How many counties will Hillary Clinton win in the 2016 Iowa Caucuses?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:03:35 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  How many counties will Hillary Clinton win in the 2016 Iowa Caucuses?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Poll
Question: See title
#1
All 99
 
#2
98
 
#3
90-97
 
#4
80-89
 
#5
70-79
 
#6
60-69
 
#7
50-59
 
#8
40-49
 
#9
30-39
 
#10
20-29
 
#11
10-19
 
#12
1-9
 
#13
Zero
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 49

Author Topic: How many counties will Hillary Clinton win in the 2016 Iowa Caucuses?  (Read 3694 times)
Fubart Solman
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,696
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: March 15, 2015, 09:42:20 PM »

Back in 2000, Bill Bradley managed to win 5 counties and tie a 6th to Al Gore's 93 counties. Could Hillary Clinton win all 99? (Tom Harkin did win all 99 in 1992, but he was a favorite son and no one else campaigned there).
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,578
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: March 15, 2015, 09:44:33 PM »

Nah. Webb will take (about) 3 or 4, so will O'Malley, leaving Hillary with ~91-93.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: March 15, 2015, 09:44:35 PM »

90-97. I could see Sanders snagging a few. It's a caucus after all.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: March 15, 2015, 10:26:21 PM »

What % of the statewide caucus vote do you actually expect her to get?  And who do you think will still be in the race by caucus day?

Remember that in the Democratic caucus system, at any individual caucus site, if a candidate has less than 15% of the vote at that site, the voters have to reallocate their support to someone else.  So anyone who's polling in the 10-15% range or below statewide is going to get absolutely massacred by this rule, and wind up with very few votes.  (See, e.g., Biden and Richardson polling around 5% each in 2008, but only ending up with ~1-2% in the end.)

Now, one way around this is for candidates to cut deals with each other: At caucus sites where I don't reach viability, I'll ask my voters to back some other candidate, if that candidate asks his voters to do the same.  So that's a way out, if whoever of O'Malley, Sanders, and Webb are still running at that point cut such deals with each other, to prevent a Clinton clean sweep of every county.  But not every voter is going to go along with that.

So, bottom line, Clinton is far more likely to lose some counties if she just faces a single opponent with the consolidated non-Clinton vote, rather than if she faces three opponents each polling at 10-15%.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: March 15, 2015, 10:27:13 PM »

Also, a more interesting question may be "Which counties is she most likely to lose?"
Logged
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,107
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.10, S: -7.65

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: March 15, 2015, 10:47:12 PM »

Also, a more interesting question may be "Which counties is she most likely to lose?"


Johnson County
Logged
Suburbia
bronz4141
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,684
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: March 16, 2015, 06:48:25 AM »

She'll win at least 90-97. Shell easily win Polk County.
Logged
heatmaster
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,244
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: March 16, 2015, 03:47:41 PM »

If she lasts that long, with the purported alcoholism, email, Benghazi & the Clinton Foundation donor issue at her door.
Logged
Joe Biden 2020
BushOklahoma
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,921
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.77, S: 3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: March 16, 2015, 05:31:44 PM »

If she lasts that long, with the purported alcoholism, email, Benghazi & the Clinton Foundation donor issue at her door.

I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton, but there is no way she bows out before Iowa.  She will likely win the nomination, but her general election chances are not very good at this point.

To the question, I could see her reaching low 90's of counties.
Logged
AelroseB
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 278


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: March 16, 2015, 06:03:13 PM »

Calling it now, she comes third to Schweitzer and then Webb.
Logged
Sumner 1868
tara gilesbie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,053
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: March 16, 2015, 06:11:33 PM »

Calling it now, she comes third to Schweitzer and then Webb.

I'll say fifth behind Webb, Schweitzer, Warren, Sanders and O'Malley. Possibly sixth depending on Vermin Supreme's strength.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: March 16, 2015, 06:23:47 PM »

Calling it now, she comes third to Schweitzer and then Webb.

Brave. Will you show up in 10 months to accept your accolades?
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,612


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: March 17, 2015, 01:03:28 AM »

90-97. I could see Sanders snagging a few. It's a caucus after all.

I can't wait for the Clinton campaign to resort to attacking caucuses again.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,805


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: March 17, 2015, 02:25:49 AM »

90-97. I could see Sanders snagging a few. It's a caucus after all.

I can't wait for the Clinton campaign to resort to attacking caucuses again.

Caucuses are sort of like poll taxes, literacy requirements, and voter ID laws. Their main function is to drastically decrease the electorate by erecting a high barrier (e.g., being able to stand around for several more hours than usual) to voting. They're also unusually susceptible to fraud, manipulation, and arbitrary cutoffs. Regardless the of whether Clinton or whomever your candidate is, is winning them, it's hard to see why anyone who supports democracy could like them.
Logged
AelroseB
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 278


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: March 17, 2015, 06:24:23 AM »

Calling it now, she comes third to Schweitzer and then Webb.

Brave. Will you show up in 10 months to accept your accolades?

You bet i will!
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,612


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: March 18, 2015, 11:10:44 PM »

90-97. I could see Sanders snagging a few. It's a caucus after all.

I can't wait for the Clinton campaign to resort to attacking caucuses again.

Caucuses are sort of like poll taxes, literacy requirements, and voter ID laws. Their main function is to drastically decrease the electorate by erecting a high barrier (e.g., being able to stand around for several more hours than usual) to voting. They're also unusually susceptible to fraud, manipulation, and arbitrary cutoffs. Regardless the of whether Clinton or whomever your candidate is, is winning them, it's hard to see why anyone who supports democracy could like them.

