rake-off.
They think American standard of living is a fine thing -- so long as it doesn't spread to all the people.
And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."

- Harry S. Truman

[Antonio the Sixth]

Thanks!

Here's the breakdown of all three counts for Clark, Washoe, and the rest of the state.

Clark
Bernie 35.42% 1A, 42.79% 2A, 48.98% CCD
Biden 20.06% 1A, 23.89% 2A, 24.27% CCD
Pete 14.36% 1A, 15.36% 2A, 12.00% CCD
Warren 11.98% 1A, 10.03% 2A, 8.49% CCD
Steyer 8.81% 1A, 3.52% 2A, 4.09% CCD
Klob 7.63% 1A, 3.95% 2A, 2.13% CCD
Others 1.74% 1A, 0.47% 2A, 0.05% CCD

Washoe
Bernie 32.82% 1A, 37.22% 2A, 44.19% CCD
Pete 16.55% 1A, 19.90% 2A, 17.97% CCD
Warren 16.11% 1A, 17.79% 2A, 16.31% CCD
Klob 13.46% 1A, 13.76% 2A, 10.14% CCD
Biden 11.93% 1A, 8.23% 2A, 7.60% CCD
Steyer 7.95% 1A, 2.67% 2A, 3.73% CCD
Others 1.18% 1A, 0.43% 2A, 0.05% CCD

Rurals
Bernie 27.24% 1A, 32.36% 2A, 35.40% CCD
Pete 19.17% 1A, 24.49% 2A, 25.50% CCD
Klob 14.29% 1A, 14.61% 2A, 10.11% CCD
Biden 13.66% 1A, 9.67% 2A, 9.18% CCD
Steyer 13.13% 1A, 10.51% 2A, 10.50% CCD
Warren 11.04% 1A, 7.69% 2A, 8.92% CCD
Others 1.47% 1A, 0.67% 2A, 0.40% CCD

Interestingly, while Clark made up 67.1% and Washoe 22.5% of the vote in both counts, in terms of CCDs, Clark had 74.6% while Washoe had only 15%. Rural counties made up around 10.4% of all three counts. So Clark was overrepresented in the count that ultimately mattered for the final allocation, while Washoe was underrepresented. This contributed to padding Bernie's margin and hurting Pete's shot at viability.

[Antonio the Sixth]

All right, I said that was the last piece of data, but let me add in just a couple more random delegate simulations, for fun.


Using the initial vote:
Bernie 21
Biden 9
Pete 6
Pete qualifies for statewide delegates, taking 3 delegates there (2 from Bernie, 1 from Biden). Biden regains that delegate from Bernie in CD 4.

Using the initial vote, statewide (15% threshold):
Bernie 18
Biden 10
Pete 8

Using the initial vote, statewide (10% threshold):
Bernie 15
Biden 8
Pete 7
Warren 6


Using the final vote:
Bernie 20
Biden 9
Pete 6
Warren 1
Same as the initial vote, except Warren qualifies in CD 2 and snatches a delegate from Bernie.

Using the final vote, statewide (15% threshold):
Bernie 19
Biden 9
Pete 8

Using the final vote, statewide (10% threshold):
Bernie 16
Biden 8
Pete 7
Warren 5


All right, I'm done for real now.

[Sorenroy]

Even if you're just looking at results internally to the state, entrance/exit polls were not measuring support by abstracting it to SDEs, they were using what the people had to say, and that will be what is looked at again in November, where SDEs don't exist at all.

I'm pulling this from the Iowa results thread because it is pertinent to the Nevada caucus as well, and I think it's important to bring up again because 1) the data still works out the same and 2) it still is the case in a state where the CCDs benefited my preferred candidate.

On Monday's edition of Vox's daily news podcast, "Today, Explained", the Nevada results were described as a 20+ point Sanders win where Sanders won "...close to 47% of the overall vote..." However, later in the pod, when they're describing where Sanders's win came from they were discussing exit polls and talked about how Sanders won an outright majority of Hispanic/Latino caucus-goers. Not only are County Convention Delegates not the overall vote, describing it that way makes the results confusing and hard to follow when you go to talk about the vote in a different context.

Let's repeat that Sanders won 34% of the vote, at least the vote that was important for entrance/exit polls. Imagine a world where the end result is about the same but Sanders has a stronger night with white voters and a weaker night with Hispanics. Instead of 50%, let's say he got 40%. If the coverage had been the same, that Sanders won 47% of the overall vote, but had also said he got 40% of the Hispanic vote, that puts a very different spin on Sanders's performance, where it would be easy to say that Sanders under-performed among Hispanic voters.

Alternatively, let's imagine that Sanders has an all around better night and all the rest did even marginally worse. Given how close everyone else was to viability, a small vote adjustment could lead to Sanders getting 55% to 60% of the CCDs. That coverage would also be wrong. If the early states are a gauge of each candidate's support, we shouldn't be using a gauge unique to the early states as a metric for later performance.

As everyone else has already said, hopefully this is the final time caucuses are used so we don't need to litigate the specifics of them ever again, but if that's not the unanimous view of those going to the convention, hopefully those who see the caucuses as the abominations that they are can show that they screw with both sides; both for and against your preferred candidates.

[Epaminondas]

Let's repeat that Sanders won 34% of the vote, at least the vote that was important for entrance/exit polls.

I hope you don't injure yourself with all that twisting.

Either Sanders
- won the first three states, including a moderate win (34%) in Nevada, or
- tied in Iowa and won huge (47%) in Nevada

You can't have it both ways, my friend.

[RI]

Let's repeat that Sanders won 34% of the vote, at least the vote that was important for entrance/exit polls.

I hope you don't injure yourself with all that twisting.

Either Sanders
- won the first three states, including a moderate win in Nevada, or
- tied in Iowa and won huge in Nevada

You can't have it both ways, my friend.

When you're comparing exit polls to results, only the first preference matters.

[Epaminondas]

Agreed, in the cases of FPTP primary states.

However final preference is a superior method where it exists (caucuses & Maine), and should be the focus of polls there.

I was just pointing out how the line "Bernie only won 34%" is inconsistent with "Buttigieg won Iowa" line.