Democratic Iowa Caucus results thread (entrance poll @8pm ET)

[Holmes]

LULAC had been trying to get 10,000 latinos to the caucus last night and they say they reached that goal. Sorry for Buzzfeed.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/adriancarrasquillo/the-effort-to-turn-out-latino-voters-in-iowa-worked?utm_term=.ikQVKWo3Jg#.aoLpP1RMk8

[This account no longer in use.]

I'll be perfectly honest. All these Clinton shills foaming at the mouth about 'inevitability' and 'there's no way Bernie wins' and 'Hillary is perfect' really make me feel like Clinton and her supporters are like the token arrogant opposing team in every sports movie. I'm just asking you guys to stop acting so arrogant and conceited about your candidate.

[IceSpear]

Given the media's obsession with the communist who must not be named, they'll probably focus on the coin flips, focus on the Polk County counting incident and try to spin it so that $anders will be seen as the winner. Never mind the fact that all of those incidents were faked by the $anders campaign so that he would have an excuse for losing like the communist that he is. Honestly, when Hillary becomes president, I hope she bans all biased media.

Sanders should be seen as the "winner" here. A few months ago, the commie had no chance in Iowa. He managed to basically make this thing a tie with the ethically-challenged one, especially with the convoluted way you guys count votes in Iowa. Coin flips in an election? Should that ever happen?

That's utter BS. People were saying for AGES that Bernie could win Iowa. FiveThirtyEight wrote an article in July: "Bernie could win IA/NH, and lose everywhere else." I even remember including it on his "ceiling" primary map back in like...2014?

[Panhandle Progressive]

That's utter BS. People were saying for AGES that Bernie could win Iowa. FiveThirtyEight wrote an article in July: "Bernie could win IA/NH, and lose everywhere else." I even remember including it on his "ceiling" primary map back in like...2014?

Exactly!

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

I'm trying to console my Sanders supporting friends on FB and Twitter and damn are they pissy and sore losers.

I'm amazed at how some of my friends who were hardcore Obama supporters just a year ago are now completely disowning him as a failure. One goes so far as to literally say that poor people, minorities, and older voters are too stupid to know what's good for them (despite this being an overwhelmingly white electorate), mocking women collectively for wanting a woman in the White House, and that Gaddhafi winning would have been a good thing.


It's not that bad of a loss, and it brings out the absolute worst in them. Hillary Derangment Syndrome is real.

[Erc]

Democrats have full results by precinct available here.

[/]

I'm trying to console my Sanders supporting friends on FB and Twitter and damn are they pissy and sore losers.

I'm sure the Clinton supporters would be just as accepting and polite if Bernie won by that margin.

[Maxwell]

I'm trying to console my Sanders supporting friends on FB and Twitter and damn are they pissy and sore losers.

I'm sure the Clinton supporters would be just as accepting and polite if Bernie won by that margin.

I would. I'm sure most would.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

I'm trying to console my Sanders supporting friends on FB and Twitter and damn are they pissy and sore losers.

I'm sure the Clinton supporters would be just as accepting and polite if Bernie won by that margin.

I would. I'm sure most would.

^^^

Outside of this forum, the criticisms of Sanders are not even near the deranged conspiracy-based hatred spewed at Hillary.

[Maxwell]

I sure as hell wouldn't be whining about rudimentary procedure!

[Crumpets]

Democrats have full results by precinct available here.

Can someone please make a map of this? Or at least post a blank, editable map of precincts?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Democrats have full results by precinct available here.

**big pdf warning** 

good find though.   you seem to be one of the few people in the country who has some understanding of this confusing process.

[jimrtex]

According to the link on uselectionatlas It seems the raw votes are

Clinton     69,631
Sanders   69,319
O'Malley       758

So Clinton wins by around 300 votes.

That's impossible, because the Iowa Democratic Party wrote in their press release that turnout was 171,109 voters.

The atlas link does seem to match the results at NY times site. on a county by county basis.

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/primaries/iowa?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=span-abc-region&region=span-abc-region&WT.nav=span-abc-region

The AP is not estimating the popular vote. It is projecting the number of state delegates (multiplied by 100).

For example in Taylor County, there were 30 delegates elected to the county convention, 21 for Clinton, and 9 for Sanders. The IDP shows Clinton with 70% of the "vote", which is 21/30. That is, she won 70% of the delegates to the county convention.

Taylor County elects 2 state delegates. AP and the Atlas show this as 200 units, and divides it as 140 60.

I don't know how the IDP estimates the state delegates. They could conceivably do it just like the AP and the Atlas, but not multiply by 100. So it would be 1.4 to 0.6, and then they would round at the state total.

