# Iowa Caucus Discussion **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [February 4, 2020, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-caucus-discussion/847465 "2020-02-04T03:01:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2020, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-caucus-discussion/847465/161 "2020-02-04T20:20:59Z")
> [@Akaj](#): > > As opposed to waiting … and waiting … and waiting for Trump and the GOP to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something amazing? If you’re going for a cheapshot at least aim somewhere you have an ounce of credibility. I was talking about the web site and its totally botched rollout, and incredibly inept management of it. ---
**Author:** ![That\_Don\_Guy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/that_don_guy/32/538_2.png) [@That\_Don\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/That_Don_Guy)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2020, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-caucus-discussion/847465/162 "2020-02-04T20:24:15Z")
> [@amarinth](#): > > Washington State has used caucuses (we are moving completely to primaries this year) and that’s one of the things I like(d) about caucusing. Things weren’t set in stone; people could change their minds after talking to others in their precinct about issues. Of the only other two states using caucuses this year, Nevada is also doing it this way, and I think Wyoming is as well; it’s hard to tell with Wyoming as the system isn’t specified clearly, but it is a “ranked choice” system (everybody lists up to five candidates in preference order), so if your first choice is viable, it’s not going to change. > [@Sterling\_Archer](#): > > Heard about some other irregularities at some precincts. Some seem pretty major. > > First problem, at some caucuses the voters were instructed that if their candidate was not viable after first alignment, then they have to realign to a new candidate. They were explicitly told they could not try to join with other non-viable supporters to become viable. I know in a Marion precinct, this cost Warren a delegate for sure. Interestingly, at my precinct they encouraged the non’s to join together, but it didn’t happen. > > Second problem, it seems like lots of precincts were doing coin flips when they shouldn’t have. I’m not even sure exactly when the coin flip is triggered by rule, but it seems like it should only happen when candidates have the exact same portions of a delegate. But I’m hearing of places where the fractions majorly favored one candidate but they still flipped a coin. Dumb. Hopefully the raw voter counts are getting checked and corrected at the state office, but from what I’ve heard, that seems to be where the bad math was coming from last night. One example: one precinct had 4.8 delegates for Bernie, 3.2 for Pete. Locally, they made the logical choice: Pete 3, Bernie 5. But then they called the state central office to make sure and they were instructed to flip a coin. Pete won the coin flip so it went to 4-4. So dumb. 😕 The rules say to round to the nearest integer, and even if this causes an overcount or undercount of delegates, use the amount by which each one was rounded up/down to determine who loses/gains a delegate. A coin flip should be used only if the fractions of a delegate are the same. ---
**Author:** ![Boycott](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boycott/32/6741_2.png) [@Boycott](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boycott)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2020, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-caucus-discussion/847465/163 "2020-02-04T20:25:02Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > As I mentioned earlier, I have no stats on the “Iowa bump.” But again, it seems to me that if there is such a thing, it doesn’t depend just on whether or not on the night of the caucus, a winner is announced and he or she gets to make a big victory speech that _night_, which convinces lots of people in New Hampshire or elsewhere how to vote. Are that many people watching then? And if the winner is announced, say today, isn’t a bump still likely (assuming such a thing exists in the first place)? I don’t know the answer, but this is my thinking on the matter. The Obama Iowa bump has grown into a bit of a myth. He had already overtaken Hillary in South Carolina polls by December 2007. I guess the idea that farmland country Iowa giving its consent to a black guy with the middle name Hussein gave the narrative that it was Iowans who catapulted Obama. Reality was he was a once in a generation campaigner who excited the electorate. Before him who else got a bump winning Iowa? John Kerry perhaps. Before that … Jimmy Carter. He actually came behind Uncommitted but as the first placed among the candidates he got media attention that was not given to him before. ---
**Author:** ![Thing\_Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@Thing\_Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing_Fish)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2020, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-caucus-discussion/847465/164 "2020-02-04T20:26:45Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > I was talking about the web site and its totally botched rollout, and incredibly inept management of it. Yes, because surely, nearly ten years later, we should be judging the effects of the ACA primarily on whether the website worked well on rollout or not. ---
**Author:** ![Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/heffalump_and_roo/32/7691_2.png) [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Heffalump_and_Roo)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2020, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-caucus-discussion/847465/165 "2020-02-04T20:31:41Z")
> [@Thing\_Fish](#): > > MSNBC running Yang’s speech on tape now. “The Yang Gang has shocked the world so many times before!” > > Um…when was that again? It’s great that you had so much faith and confidence in Yang’s campaign and supporters that you expected his success. But many people, particularly those in MSM or who watched MSM, were at least surprised when Yang first made the debate stage, then when he repeatedly made the debate stage, then when he raised $10M in Q3, then when he raised $16.5M in Q4, then when he raised $6.7M in January 2020. And many people are surprised that he has outlasted a bunch of seasoned politicians and continues to keep going. I hope you continue to have the faith in Yang’s continued rise that some other people may not expect. ---
