And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020

[André]

Well it's in red and bold, so the other 49 states can just save us all that voting business.

And MASSIVE. Don't forget MASSIVE...

[Mirror Image]

This, for your information, is the headquarters of the Iowa Democratic Party

Looks about right. Wait, is that an old lady getting mugged around the corner. Nah, it was just Elizabeth Warren. We can turn the other cheek since nobody really cares anyway.

[Ratliff]

The republicans worked with Cambridge Analytica to create a Facebook game that compiled massive amounts of demographic/political data on unwitting Facebook users. The democrats created an app to tabulate Iowa Caucus results which was apparently incapable of counting votes. Who do you think will win next year? 

[Karl Henning]

Perhaps it was the contrast in tone, temperament and intellectual wattage between Trump and Buttigieg or the blatantly ridiculous and insincere arguments advanced by Senate Republicans in defense of an abjectly unfit president. Whatever the reason, it did feel like a breath of fresh air (or "turning the channel," as Buttigieg likes to say) to listen to an intellectually rigorous and decent politician. Buttigieg gets snarky criticism from those who think he is too programmed, too cerebral. Frankly, we could do a lot worse at this point than a prepared and intellectually sophisticated president.

[71 dB]

Pete Buttigieg is interested of being the president, his political career. He is not interested of changing anything. He would be like Trump, a status quo president serving the top 1 % who donates him tons of money money, just intelligent and without mean Tweets. The problem. The lack of change gave us Trump. So, if president Buttigieg doesn't change anything, after him we get Trump 2 (Ivanka?). You don't want that, right.

Buttigieg is a conman. Smart and dangerous. You don't see this?

[JBS]

Pete Buttigieg is interested of being the president, his political career. He is not interested of changing anything. He would be like Trump, a status quo president serving the top 1 % who donates him tons of money money, just intelligent and without mean Tweets. The problem. The lack of change gave us Trump. So, if president Buttigieg doesn't change anything, after him we get Trump 2 (Ivanka?). You don't want that, right.

Buttigieg is a conman. Smart and dangerous. You don't see this?

Actually he's the mayor of South Bend.
Your idea that anyone who doesn't agree with Bernie's policies is a "con man" and is beholden to "the 1% "simply  demonstrates you know a lot less about US politics than you think you do.  You can't get yourself to admit that Bernie's plans not the only possible solutions to our problems.

[Karl Henning]

The Iowa caucuses have given us confused, uncertain and incomplete results. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) claims more raw votes; former South Bend, Ind., mayor Pete Buttigieg claims a narrow lead in state delegate equivalents. The Democratic National Committee says Iowa needs to recanvass. On top of that, both campaigns think there are inaccuracies, and there is a dispute on how satellite caucuses should be counted. Frankly, one might argue the bollixed caucus should simply void Iowa's 41 delegates.

In any event, one would think that the Iowa results — to the extent we know what they are — should have no effect on New Hampshire voters or the rest of the race. If Iowa is a wash, everyone starts again, this time in the Granite State, right? Somewhat surprisingly, however, there has been considerable movement in the New Hampshire polls since Iowa.

The WBZ-Suffolk University-Boston Globe tracking poll reported Thursday that Buttigieg has surged to 23 percent, only a point behind Sanders. On Feb. 3, Buttigieg was at 11 percent, while Sanders stood at 24 percent.

[...]

What does all this mean? Regardless of whether we know the precise outcome in Iowa, the general perception that Sanders and Buttigieg did well while Warren and Biden did not has taken hold. Part of the shift in poll numbers is attributable to the bandwagon effect that draws voters to the "winner," but it might also reflect the media coverage prompted by the Iowa caucus results, however inexact. Moreover, Buttigieg might now be seen as the viable, non-Sanders choice, supplanting Biden. If so, he will continue to rise as Biden and others deflate.

