Iowa - 97% of the vote is in. Top two are 0.1% different

[mysteryowl]

Pete Buttigieg ------ 550 ----- 26.2%
Bernie Sanders --------547 ----26.1 %


https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/02/04/us/elections/results-iowa-caucus.html?region=RaceTitle&action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage

[msongs]

1. our revolution? lol nt

[ChubbyStar]

3. Dancing requires timing

You know how to dance, right?

[emmaverybo]

2. Not a Sanders fan, but that's a tie.

[Scurrilous]

86. Not in a dash.

And everyone keeps telling me the primaries are a dash.

[emmaverybo]

90. Yep. But I think it's a marathon folks want other folks to perceive as a dash so they can seal it

up for their candidate. Or for a “wing” of our party.

[musicblind]

4. A win is a win.

If Sanders pulls ahead, that's a win, and we shouldn't treat that win different than we would for any other candidate. Same with Buttigieg.

This looks like it's going be a nail biter.

For both Buttigieg and Sander's sake, I hate what happened in Iowa with the app, etc. This needs to be the last Iowa caucus. From now on, we should use primaries across the board.

[mysteryowl]

5. Yep, primaries with rank choice voting

Rank choice would be close to how a caucus functions, minus the peer pressure.

[Tiggeroshii]

6. I really like that idea of ranked choice voting for everything.

Super democratic... or at least representative of the choices

[mysteryowl]

9. Works great.

People select their preference in order, 1 - 2 - 3. It takes more math to figure out the winner, but far more democratic.

[TexasTowelie]

49. It would almost definitely make it impossible to get results within a relatively short window

of time. When Bruce Poliquin ran against Jared Golden for U.S. House in Maine during November 2018 it required nine days to determine the winner using ranked choice voting and the race only involved three candidates. There were only four candidates and 280,000 votes in that election. I imagine that it would require a much longer interval of time if there were a larger number of candidates and ballots since the ballots would have to be recounted each time one candidate was eliminated in the process.

People are already getting impatient with the two day delay we experienced in the caucus and the there were only two counts--the first alignment and the final alignment.

[Wabbajack_]

60. Aussies use it

They get results ok for the Lower House (the Senate is another story).

Maine results so slow because it's rural. And this was the first time after all.

[DeminPennswoods]

73. Getting a result in relatively short order is just

a matter of getting the correct algorithm. Once given the correct parameters, computers are pretty fast at doing arithmatic and calculations. It's easy enough to start with a predetermined result, then test the input data until it gives the predetermined result, then expand and re-test as needed.

[scheming daemons]

12. Rank-choice voting wouldn't be good for a Bernie...

...he'd be #1 on lots of ballots... but not #2 or #3 on many ballots at all.


He's the second-choice of very few people.

[JudyM]

18. Where are you getting your facts?

Here’s what I’m seeing: Sanders is the top 2nd choice of both Biden and Warren voters.
Scroll/select “Second Choice”
https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/

[scheming daemons]

21. From the Iowa caucuses. He didn't get much of the 2nd-alignment vote.

People who didn't have viability saw their votes go to others much more than Bernie.


Bernie is loved or hated, not much in between. Hence, not the 2nd choice of very many people. 1st or last for most people.

[JudyM]

28. Actually a lot of people just like him a lot without loving him. My conservative father and

brothers, for example, and the majority of folks who are asked: 57% of people currently think favorably of him. They certainly don’t all love him, but they do like him: https://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/bernie-sanders-favorable-rating

[radius777]

20. Sanders has little appeal outside of his base.

He has a die-hard base that will always be with him, but has little ability to expand that support - as evidenced by the fact that he's lost much of it from last time. Yes there are more candidates in the race but a truly 'revolutionary' candidate (as he claims to be) would hold and expand their votes.

Obama's rise was truly a revolution in that he drove up turnout and expanded support across the board.

[JudyM]

35. Please share your data sources backing up your assertions.

What I’m seeing:

He is the second choice of more Biden and Warren voters than any other candidate. Scroll to “second choice”: https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/

He is viewed favorably by approx. 57% of the public: https://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/bernie-sanders-favorable-rating

[radius777]

40. The assertions are self-evident

in that if Bernie were truly revolutionary, he would've held and expanded his support from last time - to the point that there would be little of a race at all.

