Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 02-04-2020, 05:53 PM
Wesley Clark is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Huh? 538 reports

Sanders 26
Pete 25
Warren 21
Biden 13
Klobuchar 12.

Because rural districts are slightly overrepresented, Buttigieg will actually come away with a small lead in delegates won. And this is with 62% of the vote counted and no clue as to how representative that 62% might be.
Sanders reported internal polling that pretty much matched this.

Sanders - 29
Pete - 25
Warren - 21
Biden - 13
Klobuchar - 11

Sanders internal polling over-represents himself, which I guess is expected from internal polling, but everyone else is almost exactly the same (Klobuchar is off by 1).
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 02-04-2020 at 05:53 PM.
  #202  
Old 02-04-2020, 05:53 PM
ITR champion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I don't want to be hyperbolic and say that the Democrats are doomed, but if the Dems were playing in a Super Bowl, it would remind me of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgfkFcVG8zc
Here's what centrist, corporate Democrats are thinking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G12kp2bslqk
  #203  
Old 02-04-2020, 06:03 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corry El View Post
Yeah not only has switching parties worked for somebody, but the very guy it's being brought up in reference to. I'm sure it figures into Bloomberg's own calculations, that it worked for *him*.

But that doesn't mean Bloomberg is right. Mayor of even a big city is a relatively non-partisan job, 'there's no Democrat or Republican way to pick up the garbage' is attributed to Bloomberg's distant predecessor as GOP mayor of NY, LaGuardia. OTOH presidential primaries are probably the most ideologically oriented election contests there are. Practicalities and personalities still enter in obviously, but the party is also in part determining it's ideological 'soul' in the platform of the person it's also naming party leader.

I don't see any likely point where Bloomberg would become 'unstoppable' to get the Democratic nomination. He's just too been too different ideologically from where the party is now, as in typical primary voters, even if he's genuinely moved left on a number of issues over the years. Nor like older actual Democratic politicians who supported stuff which Democrats generally did, but are now anathema to many primary voters, can he say at least 'I was with you'.
I think there is a fear factor.

If the majority of Democrats simply want to beat Trump even if ideologically the candidate most likely is not as pure as you want, I think they'll swallow some pride. Most Democrats identify as 'moderate' anyway.

That candidate for the last year has been Biden. He is struggling with cash however and has banked himself on South Carolina launching him off the pad to clean up on Super Tuesday. The Southern states still have Biden well clear in the polls.

If Biden gets hit in the early states that's where Bloomberg can emerge. He like Biden needs no help on name recognition. But unlike Biden, money is no object for him. He is viable in swing states, can bring on some republicans and the independents. Whereas there is a risk that a Sanders nomination is an experiment the Trump campaign and GOP down ballot candidates want --- so they can fearmonger about socialism.

Here's the deal - I think Biden has been weakened as a general election candidate with the Ukraine innuendo. But I still think if he's the nominee Dems at least keep the House, maybe expand it. Because down ballot candidates can align on his platform. Sanders I think loses us the control of the House because it were moderate Dems who won red districts in 2018 to gain control. Sanders agenda will require them to publicly bind in with him and down ballot Republicans have an opportunity to turn those districts red again.
  #204  
Old 02-04-2020, 06:09 PM
kopek's Avatar
kopek is offline
born to be shunned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southwestern PA
Posts: 16,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
The Iowa Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) are two separate organizations.
Who probably don't even know the other exists; sure. Just like I'm willing to blame Trump for what his minions pull .............
  #205  
Old 02-04-2020, 06:17 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
I think there is a fear factor.

If the majority of Democrats simply want to beat Trump even if ideologically the candidate most likely is not as pure as you want, I think they'll swallow some pride. Most Democrats identify as 'moderate' anyway.

That candidate for the last year has been Biden. He is struggling with cash however and has banked himself on South Carolina launching him off the pad to clean up on Super Tuesday. The Southern states still have Biden well clear in the polls.

If Biden gets hit in the early states that's where Bloomberg can emerge. He like Biden needs no help on name recognition. But unlike Biden, money is no object for him. He is viable in swing states, can bring on some republicans and the independents. Whereas there is a risk that a Sanders nomination is an experiment the Trump campaign and GOP down ballot candidates want --- so they can fearmonger about socialism.

Here's the deal - I think Biden has been weakened as a general election candidate with the Ukraine innuendo. But I still think if he's the nominee Dems at least keep the House, maybe expand it. Because down ballot candidates can align on his platform. Sanders I think loses us the control of the House because it were moderate Dems who won red districts in 2018 to gain control. Sanders agenda will require them to publicly bind in with him and down ballot Republicans have an opportunity to turn those districts red again.
In my estimation, Biden's campaign may already be mortally wounded -- I'll wait until the final results of Iowa come in before being more assertive in making that kind of proclamation, but it's grim right now if you're a moderate democrat.

If I were a major moderate Democratic benefactor - hell, if I'm a Republican who wants the country to wake up from this Trump nightmare and shudder at the thought of Bernie Sanders vs Mitch McConnell and endless, pointless fights over the fiscal cliff and sequestered funding - I would be seriously considering picking up the phone and telling Joe Biden that "It's over: we're not going to encourage you to keep running. Drop out, wait for a month or two, and get behind Michael Bloomberg."
  #206  
Old 02-04-2020, 06:18 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITR champion View Post
All the news sources that I've looked at are putting Buttigieg's delegate win front and center, while burying Bernie's popular vote wins. I have little doubt that we'll be hearing complaints about this from the Bernie crowd soon, and loudly, and often.
It's not really a popular vote win though. It's like comparing a poll of people from before they made up their mind to a poll of those same people after. Of course, more weight should be given to the latter.
  #207  
Old 02-04-2020, 06:19 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by kopek View Post
Who probably don't even know the other exists; sure.
No. They definitely know each other.

It would be silly to think otherwise.
  #208  
Old 02-04-2020, 06:23 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITR champion View Post
All the news sources that I've looked at are putting Buttigieg's delegate win front and center, while burying Bernie's popular vote wins. I have little doubt that we'll be hearing complaints about this from the Bernie crowd soon, and loudly, and often.
Why? It's a caucus, not a primary. Dems need to understand the rules, play by them and quit bitching about them.
  #209  
Old 02-04-2020, 06:24 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Why?
Because that's how they roll.
  #210  
Old 02-04-2020, 06:25 PM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 10,079
A NY Times article summed it up well: “Finally, for Iowa’s non- competitor, the other mayor in the race, the whole night went beautifully: a wounded Biden and a Buttigieg deprived of the full benefits of victory is pretty much all that Bloomberg could have hoped for in his apparent plan to be the last non-Sanders option standing when Super Tuesday rolls around in March.“
  #211  
Old 02-04-2020, 06:33 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by kopek View Post
Who probably don't even know the other exists; sure. Just like I'm willing to blame Trump for what his minions pull .............
Fuck your factually incorrect conspiracy theories in the ass.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
  #212  
Old 02-04-2020, 06:35 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Because that's how they roll.
But that argument of "but I won X (underlying statistic) of the vote" should always be shut down by the media or anyone else who is being fair. Nobody humors a losing football team because they got more total yards or threw for more touchdowns or was better on defense therefore they should have won the game.

Everyone knew going in the game was about points like they knew going in that Iowa was a caucus system about delegate allocation.

It's whiny loser bullshit and the media should not entertain it and people should call out those candidates who whine about it.
  #213  
Old 02-04-2020, 06:36 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
In my estimation, Biden's campaign may already be mortally wounded -- I'll wait until the final results of Iowa come in before being more assertive in making that kind of proclamation, but it's grim right now if you're a moderate democrat.

If I were a major moderate Democratic benefactor - hell, if I'm a Republican who wants the country to wake up from this Trump nightmare and shudder at the thought of Bernie Sanders vs Mitch McConnell and endless, pointless fights over the fiscal cliff and sequestered funding - I would be seriously considering picking up the phone and telling Joe Biden that "It's over: we're not going to encourage you to keep running. Drop out, wait for a month or two, and get behind Michael Bloomberg."
I'd hold onto putting all the eggs in the Bloomberg basket until after Nevada. New Hampshire is coming up --- Sanders won that by over 20 points against Hillary. It is also Warren's neighbouring state. You expect them to do well, although a split vote could reduce the margin of win from 2016. Nevada is where a more diverse electorate votes and that's what Biden has been relying on. If he loses Nevada, 0-3 going into his South Carolina firewall is pretty much game over to me.

That said based on the 62% results in Iowa, Warren isn't doing so well given she has paid much more attention to that state than Biden. Closer to him in 4th than Sanders in 2nd.
  #214  
Old 02-04-2020, 06:38 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
But that argument of "but I won X (underlying statistic) of the vote" should always be shut down by the media or anyone else who is being fair. Nobody humors a losing football team because they got more total yards or threw for more touchdowns or was better on defense therefore they should have won the game.

Everyone knew going in the game was about points like they knew going in that Iowa was a caucus system about delegate allocation.

It's whiny loser bullshit and the media should not entertain it and people should call out those candidates who whine about it.
Yep.
  #215  
Old 02-04-2020, 06:38 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Yeah, okay, but I'm saying that if you vote in New Hampshire, and if you are the type of person who would take note of a big story out of Iowa, you will be the same type to look up the results today. I don't mean to totally discount the value of a big news story the night of, but their is still plenty of time for the pundits to have at the results.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ation-process/

Nate Silver agrees with me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate
There’s very little importance in a mathematical sense to who wins 41 delegates. Iowa is all about the media narrative it produces and all about momentum, and that momentum, whoever wins, is likely to have been blunted.

Last edited by UltraVires; 02-04-2020 at 06:40 PM.
  #216  
Old 02-04-2020, 06:39 PM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 10,079
Agreed (with Boycott). I think, overall, it’s Warren who had the worst night (accounting for expectations and those likely to do well in most upcoming states).

Last edited by JKellyMap; 02-04-2020 at 06:41 PM.
  #217  
Old 02-04-2020, 06:42 PM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 15,685
Full disclosure. I’m a Pete supporter.

Should Pete end up winning because of realignment then that’s the result of a political strategy. Bernie has chosen a strategy of full speed ahead, no compromise, my way or the highway, boo Hillary Clinton, it’s ok to call Elizabeth Warren a snake and full scorched earth. It’s pretty easy to see why not too many people for the non viable candidates wouldn’t go over to him.

Pete chose a strategy to call the other candidates his competitors not his opponents. While obviously it might be different among the activists, most IA voters probably don’t go to bed with a passionate hatred of Pete Buttigieg.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #218  
Old 02-04-2020, 06:44 PM
Wesley Clark is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
Full disclosure. I’m a Pete supporter.

Should Pete end up winning because of realignment then that’s the result of a political strategy. Bernie has chosen a strategy of full speed ahead, no compromise, my way or the highway, boo Hillary Clinton, it’s ok to call Elizabeth Warren a snake and full scorched earth. It’s pretty easy to see why not too many people for the non viable candidates wouldn’t go over to him.

Pete chose a strategy to call the other candidates his competitors not his opponents. While obviously it might be different among the activists, most IA voters probably don’t go to bed with a passionate hatred of Pete Buttigieg.
You're really projecting heavily when you accuse others of engaging in a scorched earth policy against candidates and voters they don't like.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 02-04-2020 at 06:45 PM.
  #219  
Old 02-04-2020, 06:47 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITR champion View Post
All the news sources that I've looked at are putting Buttigieg's delegate win front and center, while burying Bernie's popular vote wins. I have little doubt that we'll be hearing complaints about this from the Bernie crowd soon, and loudly, and often.
Right. Because it's utterly unprecedented for Democrats to complain about situations where they win the popular vote but somehow lose the election.

Granted, SDC equivalents are the metric by which the Iowa caucus has been traditionally judged, and the popular vote totals weren't even made available until this cycle. So it's not unreasonable for both candidates to claim "victory" here. Of course, Buttigieg's "victory" was more unexpected and therefore more newsworthy.

In terms of the actual meaningful outcome measure, pledged delegates to the national convention, a race this close is practically a tie; Pete might end up with one more delegate than Bernie, or it might be a tie.
  #220  
Old 02-04-2020, 06:53 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
It's not really a popular vote win though. It's like comparing a poll of people from before they made up their mind to a poll of those same people after. Of course, more weight should be given to the latter.
Hm? Not really. It's more like comparing a poll showing how many voters supported each candidate to the results of running those numbers through an algorithm which arbitratrily weights the opinion of some voters more heavily than others. Obviously, more weight should be given to the former, at least if your goal is to predict how things will shake out in other elections where no such algorithm will be in place.

But again, it's silly for either candidate to claim an unambiguous victory here (I'm sure they'll both do it, but it's still silly). For all practical purposes, assuming the current numbers hold up, this should be considered a tie.
  #221  
Old 02-04-2020, 06:54 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,578
Sometimes it's about performance relative to expectations.

Pete overperformed by a lot.
Liz overperformed by a little.
Bernie underperformed by a little.
Joe underperformed by lot.

That's how I rank things in Iowa.

Amy also overperformed by a fair bit, but she doesn't really have a shot.

Also progressives 44, moderates 56.
  #222  
Old 02-04-2020, 06:55 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 3,154
Oof. I'm having deja vu to John Podesta on the night of the 2016 election.
  #223  
Old 02-04-2020, 06:58 PM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,840
Here are the numbers from the 62% (1099 precincts) count:

First Round Voting
Sanders, 27,088 (24.53%)
Buttigieg, 23,666 (21.43%)
Warren, 20,848 (18.88%)
Biden, 16,179 (14.65%)
Klobuchar, 14,032 (12.7%)
Yang, 5760 (5.22%)
Steyer, 1879 (1.7%)
Uncommitted, 626 (0.57%)
Bloomberg, 112 (0.1%)
Other, 103 (0.09%)
Bennet, 96 (0.09%)
Patrick, 46 (0.04%)
Gabbard, 12 (0.01%)

Final Round Voting
Sanders, 28,220 (26.25%)
Buttigieg, 27,030 (25.15%)
Warren, 22,254 (20.7%)
Biden, 14,176 (13.19%)
Klobuchar, 13,357 (12.43%)
Yang, 1124 (1.05%)
Uncommitted, 955 (0.89%)
Steyer, 222 (0.21%)
Other, 139 (0.13%)
Gabbard, 12 (0.01%)
Bloomberg, 6 (0.01%)
Bennet, 1 (0%)

State Delegate Equivalents
Buttigieg, 362.6366 (26.92%)
Sanders, 337.8865 (25.08%)
Warren, 246.1801 (18.27%)
Biden, 210.3439 (15.61%)
Klobuchar, 169.6938 (12.6%)
Yang, 14.2728 (1.06%)
Steyer, 3.761 (0.28%)
Uncommitted, 2.0774 (0.15%)
Other, 0.2798 (0.02%)
Bloomberg, 0.1333 (0.01%)

Of course, none of these really matter - it's how many Democratic National Convention delegates you get - but I'm waiting until it's closer to 100% before I work out those.

Last edited by That Don Guy; 02-04-2020 at 06:58 PM.
  #224  
Old 02-04-2020, 07:01 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by That Don Guy View Post
Of course, none of these really matter - it's how many Democratic National Convention delegates you get - but I'm waiting until it's closer to 100% before I work out those.
You'll be waiting until June 13. That's when the state convention is held and the number of National Convention delegates is determined. Reason 73 on the list of annoying things about the Iowa Caucuses.
  #225  
Old 02-04-2020, 07:02 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Sometimes it's about performance relative to expectations.

Pete overperformed by a lot.
Liz overperformed by a little.
Bernie underperformed by a little.
Joe underperformed by lot.

That's how I rank things in Iowa.

Amy also overperformed by a fair bit, but she doesn't really have a shot.

Also progressives 44, moderates 56.
?
Klobuchar + Biden + Buttigieg = 53,877, 50.1%
Sanders + Warren + Yang = 53,969, 49.9%

Or are you looking at the second alignment? The first alignment more closely approximates what we'd see in States with normal primary systems.

And relative to expectations, defined by 538 polling average:

Buttigieg +6
Warren +5
Klobuchar +3
Sanders -2
Biden -13

So really, a decent night for Pete and Liz, and a catastrophic one for Joe.
  #226  
Old 02-04-2020, 07:08 PM
Sterling Archer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,233
Does anyone outside the top 5 have any reason to stay in the race at this point?
  #227  
Old 02-04-2020, 07:14 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,854
Not sure who you're counting as the 5th, Amy or Mike (I'm just gonna go with the folksy first name basis thing). I think Amy's path is very, very narrow, but optimistically, if Biden collapses and people get scared of Pete's horrible numbers in hypothetical polls against Trump and don't really want to nominate a Republican billionaire, hey, she's the last moderate standing! It's just hard to know if Mike should be taken seriously before we see Super Tuesday results.
  #228  
Old 02-04-2020, 07:17 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Buttigieg +6
Warren +5
Klobuchar +3
Sanders -2
Biden -13
This is aligned with my ranking from a few posts ago.
  #229  
Old 02-04-2020, 07:20 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
This is aligned with my ranking from a few posts ago.
Mostly, but you said that Warren did significantly worse relative to expectations than Buttigieg did, which isn't really the case.
  #230  
Old 02-04-2020, 07:22 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,854
Oy. CNN saying we shouldn't expect any more results until tomorrow.
  #231  
Old 02-04-2020, 07:24 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Mostly, but you said that Warren did significantly worse relative to expectations than Buttigieg did, which isn't really the case.
True.

And that's what I see in the graphic on the right, here.
  #232  
Old 02-04-2020, 07:24 PM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 15,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sterling Archer View Post
Does anyone outside the top 5 have any reason to stay in the race at this point?
Yang can sell books and increase his speaking circuit fee, he’s got a cult that will donate. He will be around for a while.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #233  
Old 02-04-2020, 07:35 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,854
NYT giving Pete a 74% chance of leading in SDEs once all the votes are counted.
  #234  
Old 02-04-2020, 07:40 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
I'd hold onto putting all the eggs in the Bloomberg basket until after Nevada. New Hampshire is coming up --- Sanders won that by over 20 points against Hillary. It is also Warren's neighbouring state. You expect them to do well, although a split vote could reduce the margin of win from 2016. Nevada is where a more diverse electorate votes and that's what Biden has been relying on. If he loses Nevada, 0-3 going into his South Carolina firewall is pretty much game over to me.

That said based on the 62% results in Iowa, Warren isn't doing so well given she has paid much more attention to that state than Biden. Closer to him in 4th than Sanders in 2nd.
I don't think New Hampshire is a bellwether, and it carries so few delegates that it hardly matters in terms of the math (ditto Iowa).

What'll be interesting to see isn't so much the polling in SC, NH, and NV; I'm a lot more interested in Super Tuesday polling and what happens to Biden's numbers in those states, and if so, how any possible decline affects Bloomberg. I would have to think that if centrist voters begin to have second thoughts on Biden, then they have to be giving Bloomberg a second look, although Pete Buttigieg is bound to benefit as well considering he's actually been in the race and put together a winning campaign on the ground.

It's a shame that Buttigieg can't seem to make inroads with either Black or Latino voters because he, by all rights, should be on his way to establishing his lane as a center-left progressive option to Sanders and Warren. But I don't see his numbers changing that much in either South Carolina or Nevada.
  #235  
Old 02-04-2020, 07:48 PM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 23,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Stamos'_Left_Ear View Post
Fuck your factually incorrect conspiracy theories in the ass.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
That’ll earn you a warning.

And a banishment from this thread for a week.

Don’t do it again.

Last edited by Jonathan Chance; 02-04-2020 at 07:48 PM.
  #236  
Old 02-04-2020, 07:55 PM
Paul in Qatar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 13,165
Remarkably, this thread seems to be the best source for numbers at this point. I found Nate Silver's comments on how Iowa has screwed up the process very interesting.
__________________
800-237-5055
Shrine Hospitals for Children (North America)
Never any fee
Do you know a child in need?
  #237  
Old 02-04-2020, 07:55 PM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 10,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Mostly, but you said that Warren did significantly worse relative to expectations than Buttigieg did, which isn't really the case.
They can both be true — she did better than expectations, but not SO MUCH better as she needed to to launch her into serious contention (IMHO).
  #238  
Old 02-04-2020, 07:59 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Sometimes it's about performance relative to expectations.

Pete overperformed by a lot.
Liz overperformed by a little.
Bernie underperformed by a little.
Joe underperformed by lot.

That's how I rank things in Iowa.

Amy also overperformed by a fair bit, but she doesn't really have a shot.

Also progressives 44, moderates 56.
It's all perceptions so you're opinion is valid as any but I should note that all of them were off their 538 polling average by about 4% except Buttigieg who was 6 over.

Last edited by CarnalK; 02-04-2020 at 08:00 PM.
  #239  
Old 02-04-2020, 08:02 PM
That Don Guy's Avatar
That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
You'll be waiting until June 13. That's when the state convention is held and the number of National Convention delegates is determined. Reason 73 on the list of annoying things about the Iowa Caucuses.
That's when they choose the actual delegates, but the numbers are now determined in advance in caucus states. Iowa uses State Delegate Equivalents; I think Nevada uses the actual headcount.
  #240  
Old 02-04-2020, 08:04 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
It's all perceptions so you're opinion is valid as any but I should note that all of them were off their 538 polling average by about 4% except Buttigieg who was 6 over.
Show your work. That is not consistent with Thing Fish's post #225.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
And relative to expectations, defined by 538 polling average:

Buttigieg +6
Warren +5
Klobuchar +3
Sanders -2
Biden -13
  #241  
Old 02-04-2020, 08:07 PM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 10,079
Is that Iowa polling average, or nationwide?
  #242  
Old 02-04-2020, 08:09 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKellyMap View Post
Is that Iowa polling average, or nationwide?
I used the Iowa averages.
  #243  
Old 02-04-2020, 08:12 PM
DinoR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
And relative to expectations, defined by 538 polling average:
That is a pretty awful way to define expectations IMO. States vary from the average interests of Dem primary voters nationwide. In some states candidates are a better fit than they are for the nation as a whole. In others they are a worse fit. States, especially smaller states, are not average. We knew going in that Biden was not expected to be strong in IA or NH but is doing better in statewide polling in NV and SC.
  #244  
Old 02-04-2020, 08:12 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by That Don Guy View Post
That's when they choose the actual delegates, but the numbers are now determined in advance in caucus states. Iowa uses State Delegate Equivalents; I think Nevada uses the actual headcount.
I explained this earlier in the thread...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Here's the really crazy thing, immediate results were never even on the menu. The Iowa Caucuses are a multi-step process that won't be complete until June 13, 2020.

Last night (2/3) people in 1,678 precincts elected 11,402 county delegates to represent them at the county conventions on March 3, 2020.

At those county conventions they will select 2,107 state and district convention delegates that will go to the district conventions on April, 25 2020 and the state convention on June 6, 2020.

The district conventions will select 27 delegates to send to the Democratic National Convention, and the state convention will select 14 more.

Only at the end of this process will we know which candidate is sending the most delegates to the national convention and thus who won Iowa.

They usually also calculate a number of 'State Delegate Equivalents' for all the candidates that sums to the 2,107 state delegates that will be chosen in March. This is an estimate, and things are probably going to change significantly before then. For example, a candidate who is awarded State Delegate Equivalents today may not even be in the race at the end of March.
But you posted, "Of course, none of these really matter - it's how many Democratic National Convention delegates you get - but I'm waiting until it's closer to 100% before I work out those."

There will be a total 0f 2,701 state delegate equivalents while Iowa will send 41 delegates to the national convention. You can see how I might think you were talking Democratic National Convention delegates, because you used the exact words, "Democratic National Convention delegates."
  #245  
Old 02-04-2020, 08:15 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKellyMap View Post
They can both be true — she did better than expectations, but not SO MUCH better as she needed to to launch her into serious contention (IMHO).
Yeah, but Warren's numbers nationally are MUCH better than Buttigieg's. This win probably moves Pete slightly ahead of her in terms of chance to win, but they're both still real long shots. Until some more diverse States vote, I'm not ready to say that Pete is in "serious contention".
  #246  
Old 02-04-2020, 08:25 PM
Inigo Montoya's Avatar
Inigo Montoya is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: On the level, if inclined
Posts: 16,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by MortSahlFan View Post
Yup. If he isn't the nominee, I'll stay home and play here
oh yeah? Well if Buttigieg doesn't get it I'm still voting. For Trump because fuk da woooorld!
__________________
Y'all are just too damned serious. Lighten up.
  #247  
Old 02-04-2020, 08:28 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Yeah, but Warren's numbers nationally are MUCH better than Buttigieg's. This win probably moves Pete slightly ahead of her in terms of chance to win, but they're both still real long shots. Until some more diverse States vote, I'm not ready to say that Pete is in "serious contention".
I think no one would be more surprised than Buttigieg if he won the nomination. I think he wants to carve out a political future for himself on a political stage bigger than mayor of a small(ish) city in Indiana. And he has done that. The further he can go in the primaries the more negotiating power he will have down the road for political favors.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 02-04-2020 at 08:28 PM.
  #248  
Old 02-04-2020, 08:31 PM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 10,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Yeah, but Warren's numbers nationally are MUCH better than Buttigieg's. This win probably moves Pete slightly ahead of her in terms of chance to win, but they're both still real long shots. Until some more diverse States vote, I'm not ready to say that Pete is in "serious contention".
True. I just have a feeling Warren has a harder ceiling (in many states) than Pete, determined mainly by those for whom “electability” is all. It’s a combination of thinking misogyny played a role in Hillary’s loss, and the idea that M4A scares the voters that will matter most.

And, I agree Pete is not in serious contention at this time. But, he seems to have a (barely) plausible path TO that — one of two reasons that this Iowa caucus did matter, a little (along with energizing Bloomberg) — which I don’t see as much for Warren.

Last edited by JKellyMap; 02-04-2020 at 08:34 PM.
  #249  
Old 02-04-2020, 08:39 PM
kopek's Avatar
kopek is offline
born to be shunned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southwestern PA
Posts: 16,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sterling Archer View Post
Does anyone outside the top 5 have any reason to stay in the race at this point?
Bloomberg possibly. I don't know that he spent much in Iowa at all; right now a big load of his cash has been flowing into PA and a few other states. And he has always been somewhat "our guy" for a lot of people inside the Party even while he was technically a Republican - heck, even our mayor here in Western PA has used contact with him as a sort of personal endorsement. What I can't quite decide is if he really hopes for the nod or if he is maybe looking to show his strength as a possible Veep. He's one of those people who isn't a lock-step Democrat but still isn't quite the level of a Sanders for stirring the pot. And a tough person to guess about.
  #250  
Old 02-04-2020, 09:20 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
And relative to expectations, defined by 538 polling average:

Buttigieg +6
Warren +5
Klobuchar +3
Sanders -2
Biden -13

So really, a decent night for Pete and Liz, and a catastrophic one for Joe.
The 538 average had Joe at 20.7%, his current standing in the Iowa caucus seems 13.1%. Definitely a catastrophe to end below 15 but only a 7% drop.

Last edited by CarnalK; 02-04-2020 at 09:23 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:59 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017