[71 dB]

The Errors

Des Moines Precinct 80 has already received heavy attention, centering on this tweet and video from that day:

Des Moines Precinct 80:

Bernie's group had 101 people
Pete's group had 66 people

Bernie & Pete end up tied at 4 delegates following a coin toss.

    This is democracy??? #IACaucus pic.twitter.com/g9q1k67Vpn
    — Jaylen (@jaylencavil) February 4, 2020

Before precinct data was published, the tweet might've been explained by some sort of miscommunication. Now that data is officially out, it confirms the numbers in the tweet: Sanders had 101 voters and Buttigieg had 66 on final alignment, but both received 4 delegates.

The full picture painted by the data is 101 votes for Sanders, 66 for Buttigieg, and 48 for Biden, plus 25 uncommitted voters, for a total of 240. Delegates were officially distributed 4-4-2 for Sanders-Buttigieg-Biden. But that should have been 5-3-2.

Why? Because after the first calculation step, Sanders had 4.21, Buttigieg had 2.75, and Biden had 2.0. These round to 4, 3, and 2, respectively, which add up to 9. The precinct had 10 delegates to give out, so it needed to give the final delegate to the candidate closest to their next delegate.

At 0.79 away from his fifth delegate, Sanders was closer than Biden, who was 1.0 away from his third delegate, and Buttigieg, who was 1.25 away from his next fourth delegate. The tenth delegate unequivocally should have gone to Sanders.

Another apparent math error is in Dubuque Precinct 36. Its published numbers show final vote counts of 46 for Buttigieg, 45 for Sanders, 30 for Biden, and 23 for Amy Klobuchar, plus 1 voter who left or remained uncommitted.

Initial calculations yield the numbers 2.22 for Buttigieg, 2.17 for Sanders, 1.45 for Biden, and 1.11 for Klobuchar. After rounding, that's 2, 2, 1, and 1, which add up to 6. The precinct had 7 delegates to give, so it had to give its last delegate to the candidate who got rounded down the farthest: Biden.

But the official report for Dubuque 36 shows it gave 3 delegates to Buttigieg and 1 to Biden. That was a mistake.

Next, let's look at Muscatine Precinct 02. We have a nice firsthand glimpse into this precinct thanks to its caucus math sheet posted online by a journalist:

From the picture, you can see the step 1 calculations yielded 3.44 for Buttigieg, 1.76 for Sanders, 1.36 for Biden, and 1.36 for Warren. These round to 3, 2, 1, and 1, which add to 7, which is 1 less than the 8 delegates the precinct had at stake.

The correct adjustment would have been to Buttigieg, since he was closest to his next delegate. But, perhaps excited at the rare prospect of a coin flip, the precinct captains that night apparently thought they needed to flip a coin between Biden and Warren, which landed in favor of Biden.

Perhaps under normal circumstances this error would have been detected and fixed. Instead, it's the end of the week, and Muscatine 02 still officially shows 3 for Buttigieg and 2 for Biden, where it should be Buttigieg with 4 and Biden with 1.

Finally, check out Guthrie Gold precinct.

This precinct had 14 delegates at stake, and its reported final votes were 13 for Biden, 13 for Buttigieg, 13 for Klobuchar, 11 for Sanders, and 10 for Warren. Those calculate to 2.94, 2.94, 2.94, 2.48, and 2.26, respectively, and round to 3, 3, 3, 2, and 2, which add up to 13. That's short of 14, so an extra delegate must be dished out.

If you're getting used to this, you can probably spot that the last delegate belonged to Sanders, who, at 2.48, had been rounded down the farthest. Apparently that was overlooked at the time, and a coin was flipped between the three candidates who had already been rounded up, ending in favor of Buttigieg.

The official results for Guthrie Gold, as of this piece's publication time, still show 4 delegates for Buttigieg and 2 for Sanders, whereas both should have 3.

How Does This Add Up?

The four mistakes we've just highlighted have helped and hurt a mix of candidates. Three of them helped Buttigieg, while one hurt him. Biden broke even with one positive and one negative, and Sanders was hurt twice.