Note that Sanders has never faced any true attack, of the type he would get from the GOP, thus I disregard any current favorability ratings.

[JudyM]

42. Hm, well ok.

you Know what they say about ASSumptions I’d prefer to base decisions on available facts. We don’t know what happened in Iowa. In the General, he’d only need to win, not to “prove” anything beyond that. He can absolutely win the G.E., as polls showed in 2016 and are showing again now.

[TexasTowelie]

63. If the polls from 2016 had any validity

then Hillary would be our current president. Those polls were a waste of pixels on the computer screen.

The way that the Electoral College is set up, it will require a four to five point lead in national polls for a Democrat to win. I recently read an article that stated Trump could lose by 5 million votes, but still win the Electoral College in 2020.

Winning the polls is meaningless when the decision about who is president is based upon who wins the most electors in the Electoral College.

[JudyM]

80. I wouldn't discount the polls that much ...

Not saying the polls are completely accurate predictors, especially general polls because of the EC as you point out, but statewide polls showing a close race don’t lead one to believe she had it in the bag.

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

84. Dead last for me.

[lapfog_1]

70. minus the peer pressure AND reduced participation. -n/t

[Tweedy]

83. Actually it was the second highest turnout on record

True, it was not 2008, highest Iowa turnout ever, and Senator Sanders drew less than 30% of the vote.

Yet, lots of Iowans caucused. Initial reports were wrong.

Right now this country will elect a potted plant to send the crooks packing.

There are more of us than there are of them. It is a numbers game.

The only way to a GOP victory is splitting us, the majority, into factions.

Pick the candidate you think has the best chance to fix this GOP mess the fastest.

If we do that the great wisdom of the American people, you know, us, will win November's elections AND

Maybe be able to stave off a vicious midterm loss.

[lapfog_1]

85. I meant that the caucus method, in general,

has less participation than an actual vote (especially one where you can mail the ballot).

A Caucus means you have to travel to some specific location at a specific time and hang out while the process completes (re-alignment, tallies, etc).

Many people cannot dedicate that sort of time.

Hence less participation.

[Tweedy]

91. Caucuses

I know what a caucus is.

You left out the part where neighbors unify behind a candidate (which does happen) and find a larger sense of community.

Perhaps I am the last caucus admirer left. Nevertheless, ranked choice voting is in our future, this one predicts 😉

[Scurrilous]

89. Turnout was higher in the midterms.

[krissey]

8. If Biden comes in behind another or only barely wins SC, that will be damaging for him.

[musicblind]

32. Ok.

But, what does that have to do with my post? Or, were you replying to someone else?

[krissey]

33. You said a win is a win. It isn't a win. It is a loss. Squeaking out would be a loss for Sanders

even if officially a win. He needed more. He didn't get more. This is his SC. That is what it has to do with your post.

[musicblind]

36. Oh. What confused me was you said Biden

and I was like, but... lol

I think I get what you're saying now.

[krissey]

37. Cool.

[HowardZinnfandel]

11. And winning literally every count would certainly be a win.

He's already practically certain to win all of the vote counts. If he wins the SDE count as well, it can't be anything but a win.

And no one has ever won both IA and NH and not won their party's nomination.

For all the gloating, it would be quite something if Sanders' Iowa performance put him in position to be the clear frontrunner.

[scheming daemons]

13. False. Bill Clinton lost both Iowa and NH in 1992 primaries.

[unc70]

17. I think you misread previous post

If Sanders eked out a win in Iowa and wins in NH, that would mean he won both, not lost both like Clinton.

[HowardZinnfandel]

38. Try again.

And no one has ever WON both IA and NH and not won their party's nomination.

Says nothing about losing both.

Since the modern early primary era in 76, you have Carter 76, Ford 76, Carter 80, Gore 00, Kerry 04, Romney* 12 (until well after NH, he was thought to be the winner of Iowa).

It's not a lot, but 6 out of 16 times that both IA and NH were contested is pretty far from none.