This would have the advantage that it would would work with partial county results. Let's imagine that Bedford was still out, which would make it Clinton 16, Sanders 7, and 7 delegates not yet chosen.

Clinton could be projected as 16/30 * 2 = 1.07 state delegates (or 107 units)
Sanders would be 7/30 * 2 = 0.47 (or 47)
Still out 7/30 * 2 = 0.47 (or 47).

The alternative would be to attempt to project what will happen at the county convention. If we assume that all the county delegates will show up and vote for their candidate, then a 21:9 split translates to 1.4 and 0.6 state delegates, which rounds to 1 for Clinton and 1 for Sanders.

How I got to a 21:9 split for county delegates in Taylor County.

County delegates are allocated to each precinct in proportion to the Obama(P2012) + Hatch(G2014) vote:

Blockton 92
Bedford 403
Clearfield 161
Gravity 127
Legion 183
Lenox 649
New Market 174

The precinct results are:

Blockton: 100%:0%. which means 1:0 or some integer multiple.
Bedford 71.4%:28.6%, 5:2 or some multiple.
Clearfield 100%:0%, 1:0 or some multiple
Gravity 50%:50%, 1:1 or some multiple.
Legion 66.7%:33.3%, 2:1 or some multiple.
Lenox 63.6%:36.4%, 7:4 or some multiple.
New Market 66.7%: 33.3%, 2:1 or some multiple.

If the multiple in every precinct is 1, then it would be 19:9, which would give Clinton 67.9%, which is not the 70.0% shown on the IDP website.

Sw we calculate the Obama+Hatch vote divided by the minimum number of delegates for a precinct.

Blockton 92/1 = 92.0
Bedford 403/7 = 57.5
Clearfield 161/1 = 161.0
Gravity 127/2 = 63.5
Legion 183/3 = 61.0
Lenox 649/11 = 59.0
New Market 174/3 = 58.0

The ratio of Obama+Hatch to delegates appears to be around 60, with Blockton and Clearfield needing more delegates.

Clearfield 161/2 = 80.5, and 100%:0% = 2:0 county delegates.
Blockton 92/2 = 46.0, and 100%:0% = 2:0 county delegates.

With these adjustments the county convention would be 21:9, which matches the 70%:30% split on the IDP website.

As a further check, we divide the 1789 Obama+Hatch votes by 30 = quota of 59.6 votes/delegate allocated.

Blockton 92/Q = 1.54 (rounds to 2)
Bedford 403/Q = 6.76 (7)
Clearfield 161/Q = 2.70 (round to 3)
Gravity 127/Q = 2.13 (rounds to 2)
Legion 183/Q = 3.07 (rounds to 3)
Lenox 649/Q = 10.88 (rounds to 11)
New Market 174/Q = 2.92 (rounds to 3)

This totals to 31. It appears that for some reason, county conventions have delegates that are a multiple of 5. Since the number of county delegates is fixed, we drop a delegate from Blockton, which has the smallest fraction over 0.50.

This would mean that it was actually:

Blockton 1:0
Clearfield 3:0

And still 21:9 for the county.

But this still doesn't tell us the popular vote. We don't know know how many attended the caucus and Legion, and we know that, Clinton had more support than Sanders (but it could be one person, or even a lucky coin flip), and Sanders had 1/6 of the delegates (this is the threshold when electing 3 delegates). So Clinton had between 50% and 83.3% of an unknown number of voters in Legion.

[Bakersfield Uber Alles]

Reddit has been pretty awful. It's also hilarious how a lot of them are portraying this as a win for Sanders. It's one of his strongest states demographically speaking. He was able to bring Clinton to what is essentially a tie when six months ago, he was still polling in the low teens (or something like that). Really, both sides needed to win Iowa convincingly (by more than a percent of the reported delegates) to get much momentum out of it.

New Hampshire should give Bernie a bit of momentum, especially if he can win by 10% or more, which has been looking possible. Nevada is still unclear; if he can woo Hispanics, he may have a chance. South Carolina will be a major test for his campaign. If he can't win NV or SC, I don't think that he has much of a chance at the nomination. As many others have said, Bernie needs to expand his coalition. Regardless of why, his current efforts have not been enough to persuade many minorities to vote for him.

Without reliable polling, it's going to be difficult to predict the results. I'm not sure how much the polls will change from Iowa. Bernie could definitely spin it more in his favor because he has been the underdog, but I'm not sure how much that will help. NH could give him something of a boost, but Clinton could easily spin it as inevitable that he would win a neighboring state. It's going to be an interesting month.

[jimrtex]

According to the link on uselectionatlas It seems the raw votes are

Clinton     69,631
Sanders   69,319
O'Malley       758

So Clinton wins by around 300 votes.