Fixing these errors alone will thus have a net impact of raising Sanders's SDE total while lowering Buttigieg's. It will be a fraction of a delegate, but at the current margin of SDEs between them, that will be substantial.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/math/a30810883/iowa-caucuses-math-errors/

[71 dB]

Actually he's the mayor of South Bend.

How liked is Buttigieg among blacks in South Bend?

[Karl Henning]

In 1964, an optimistic theory was slain, as such theories often are, by reality. Bernie Sanders's supporters should take note. So should all who are interested in rethinking how the parties choose presidential nominees.

[Karl Henning]

Oh, mercy!

Four days before Iowa Democrats stumbled into futility, Bernie Sanders revealed to the New York Times the genesis of his socialism. Never mind the gulags, famines, Venezuelas and other wreckages, socialism is justified because the Dodgers decamped from Brooklyn to Los Angeles after the 1957 season when Sanders was 16. The Times says "perhaps no single event has proved more enduring in Mr. Sanders's consciousness — more viscerally felt in his signature fury toward the one percent." Well.

[JBS]

How liked is Buttigieg among blacks in South Bend?

In November, blacks will vote Buttigieg if he is the nominee, and GOP leaning people who are not dyed in the wool rightwingers will either vote for Buttigieg or stay home and not vote for Trump.

In November blacks will vote for Sanders if he is the nominee, and GOP leaning people who are not dyed in the wool rightwingers will vote for Trump.

Which is why Buttigieg has a better chance of beating Trump than Sanders has. 

[Ratliff]

In November, blacks will vote Buttigieg if he is the nominee, and GOP leaning people who are not dyed in the wool rightwingers will either vote for Buttigieg or stay home and not vote for Trump.

In November blacks will vote for Sanders if he is the nominee, and GOP leaning people who are not dyed in the wool rightwingers will vote for Trump.

Which is why Buttigieg has a better chance of beating Trump than Sanders has.

It is amazing to me that you say things like this as though you know what you are talking about.

[JBS]

It is amazing to me that you say things like this as though you know what you are talking about.

What do you think is wrong with what I said?

[71 dB]

What do you think is wrong with what I said?

It's based on the corporate myth of lefty policies being unpopular.

[Ratliff]

What do you think is wrong with what I said?

That you, or anyone for that matter, knows who black people or "not dyed in the wool right-wingers" will vote or will not vote for in the general election, especially when turnout rather than preference may be the decisive factor.

[JBS]

It's based on the corporate myth of lefty policies being unpopular.

It's not a myth. More precisely,  people may like the idea of Medicare for All, but not the higher taxes and government bureaucracy that accompanies it.

But you seem to miss the point of my remark, so let me rephrase it

The Democrats need a candidate who won't motivate centrists and moderate rightwingers to vote for Trump because they think  the candidate's policies are so bad that they need to affirmatively vote for Trump even though they dislike him.  They need a candidate whom right-leaning voters won't be frightened to have in the White House.  Buttigieg is such a candidate.  Bernie is the epitome of a candidate who will motivate them to vote for Trump instead of staying home.

[Ratliff]

It's based on the corporate myth of lefty policies being unpopular.

It is equally amazing to me that you say things like this as though you know what you are talking about.

Maybe both give it a rest.

[JBS]

That you, or anyone for that matter, knows who black people or "not dyed in the wool right-wingers" will vote or will not vote for in the general election, especially when turnout rather than preference may be the decisive factor.

A fair criticism, but may I point out that I myself am a "not dyed in the wool right winger" and know a fair number of the same.  And every black person I know intends to vote for the Democratic nominee, no matter who that person will be.

[71 dB]

It's not a myth. More precisely,  people may like the idea of Medicare for All, but not the higher taxes and government bureaucracy that accompanies it.

If you save money not paying premiums etc. many realize higher taxes is a good deal for them.