And most of the times that IA and NH were split, the winner of SC (or the first early southern state, in pre-early-SC days) was the winner. So there's your 1992, even though Iowa wasn't contested. The only exceptions to this are when a local favorite wins SC (Jackson, Gingrich) but doesn't finish with >10% in IA and NH.

I'll take 16 for 16 over needle nonsense or the Fivethirtyeight freeze. You have to wait a few weeks, but guess what, you have to do that anyway.

[scheming daemons]

39. Sorry, misread it.

But also... we've never had this many viable candidates in Iowa and NH before. This is uncharted territory.... it is unheard of to have 5 different candidates get at least 13% and at most 26% in a caucus or primary.


When the winner of Iowa only has 26% - whether it is Pete or Bernie - that's a pretty weak win.


Getting 26% in Iowa and 26% in NH is not a resounding win... not like the past wins.

[HowardZinnfandel]

47. If that matters, it'll be the first time.

The Dems have never had 5 make double figures in IA or NH before, but the GOP have...the last 3 times.

There were 4 Dems in double figures in both IA and NH in 04, but Kerry won both and won the nomination easily.

88 had 4 in Iowa, 92 had 4 in NH.

I don't see why 5 is a significant number that 4 isn't.

Iowa and NH only really end up mattering when the same candidate wins them both. Iowa has a better record than NH for the Dems; the opposite for GOP. But put them together, and they do pretty well when they agree. When they don't, getting 10%+ in both, and then winning SC is a high-percentage formula, assuming both IA and NH are contested (so, not 92 when the field conceded Iowa, and Clinton got well over 10% in NH and then won GA as the first southern primary).

[scheming daemons]

50. It's not so much the number.... as that the winner is less than 30%

That makes the winner ... by definition... not a strong winner.


None of those previous winners of both IA and NH got less than 30% of the vote in both.

[HowardZinnfandel]

54. Carter in 76 was.

28% in Iowa, 29% in NH.

"Uncommitted" won Iowa, but that doesn't exactly exude confidence for Carter either. If getting 30%+ people to stand in your line is what matters, Carter didn't do it.

It didn't matter. He won both and won the nomination.

If the same candidate doesn't win both, McCain in 08 won something like 12% in Iowa in 4th, then won NH and SC (helped that no one took Fred Thompson seriously, and Huckabee wasn't seen as a likely nominee even after winning IA). And there have been a few 3rd place Iowa finishers go on to win nomination.

But you pretty much have to win NH, and certainly finishing outside the top 2 is a likely ticket to campaign suspensionville.

[former9thward]

74. No.

No one "lost" the 1992 Iowa caucus because it was not contested. Their Senator, Tom Harkin, was running and no one seriously contested the state. Harkin got 77 % and uncommitted 12%.

[emmaverybo]

43. Why would it and why should it? Shall we overlook his lack of AA support?

[HowardZinnfandel]

57. Um...I thought I already said...

Because if you win IA and NH, historically, you've never failed to be a nominee.

Pretty sure Sanders got more AA votes in Iowa than Biden (he leads either 8 or 9 of the 13 most non-white counties (12% or more minority population). So we'll see how things look when the race gets to South Carolina.

If Biden continues to struggle, there's no guarantee that those votes will be there for him. They weren't there for him in Iowa.

[emmaverybo]

69. Not a gambling gal so we will see what we see.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

55. Bernie, a win?! Frontrunner status?! How is that even possible?!

Sound the alarm... Bernie's WAY too popular with working class voters looking for a Champion who will fight for THEM!! This cannot continue... Bernie must be stopped AT ALL COST!!


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join The Revolution!!

[BootinUp]

16. I can't disagree, sort of like denying math, universal laws and all that. nt

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

58. Since when does simple math come into play in attempts to deny Bernie the Democratic nomination?!

Makes no sense I agree... but little does when it comes to the way Bernie is being treated. Bernie is bringing Democratic coalitions together under the Progressive banner... I know that scares some people.who are in denial. But, when reality sets in, more and more will warm up to the idea... and, consequently, they'll warm up to Bernie!!


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join The Revolution!!

[TexasTowelie]

64. I'm not buying that.

If anything, what I see is that Bernie is unifying the opposition against him.