Except that turnout doesn't matter so much for partisan primaries (certainly not counting California's primaries there), and lower turnout means higher information voters.
Logged
#TheShadowyAbyss
TheShadowyAbyss
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,027
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: -3.64

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: March 19, 2015, 01:20:20 AM »

She'll get them all with like 99.99% of the vote, remember she is the Goddess of the Democratic Party. No one can challenge her all-powerful being.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,805


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: March 19, 2015, 01:35:02 AM »

90-97. I could see Sanders snagging a few. It's a caucus after all.

I can't wait for the Clinton campaign to resort to attacking caucuses again.

Caucuses are sort of like poll taxes, literacy requirements, and voter ID laws. Their main function is to drastically decrease the electorate by erecting a high barrier (e.g., being able to stand around for several more hours than usual) to voting. They're also unusually susceptible to fraud, manipulation, and arbitrary cutoffs. Regardless the of whether Clinton or whomever your candidate is, is winning them, it's hard to see why anyone who supports democracy could like them.

Except that turnout doesn't matter so much for partisan primaries (certainly not counting California's primaries there), and lower turnout means higher information voters.

Of course it matters. Higher turnout means a broader cross section of the population is represented.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: March 19, 2015, 01:43:05 AM »

She'll get them all with like 99.99% of the vote, remember she is the Goddess of the Democratic Party. No one can challenge her all-powerful being.

Funny. That sounds about as likely as Hillary losing the Democratic nomination!

Oh wait, people still unironically think that could happen.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,612


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: March 19, 2015, 02:05:08 AM »

90-97. I could see Sanders snagging a few. It's a caucus after all.

I can't wait for the Clinton campaign to resort to attacking caucuses again.

Caucuses are sort of like poll taxes, literacy requirements, and voter ID laws. Their main function is to drastically decrease the electorate by erecting a high barrier (e.g., being able to stand around for several more hours than usual) to voting. They're also unusually susceptible to fraud, manipulation, and arbitrary cutoffs. Regardless the of whether Clinton or whomever your candidate is, is winning them, it's hard to see why anyone who supports democracy could like them.

Except that turnout doesn't matter so much for partisan primaries (certainly not counting California's primaries there), and lower turnout means higher information voters.

Of course it matters. Higher turnout means a broader cross section of the population is represented.

We don't need voters who just vote for Clinton because of name recognition.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,805


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: March 19, 2015, 02:18:09 AM »

90-97. I could see Sanders snagging a few. It's a caucus after all.

I can't wait for the Clinton campaign to resort to attacking caucuses again.

Caucuses are sort of like poll taxes, literacy requirements, and voter ID laws. Their main function is to drastically decrease the electorate by erecting a high barrier (e.g., being able to stand around for several more hours than usual) to voting. They're also unusually susceptible to fraud, manipulation, and arbitrary cutoffs. Regardless the of whether Clinton or whomever your candidate is, is winning them, it's hard to see why anyone who supports democracy could like them.

Except that turnout doesn't matter so much for partisan primaries (certainly not counting California's primaries there), and lower turnout means higher information voters.

Of course it matters. Higher turnout means a broader cross section of the population is represented.

We don't need voters who just vote for Clinton because of name recognition.

Recognizing someone's name and actually going to the polls to vote for that person are two different things.
Logged
RI
realisticidealist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,717


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: March 19, 2015, 02:21:30 PM »

All 99 is the most likely outcome.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,805


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: March 20, 2015, 10:14:54 AM »

90-97. I could see Sanders snagging a few. It's a caucus after all.

I can't wait for the Clinton campaign to resort to attacking caucuses again.

Caucuses are sort of like poll taxes, literacy requirements, and voter ID laws. Their main function is to drastically decrease the electorate by erecting a high barrier (e.g., being able to stand around for several more hours than usual) to voting. They're also unusually susceptible to fraud, manipulation, and arbitrary cutoffs. Regardless the of whether Clinton or whomever your candidate is, is winning them, it's hard to see why anyone who supports democracy could like them.

Except that turnout doesn't matter so much for partisan primaries (certainly not counting California's primaries there), and lower turnout means higher information voters.

Of course it matters. Higher turnout means a broader cross section of the population is represented.

We don't need voters who just vote for Clinton because of name recognition.

Recognizing someone's name and actually going to the polls to vote for that person are two different things.
There's absolutely no reason for the internals of a political party to be "democratic". A political party is there to nominate candidates for people to vote on. Insomuch as anyone has a fair chance to participate in the process, I don't see the problem.

Then why have caucuses and primaries at all? Why not just coronate Hillary in a smoke-filled room? I'd be alright with that if she runs. Smiley

Of course, some people might say that anyone doesn't have a fair chance to participate in the process, thanks to our first-past-the-post electoral system. They'd argue that the system is set up in such a way as to create a bias towards a two-party system, since third party candidates tend to act as spoilers. The result is that we usually end up with only two people with a realistic chance at winning, and those two people tend to be from the Republican and Democratic parties, respectively. Insomuch as a choice between two people cannot reflect the diversity of opinion in the U.S., those people would argue that it's important for them to have a say in determining who those people are to begin with, such that ideas that otherwise would not have a chance, have a chance at being represented.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: March 20, 2015, 11:28:51 AM »

As someone who lives in Iowa City (I'm FROM Illinois, I don't live there anymore), let me tell you that caucuses are about the dumbest thing on the planet.  With that said, I could see her carrying nearly all of them.  Maybe places like Muscatine and Dubuque will support someone who's viewed as more socially/culturally conservative than she is, but I don't know what Democrat that would be now a days.
Logged
NewYorkExpress
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,823
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: March 20, 2015, 12:41:31 PM »

Hillary takes about 70-75 counties, with Webb/O'Malley/Sanders chopping up the remainder between them. That said, Hillary should win easily.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.068 seconds with 15 queries.