These are the State Delegate Equivalent numbers multiplied by 100.  Not raw vote totals in any way, shape, or form.

Note that means each county's vote totals should sum up to a multiple of 100 (modulo rounding errors).  This is not the case in Kossuth, Hancock, or Fremont counties, where some results must have just been irretrievably lost.

I was thinking they would report this in terms of the precinct delegates.  I guess maybe the reason they don't is that some delegates are not explicitly committed??

Each precinct elected delegates to county conventions.

The number of delegates per precinct is based on the Obama(P2012)+Hatch(G2014) results, and not the turnout in the precinct.

Further, the total number of delegates at each county convention is not based on the Obama(P2012)+Hatch(G2014) vote. If it were, then the convention in Polk County would be so Uugge it could not be held in the Trump Convention Center if there were such a beast, or some smaller counties could hold their convention in a living room (a couch and two chairs, if someone sat on the floor or an armrest, and the chairman stood next to the coffee table).

So county delegates can't be added, any more than we could add up state legislators and get a useful number.

[jimrtex]

Democrats have full results by precinct available here.

State delegates per county

You should be able to combine these two to produce a projection of actual state delegates. These should be totaled by congressional district since most national delegates are allocated at that level.

[Asian Nazi]

Anybody have the numbers for the black majority precincts?  Same for Hispanic ones if they exist.

[cinyc]

Anybody have the numbers for the black majority precincts?  Same for Hispanic ones if they exist.

I don't know where the black or Hispanic majority precincts are, but Sanders won the Mesquakie Indian Settlement in Tama County big, getting 83% of the precinct's county delegates to Clinton's 17%.

[Erc]

Democrats have full results by precinct available here.

State delegates per county

You should be able to combine these two to produce a projection of actual state delegates. These should be totaled by congressional district since most national delegates are allocated at that level.

Thanks for this!  This checks out with the totals I'd been able to reverse-engineer from the results, despite the 4-odd missing precincts around the state.

In the process of coming up with a firm projection of State Delegates, which I'll post in my thread later.  It won't be exact, due to the possibility of tactical voting and/or the few O'Malley and Uncommitted delegates holding the balance of power in a few counties.

[Seriously?]

Given the media's obsession with the communist who must not be named, they'll probably focus on the coin flips, focus on the Polk County counting incident and try to spin it so that $anders will be seen as the winner. Never mind the fact that all of those incidents were faked by the $anders campaign so that he would have an excuse for losing like the communist that he is. Honestly, when Hillary becomes president, I hope she bans all biased media.

Sanders should be seen as the "winner" here. A few months ago, the commie had no chance in Iowa. He managed to basically make this thing a tie with the ethically-challenged one, especially with the convoluted way you guys count votes in Iowa. Coin flips in an election? Should that ever happen?

That's utter BS. People were saying for AGES that Bernie could win Iowa. FiveThirtyEight wrote an article in July: "Bernie could win IA/NH, and lose everywhere else." I even remember including it on his "ceiling" primary map back in like...2014?

It doesn't matter what you or I think. We follow this stuff very closely. I am talking about what the media-driven narrative is going to be for Joe Six-Pack that doesn't follow this as closely.

On the Democrat side, Bernie defied conventional wisdom and expectations. He "won" the night.

On the Republican side, Trump lost, which could be deadly, Cruz exceeded expectations, but the biggest "winner" of the night was Marco "Gang of Eight" Rubio, who went from a distant third or fourth to a close third. That may be enough to give him a top two finish in New Hampshire.

With that said though, I don't think you see a repeat of 2008 for Hillary at this point in time. The commie will get throttled down South in states with large African-American Democrat populations. He's no Obama.

[cinyc]

Eyeballing the Polk County election results precinct map and the racial map on Dave's Redistricting App, it looks like Clinton won the black plurality districts north of Downtown Des Moines.  If I've correlated the maps properly, what's probably the most black Des Moines district, Des Moines 36, went the most to Clinton, 75-25.  Surrounding precincts were closer, but Clinton won them.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Well, at least I got 2 points on my prediction map.

[TDAS04]

Looks like the Dutch Reformed counties of NW Iowa backed Cruz.  No surprise, but I thought Trump would do a little better (he only got 11% in Sioux County).

[cinyc]

The black majority precincts on the northeast side of Waterloo, Black Hawk County also went heavily for Clinton.  Clinton won 100% of the delegates in one likely African American-majority precinct, and 70-80% of the delegates in two others.  So yes, there is evidence that African Americans broke heavily for Clinton in Iowa.

[Niemeyerite]

Well, at least I got 2 points on my prediction map.

Yeah, but since the polls closed you had been telling us, Sanderistas, over and over again, that it was impossible for Sanders to overcome Clinton's initial 5-point margin over him.