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.
Oof. I’m having deja vu to John Podesta on the night of the 2016 election.
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.
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.
?
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.
Does anyone outside the top 5 have any reason to stay in the race at this point?
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.
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.
Oy. CNN saying we shouldn’t expect any more results until tomorrow.
True.
And that’s what I see in the graphic on the right, here.
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.
NYT giving Pete a 74% chance of leading in SDEs once all the votes are counted.
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.
That’ll earn you a warning.
And a banishment from this thread for a week.
Don’t do it again.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Show your work. That is not consistent with Thing Fish’s post #225.