[krissey]

67. Very good point. I have found myself deciding that I am good with a Buttigieg win the last

couple days and I have never considered him as viable. I have always been for Klobuchar and Warren. I even considered that if Biden stumbles, Bloomberg would be there to jump in and would easily take trump. So, I agree.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

52. Of COURSE it'll be treated differently... IT'S BERNIE!! But I LOVE it...

It's a sure sign that Bernie will continue surging and winning with the people that COUNT... the working class and poor folks in this country who've been waiting for their Champion who will fight for THEM against tRumpy The Clown's Corporate Socialism and push an aggressive progressive agenda that puts the honest interests of MAIN STREET over the greedy interests of WALL STREET. That is what will GUARAN-DAMN-TEE the tRumpster Fire's ultimate defeat!!

FEEL THE BERN BABY!!!


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join The Revolution!!

[quakerboy]

61. Which win though?

As I read the current data, Bernie got more voters and Pete got more State delegates. And they are tied for National convention delegates. I admit I'm not understanding how over 40 percent can remain undetermined with 97% reporting.

But is more voters a win, or is more state delegates? Or is it a tie if they have the same number of national delegates?

[krissey]

7. Strong showing for Buttiigieg. Might as well be a loss for Sanders. He didn't get what he needed.

[ChubbyStar]

10. What did Bernie need?

I don't understand.

[scheming daemons]

14. Expectation was a resounding, comfortable victory

A virtual tie is below expectations.

Going into the caucus, he was 4-5 points ahead in most polls.


Buttigieg overperformed by 8-10 points, based on pre-caucus polls.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

22. No it wasn't. It was a dead heat with Biden. Biden flopped. Not Bernie

[Gravitycollapse]

24. That speaks more to Biden's lack of support

Biden’s lack of viability contributed to secondary support for Buttigieg. Viability will not be an issue in primaries.

Buttigieg’s support represents a system that just happened to favor his circumstance. But caucuses are not a common system.

[emmaverybo]

44. Speaks to Iowa and caucus is all it speaks to.

[Polybius]

72. He got the numbers he needed

What he didn't expect was Mayor Pete to get those same numbers. It's like this: Let's say you make $20 an hour and your co-worker makes $18. You ask for a raise to $25. You get it, but surprisingly your co-worker get's the same raise.

[democrattotheend]

88. Um, no

I don't think that was the expectation for Iowa. Not all of the polls even had him ahead.

For New Hampshire, I agree though. Given his resounding victory there in 2016 and the fact that he is leading all of the polls there now, if Bernie doesn't win New Hampshire or even if he only barely wins it, he will have underperformed expectations and he may not recover, since the map right after that is not all that friendly to him.

[radius777]

15. Sanders says he can get new people

that all of these new people are clamoring for the revolution - yet turnout was flat and basically the same as 2016... nothing like 2008 when Obama did bring out alot of new people.

Sanders is also the much better known and better funded candidate than Pete, having run last time.

Tie goes to the runner - Mayor Pete is the winner of expectations.

I'd say that Biden is clearly the loser.

[floppyboo]

23. don't know what time it is there, but the big # precincts haven't reported, and they all lean Bernie

So, it can only add to his already popular vote victory. We'll see how it works out delegate wise soon enough.
Also - ranked choice: Yes!
I voted ranked choice for the leader of my party a few years ago. Didn't get my #1 choice, but happy that my second won - well, satisfied. More that most can wish for these days it seems!

[radius777]

25. Nate Cohn predicts Pete will win:

Nate Cohn, in New York 5:22 PM ET
Pete Buttigieg is on track to win the Iowa caucuses, according to our estimates, which give him a better than 95 percent probability.

It's going to be close regardless, basically a tie, which helps a rising star like Pete more than Sanders who is already well known.

In the 2016 Iowa Caucuses - Sanders (who was fairly unknown then) was aided by a virtual tie with Hillary (who narrowly won).

edit: I see he retracted his prediction based on the satellite returns. Anyway, it's still going to be close between 1 and 2, basically a tie, which benefits the newcomer.