**Author:** ![dalej42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@dalej42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalej42)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2020, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-caucus-discussion/847465/166 "2020-02-04T20:32:26Z")
> [@Thing\_Fish](#): > > Yeah, the Teeming Millions won’t be paying as much attention as they otherwise would have, and that sucks for the winner. But donors and endorsers (the Teeming Millionaires?) will certainly be paying attention, so it still matters a lot. Actually, I think a lot of us small dollar donors were waiting on the results. If Pete had finished 4th and it wasn’t a 4 way tie, I’d have reservations about donating more money as that’s just not good for a campaign that threw everything into IA. I’m sure the Amy people and maybe the Warren people thought the same. ---
**Author:** ![Akaj](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/akaj/32/145_2.png) [@Akaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Akaj)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2020, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-caucus-discussion/847465/167 "2020-02-04T20:32:38Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > I was talking about the web site and its totally botched rollout, and incredibly inept management of it. Yes, I know what you were talking about, and having struggled mightily with the site back in 2014 I acknowledge it was a mess. But when you support a party and a president who promised vast improvements over that system and have delivered exactly nothing, maybe you shouldn’t throw stones. (_pun unintended_) But this is a complete tangent so I’ll drop it before it becomes a hijack. ---
**Author:** ![Sterling\_Archer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Sterling\_Archer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sterling_Archer)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2020, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-caucus-discussion/847465/168 "2020-02-04T20:39:06Z")
> [@That\_Don\_Guy](#): > > Of the only other two states using caucuses this year, Nevada is also doing it this way, and I think Wyoming is as well; it’s hard to tell with Wyoming as the system isn’t specified clearly, but it is a “ranked choice” system (everybody lists up to five candidates in preference order), so if your first choice is viable, it’s not going to change. > > 😕 The rules say to round to the nearest integer, and even if this causes an overcount or undercount of delegates, use the amount by which each one was rounded up/down to determine who loses/gains a delegate. A coin flip should be used only if the fractions of a delegate are the same. Thanks, that’s how I thought it should work. Whoever gets rounded down the most should earn the delegate. But I think lots of precinct captains are screwing this up. Coin flips should be extremely rare. ---
**Author:** ![Thing\_Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@Thing\_Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing_Fish)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2020, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-caucus-discussion/847465/169 "2020-02-04T20:42:35Z")
> [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](#): > > It’s great that you had so much faith and confidence in Yang’s campaign and supporters that you expected his success. > > But many people, particularly those in MSM or who watched MSM, were at least surprised when Yang first made the debate stage, then when he repeatedly made the debate stage, then when he raised $10M in Q3, then when he raised $16.5M in Q4, then when he raised $6.7M in January 2020. And many people are surprised that he has outlasted a bunch of seasoned politicians and continues to keep going. > > I hope you continue to have the faith in Yang’s continued rise that some other people may not expect. OK, he’s exceeded expectations, that’s certainly true. But the expectations were pretty low to start with. If you had told me that an unqualified candidate with an offbeat platform would get 4% in the national polls and prove capable of raising as much money in a quarter as Bernie Sanders raises in a week, I would have been at most mildly surprised, not “shocked”. And hearing that such a candidate stayed in the race after all the serious career politicians who were polling in the low single digits folded, I wouldn’t have been surprised at all. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2020, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-caucus-discussion/847465/170 "2020-02-04T20:46:24Z")
> [@Boycott](#): > > The Obama Iowa bump has grown into a bit of a myth. He had already overtaken Hillary in South Carolina polls by December 2007. I guess the idea that farmland country Iowa giving its consent to a black guy with the middle name Hussein gave the narrative that it was Iowans who catapulted Obama. Reality was he was a once in a generation campaigner who excited the electorate. > > Before him who else got a bump winning Iowa? John Kerry perhaps. Before that … Jimmy Carter. He actually came behind Uncommitted but as the first placed among the candidates he got media attention that was not given to him before. This kind of thing is pretty much what I suspect, that there is no (even approaching) conclusive evidence of a bump happening on a regular basis. It strikes me as one of those things pundits like to talk about to gin up an interesting narrative, because they can’t just sit around talking about percentages, although Steve Kornacki and others even tried to make that interesting last night. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2020, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-caucus-discussion/847465/171 "2020-02-04T20:48:35Z")
> [@amarinth](#): > > That is an interesting (and kind of sucky) rule. > Washington State has used caucuses (we are moving completely to primaries this year) and that’s one of the things I like(d) about caucusing. Things weren’t set in stone; people could change their minds after talking to others in their precinct about issues. 😕 You mean the Iowa caucus did NOT work that way? I thought that was the _whole point_ of caucuses, to chat with fellow Iowans about the choices. (If not, why not just a primary with ranking-order ballots and be done with it?) ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2020, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-caucus-discussion/847465/172 "2020-02-04T20:50:14Z")
> [@amarinth](#): > > Also, who cares that there aren’t immediate results? 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. ---
