Sanders wins Iowa

[_DoubtingThomas]

With 92% of the Iowa Caucus vote in, Buttigieg is leading with Sanders in 2nd place.

I really was not expecting it, but Sanders is still leading the popular vote in Iowa. Buttigieg is leading by less than one percentage point.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I can't tell you just how delightful it is that Ajax1488 doesn't support National Socialism.

- Doc

[_Xenophon]

I just noticed that was the OP, from before the caucusing had started. It begs the question where DT got his information and what led him to post it? It really doesn't make sense.

I thought Sanders was going to have a big win in Iowa if you look at the scientific polls. I simply wanted to post the future.

Can you point out these scientific polls that suggested Sanders would win by more than 10%? And if you didn't make that prediction on polling data alone, I'd ask why you got so up-in-arms earlier about networks doing horse race coverage of the election.

[_moksha]

I can't tell you just how delightful it is that Ajax1488 doesn't support National Socialism.

- Doc

He is merely ruffled at the word socialism, not the concept of National Socialism. Give him a break and call it the White People Power party that goosesteps and put a smile on his face.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I can't tell you just how delightful it is that Ajax1488 doesn't support National Socialism.

- Doc

He is merely ruffled at the word socialism, not the concept of National Socialism. Give him a break and call it the White People Power party that goosesteps and put a smile on his face.

Can't a clever little joke just be? The effect is better.

- Doc

[_Maksutov]

I can't tell you just how delightful it is that Ajax1488 doesn't support National Socialism.

- Doc

RaHoWa, baby.

[_honorentheos]

While the vote counting was a bit of a debacle, there is valuable insights in having access to the first and second round vote totals coming out of Iowa. For example, compare the first round numbers and second round numbers below:

NAME...….1st Round...2nd Round...Net Change
Sanders.....43,671......45,826...…..2,155
Buttigieg....37,557......43,195...….5,638
Warren...….32,533...….34,771......2,214
Biden...…...26,384...….23,691.....-2,693
Klobuchar...22,469......21,181.....-1,288
Yang..………….8,821...…..1,780.....-7,041

[Guest]

Can you point out these scientific polls that suggested Sanders would win by more than 10%? And if you didn't make that prediction on polling data alone

Emerson (margin of error of +/- 3.3%), DFP/Civiqs, and the NY Times had Sanders winning by 7 percentage points and in 2016 Sanders did better than expected in the caucuses, with the exception of Nevada I think.

But I admit it was a mistake to predict a victory of 10%+ points.

[_DoubtingThomas]

I'd ask why you got so up-in-arms earlier about networks doing horse race coverage of the election.

The media easily creates bandwagon effect and declaring someone the front runner without having scientific polls to back it up is not appropriate.

[_EAllusion]

Caucuses were good for Sanders in 2016, but I don't recall him massively outperforming the polling in them.

Incidentally, the reason Iowa ran a dumpster fire election is because Sanders' supporters thought caucuses would be good for him again in 2020 and tried to prevent the Iowa Democratic party from going away form the caucus model. The result was a compromise system that was probably the most ridiculous, byzantine way I've ever seen an election run.