[Tiggeroshii]

26. That was before the needle was revealed to be broken.

[floppyboo]

30. Tie for delegates, but Pete can't catch up to Bernie on popular vote, so #1 Berning!

[melman]

31. He posted that 8 hours ago

A whole lot has happened since then.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[radius777]

34. Yeah I saw that - edited my post to reflect that. /nt

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

62. I respect your opinion but respectfully disagree...cept for your last line. But Mayor Pete did great

Congrats to him and his supporters!!




Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join The Revolution!!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

53. It's Bernie, so no opportunity to bash him will be missed...what's else is there to understand?!

Instead of just congratulating the guy on a job well done... no, we can't have THAT!! So, allow me to do the honors... CONGRATS BERNIE!! JOB WELL DONE!!




Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join The Revolution!!

[ChubbyStar]

65. Motherfucking A

I just wanted the poster to explain to me why he didn't get what he needed. He got what he needed, he won.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

68. They can't even concede THAT!! Hahaha!! But that's just another GOOD thing to CELEBRATE!!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join The Revolution!!

[ChubbyStar]

81. Now it is all Russian money and GOP slop donations that fueled Bernie

It is like a poorly written and badly acted play. I am laughing my ass off, come on people, get your shit together and wake up your brain. People are fed up and they see the truth more clearly than the fucking talking heads, being paid way above their grade. They are lying for good reason, they were hired to do just that. Fuck them.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

82. As they say in french: "Tu me fais rire... mais c'est vrai!! "

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join The Revolution!!

[LanternWaste]

77. The martyrdom routine gets old fast. His anemic campaign snapped defeat from the jaws of victory.

Bernie was projected to walk away from IA with a commanding victory. He didn't. He dropped the ball.

Unless your standards of victory are below basement level, it was not in fact, a job well done. His anemic campaign snapped defeat from the jaws of victory.

[melman]

19. They suspended the needle

Link to tweet

[BootinUp]

29. And I lost my damn decoder ring just now too. nt

[JudyM]

41. Are they testing reliability of the needle or is there more to it that that?

[HowardZinnfandel]

45. There's a lot more to it than that. They left out the satellite caucuses.

[JudyM]

46. So they're basically saying it's too close to call because the data hasn't been accounted for in

their model?

This is almost unbelievable mismanagement.

Although if trumpers were jamming the phone lines we need to give them a bit of a break on the delay.
If there were no delay they would’ve reported without the satellites though? I mean WTH?!

[HowardZinnfandel]

48. Good question

Addressable to Nate Cohn of the New York Times, if he still works there tomorrow.

[JudyM]

56. Eek, what a career downer.

Betting his oversight was inextricably caused by the chaotically poor process management within Iowa’s party leadership, though. Pity if he wasn’t made aware of the new sat locations/demographics.

On a brighter note, welcome to DU, HowardZ!

[HowardZinnfandel]

59. I don't think he'll be fired

But nothing surprises me anymore, except the time I got laid off haha.

[JudyM]

79. Whoever was managing the election in Iowa, that's a different story.

Not getting the reporting system in place until the week of? This app contract was done at the last minute or else there was no oversight of its progress...? That’s gross mismanagement, IMO.

[tirebiter]

51. One person one vote is democratic

One person three votes not so much

[phleshdef]

66. Buttigieg and Sanders both won Iowa's piece of shit caucus.

Thats the truth of it all. The very nature of a caucus excludes a ton of voters. Its utter shit. But it is what it is and Bernie and Pete are going to likely take the same amount of delegates or at least nearly the same... not that Iowa has many to offer. Its time to stop giving a shit about Iowa.

[mysteryowl]

71. True. Iowa should be AFTER Super Tuesday

They also need to have rank choice primaries.

[Fresh_Start]

75. in fairness, Pete's only been running 10 months, bernie has 4 year headstart nt

nt

[Iliyah]

76. Judging from the polls, they were wrong at least for

Mayor Pete.

I'm quite happy that Mayor Pete will come out of this a winner! Quite happy with VP Biden as well.

[Laelth]

78. Yep. It was a tie, and it decided only 41 out of some 4,000 delegates.

We learned very little from Iowa this year, and that's O.K. 49 states have yet to chime in.

-Laelth

[democrattotheend]

87. Wow. Two cycles in a row

That the results are this insanely close. Never say your vote doesn't matter!