• There is a problem with the forum sending notifications via emails. icerat has been informed. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Democratic caucuses and primaries

d4m10n

Penultimate Amazing
d4m10n
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
14,203
Location
Mounts Farm
The voting for Democratic nominee officially kicks off tonight in Iowa, and I'd like to have a thread in which we try to game out how it all shakes out on one side of the aisle, preferably in quantifiable terms.

Personally I think Bernie is going to finish very strong tonight, probably taking the plurality of the initial vote and perhaps state delegate equivalents awarded as well. I'll be surprised if Biden isn't right behind him. I'd love to be surprised by an Elizabeth Warren surge or a fabled Amy KlobuCHARGE, but that's not in the cards. :(
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
The voting for Democratic nominee officially kicks off tonight in Iowa, and I'd like to have a thread in which we try to game out how it all shakes out on one side of the aisle, preferably in quantifiable terms.

Personally I think Bernie is going to finish very strong tonight, probably taking the plurality of the initial vote and perhaps state delegate equivalents awarded as well. I'll be surprised if Biden isn't right behind him. I'd love to be surprised by an Elizabeth Warren surge or a fabled Amy KlobuCHARGE, but that's not in the cards. :(
Click to expand...

Reading up on the format they use in Iowa, I think Biden will end up taking the plurality, or a very close second to Bernie. The way it works in Iowa, if any candidate doesn't get to 15% in that caucus then they are free to move to another candidate. I think Bloomberg, and Buttigieg won't get there, and most of their "voters?" will move to Biden.
 
I don't know how representative Johnston is, but the NYT reporter there is reporting the results.

Reid Epstein, reporting from Johnston Just now

First alignment results from Johnston: Sanders 76, Klobuchar 75, Buttigieg 70, Warren 59. Not viable: Biden 37, Yang 33, Steyer 4, Gabbard 4.
Click to expand...

"Not viable" candidates means below 15%. Now the "viable" candidates will try to convince their supporters to come join their group.

The big news here is Biden didn't break 15%. We'll see if that holds true for other precincts. Also Klobuchar seems to be doing surprisingly strongly. Only 1 vote behind the leader, Sanders.
 
Updates from NYT reporters:
Reid Epstein, reporting from Johnston 4m ago

Final results from Johnston 2: Klobuchar 106, Sanders 83, Buttigieg 81, Warren 69. Warren picked up most Biden supporters after he was not viable.
Click to expand...
Lisa Lerer, in New York 2m ago

Johnston 2 is a nice win for Klobuchar. Her staff has said she would be viable in some places. Winning an Obama-to-Trump area is a feather in her cap.
Click to expand...
 
Puppycow said:
I don't know how representative Johnston is, but the NYT reporter there is reporting the results.



"Not viable" candidates means below 15%. Now the "viable" candidates will try to convince their supporters to come join their group.

The big news here is Biden didn't break 15%. We'll see if that holds true for other precincts. Also Klobuchar seems to be doing surprisingly strongly. Only 1 vote behind the leader, Sanders.
Click to expand...

Klobuchar has an actual history of outperforming fundamentals. That is not surprising.
 
Taking a long time for results to come in.

Current running count according to NYT:

Buttigieg: 1,125
Sanders: 922
Biden: 693
Warren: 676
Klobuchar: 579
 
It was interesting seeing some of the responses of former Yang voters in that hilarious MSNBC coverage "hey guys you aren't viable!" :D.

I believe one was going to Klobuchar, another to Steyer I think and three of them to Sanders.
 
Actual results in so far (from some precincts & not others) have Bernie ahead slightly with Mayor Pete close behind. Exit polls (a better predictor of what's happening over the whole state instead of just the quickest places to officially report) show Bernie ahead by double digits and Mayor Pete not even in second.

What they agree on is that Gropey McAbsentminded is going down hard.
 
Vote totals don't seem to be changing.

I'm watching NBC News on YouTube right now:



Apparently they had an app that isn't working.
 
The delay is making people anxious. I hope there was a massive screw up which leads to the end of this stupid system.
 
Delvo said:
Actual results in so far (from some precincts & not others) have Bernie ahead slightly with Mayor Pete close behind. Exit polls (a better predictor of what's happening over the whole state instead of just the quickest places to officially report) show Bernie ahead by double digits and Mayor Pete not even in second.

What they agree on is that Gropey McAbsentminded is going down hard.
Click to expand...


Boy you areall are anxious for Trump to get in again, aren't you?
 
Delvo said:
What they agree on is that Gropey McAbsentminded is going down hard.
Click to expand...

That does appear to be correct. :D

I'm actually relieved that Biden is finally deflating.

NBC News is talking about Biden underperforming expectations now.

The technical difficulties that are slowing down the results are getting annoying. My lunchtime is almost over.
 
Puppycow said:
That does appear to be correct. :D

I'm actually relieved that Biden is finally deflating.

NBC News is talking about Biden underperforming expectations now.

The technical difficulties that are slowing down the results are getting annoying. My lunchtime is almost over.
Click to expand...


And I hope this might kill the stupid caucus system.....
 
And there goes Mayor Pete on his way down just like the entry/exit polls looked, putting Betty in second behind Bernie. Those two now have more than half of all votes.
 
The numbers have finally started to change again.

Sanders jumps into the lead, and Warren vaults into 2nd. Biden falls to 5th.


Sanders: 1,811
Warren: 1,636
Buttigieg: 1,553
Klobuchar: 773
Biden: 722
 
I really have to wonder how Biden could be doing so badly.

I personally didn't understand how he was so obviously "electable" except that he was Obama's VP, but even then, how is it he is so far off the pace?

Is it something to do with the Iowa demographic?
 
angrysoba said:
I really have to wonder how Biden could be doing so badly.

I personally didn't understand how he was so obviously "electable" except that he was Obama's VP, but even then, how is it he is so far off the pace?

Is it something to do with the Iowa demographic?
Click to expand...

He was polling well, but polls don't necessarily capture how likely people are to actually show up at the caucuses, or how committed they are to their choice. I honestly think Biden was the first choice for "low-information" voters because they recognized his name. He had the highest name recognition going into it as the former VP.
 
God, who sold that software to the Iowa Democratic party? Has Professor Harold Hill given up band instruments and gone into computer software?
 
Yeah, I would bet that either Iowa goes to a primary system, or they lose their opening spot in elections from now on.
 
Puppycow said:
He was polling well, but polls don't necessarily capture how likely people are to actually show up at the caucuses, or how committed they are to their choice. I honestly think Biden was the first choice for "low-information" voters because they recognized his name. He had the highest name recognition going into it as the former VP.
Click to expand...

This could be a case of the enthusiasm gap.

Trump had enthusiastic supporters. According to dudalb, Bernie Bros are the equivalent of Trump supporters, meaning Sanders should do well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom