And in horse racing news, the 538 polling average now shows what everyone was thinking as Sanders takes the lead. Bloomberg now effectively tied with Warren for third but with obviously different trajectories.
I wonder if Harris regrets getting out when she did. I mean Klobuchar shows that even if you look meh in December, it can turn around in a hurry.
Howard Dean? He won Iowa, said “Yeehaw!” and became a laughing stock and was never heard from again.
After two contests, the delegate count could be described as:
Progressive Lane: 29
Moderate Lane: 29
Which makes no one look particularly “inevitable”.
Well, he didn’t technically “win” in Iowa.
I do NOT understand the 538 prediction model at all. It has Bernie down seven points from yesterday? Nate says it’s a combination of the slight underperformance yesterday and bad polls that came in while the model was frozen…but three of the four national polls added since yesterday show him leading! Maybe it’s because the field is so spread out…the highest rated of those polls shows him leading the race by ten points, but with 26% of the vote! OTOH, the field was spread out yesterday, too (the model doesn’t take Klobuchar seriously). Go figure.
Right now, ISTM that the 538 model believes something like “Bernie is leading and likely to get the most delegates, but it is questionable if he can get beyond about 30-40% support during most primaries, and thus may not do better than a plurality of delegates”.
It’s still early, but I trust that this model is a reasonable estimate of the state of the race right now – Bernie is the front runner and is in the best position by far, but he’s still got a long way to go and a lot of things can change.
I’m sure it’s because of the spread out support. If you look at the chart, it sure looks like he lost all 7% to “no one” winning outright.
I agree that that’s a reasonable assessment of the race, and that last night’s result doesn’t materially change it. I’m just surprised that winning NH didn’t make Sanders’ numbers go slightly up instead of slightly down.
Yep. I think I got it…the model assumes candidates get a lot of momentum from winning early States, so in worlds where Sanders won NH by a landslide, he became quite likely to win the nomination. Now that all those scenarios are off the table, the average outcome is less rosy.
I think it was because it was so close. Sanders underperformed there (or Buttigieg and Klobuchar overperformed).
For a bit of levity…On the 538 podcast someone mentioned that those newly interested in Pete and his campaign are “booty curious.” 
No one, not even he, thought he’d win in Iowa or NH. If he fails in SD, then it’s a “collapse”.
A contested convention seems to be a real possibility.
I hope one of you starts a thread on that general topic. Questions abound: How many types of delegate are there? What are relevant procedures? How are negotiations likely to play out? Does the candidate with largest plurality “deserve” the majority vote?
Does this picture illustrate what the DNC will do with Bernie Sanders?
To those who dont want to click, its a picture of Sanders as Charlie Brown and Lucy as the DNC giving the impression the DNC will do what Lucy always did to Charlie Brown and pull the football away.
Well remember that in 2016 he got 60% of the vote (Clinton with 38%) compared to only 26% of the vote this time.
Yes it’s a collapse: people expected Biden to come in 2nd or 3rd–not 4th in Iowa and 5th in New Hampshire.
The DNC can do little to effect the elections. It did almost nothing in 2016, and it had no effect.
But keep this "We wuz robbed!"
Oh noes!, he came in 4th instead or 3rd!!! whatever shall we do!!! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
If he doesnt win SD, then we have a collapse. Iowa is now meaningless.
South Dakota is a bit of a road apple too, fyi.