**Author:** ![Thing\_Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@Thing\_Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing_Fish)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2020, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-caucus-discussion/847465/173 "2020-02-04T20:51:37Z")
If Yang gets as high as 8% of the first alignment Iowa votes, I’ll be mildly shocked, as that would be significantly overachieving relative to his polling numbers. But even then, he’d be only halfway to where he needs to be to actually win delegates, and almost certainly in no better than sixth place. ---
**Author:** ![That\_Don\_Guy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/that_don_guy/32/538_2.png) [@That\_Don\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/That_Don_Guy)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2020, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-caucus-discussion/847465/174 "2020-02-04T20:52:34Z")
> [@Sterling\_Archer](#): > > Thanks, that’s how I thought it should work. Whoever gets rounded down the most should earn the delegate. But I think lots of precinct captains are screwing this up. Coin flips should be extremely rare. In the case you noted, Sanders’s 4.8 should have been rounded up to 5, and Buttigieg’s 3.2 rounded down to 3. The “farthest away” rule is only needed where three (or more) candidates are rounded up, resulting in the total being one more than allowed. For example, if there are 9 delegates available, and three candidates get 3.65, 2.75, and 2.6, they would all round up, making it 4, 3, 3, but that is one delegate too many; they were rounded up by 0.35, 0.25, and 0.4 respectively, so the last one would lose a delegate, and the final count would be 4, 3, 2. The only exception to the rule is, you can’t lose your only delegate this way, so if it would have been 3 delegates and 1.75, 0.65, and 0.6, rounded up to 2, 1, 1, the first one would lose a delegate, making it 1 each, even though that candidate rounded up the least. ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2020, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-caucus-discussion/847465/175 "2020-02-04T20:54:17Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > This does not say on which day at 4:00 p.m… Good one! Sounds like Nadler to the house minorities about the day of hearings they were allowed. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2020, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-caucus-discussion/847465/176 "2020-02-04T21:00:50Z")
Nevada also has a caucus and was planning on using the same ap. They just decided to ditch it. > **[Nevada Democrats Ditch App That Caused Chaos In Iowa Caucuses](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nevada-caucuses-shadow-app-iowa_n_5e3983f3c5b6ed0033acec80?ncid)** > > The state was set to use the same app that caused so many problems in Iowa's caucuses, but decided to change course Tuesday. ---
**Author:** ![Ann\_Hedonia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ann_hedonia/32/319_2.png) [@Ann\_Hedonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ann_Hedonia)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2020, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-caucus-discussion/847465/177 "2020-02-04T21:03:59Z")
> [@Happy\_Lendervedder](#): > > Exactly, these campaigns didn’t spend tens of millions of dollars, and dedicate tens of thousands of man hours to the state of Iowa, so the results could get buried the next evening among news stories about how shitty the Iowa caucuses are. > > As I said before, Bloomberg’s the winner here. Bloomberg is now in 2nd place to win the Democratic nomination in the prediction market Predictit- just behind Sanders and in front of Biden. ---
**Author:** ![Boycott](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boycott/32/6741_2.png) [@Boycott](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boycott)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2020, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-caucus-discussion/847465/178 "2020-02-04T21:26:54Z")
Bloomberg has a strong offense. We need to see how good his defense is. That hasn’t been tested yet since he’s been left alone to focus on Super Tuesday while everyone else has been in Iowa. It will come though. Things like Stop & Frisk and his endorsement for Bush at the GOP Convention 2004 will be brought up. If he gets through that, does well on Super Tuesday then hard to see how he gets stopped. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2020, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-caucus-discussion/847465/179 "2020-02-04T21:51:16Z")
> [@Boycott](#): > > Bloomberg has a strong offense. We need to see how good his defense is. That hasn’t been tested yet since he’s been left alone to focus on Super Tuesday while everyone else has been in Iowa. It will come though. Things like Stop & Frisk and his endorsement for Bush at the GOP Convention 2004 will be brought up. If he gets through that, does well on Super Tuesday then hard to see how he gets stopped. Just a brief, somewhat humorous note about something Chris Christie\* said on the Stephanopolous show on ABC this past Sunday about Bloomberg. He was talking about how no one would vote for somebody like him, who would just willy-nilly switch parties just to get elected. Why, who can trust somebody like that?! Of course, Christie forgot to mention that Bloomberg won the mayorship in New York City after doing just that, when he famously switched parties to run as a Republican. But I agree that the issues you raise are very valid, and that’s what Christie should have focused on. In fact, he might have done that too, can’t remember. \*A guy I actually find fairly likable, now that he’s not the governor of New Jersey, a state I had the pleasure of living in back then. ---
**Author:** ![nearwildheaven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90db22/32.png) [@nearwildheaven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nearwildheaven)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2020, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-caucus-discussion/847465/180 "2020-02-04T21:53:53Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > Good old Pete _‘I definitely didn’t work for the CIA’_ Buttigieg trying to steal the limelight with all the confusion going on and completely undermining a Sanders victory, I guess the good thing is Bidens results are looking disasterous, he isn’t a viable candidate. There’s some chatter going on that the Buttigieg campaign heavily financed the failed app. :dubious: I didn’t go to mine because I wasn’t feeling well (still aren’t) and now I’m kind of glad I didn’t attend. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-caucus-discussion/847465.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iowa-caucus-discussion/847465.md?page=10)