Elections 2020 Democratic Iowa Caucus Thread

[Fawlty]

2008 was the first primary I really paid attention to. I did notice the uncommiteds when making the OP and wondered if there was a story behind that stuff.

Just means that not enough caucus-goers would commit to any candidate. That seems like it doesn't happen much these days though. People are more willing to get into a camp or switch camps if candidates aren't viable.

 

[LuchaBear]

 

[Bald1]

A tiny piece of the country is determining who will be our national candidate for one of only two viable parties. It's called democracy.

So it all hinges on Iowa? Thanks.

 

[Couch Ninja]

They already hate his guts and he hasn’t even been nominated yet. The guy has been consistent his whole political career and he’s not going to live much longer. They can’t buy him because he wouldn’t even have the time to spend all the dirty money and he knows it. People are willing to die for their dignity, Bernie Sanders is no exception.

I hope you're right, dude. There's always anomalies, outliers, and exceptions I guess. But I would prepare to be disappointed. If they can't co-opt you, they JFK your ass. They hated Trump too. Now they're already admitting they'd rather have him than Bernie. They'll get Bernie too. But I hope I'm wrong

 

[Trotsky]

I know some people caucusing in Iowa right now for Sanders. Supposedly, all the scuttlebutt is that it's going to be a Sanders blowout.

Obviously, these are interested parties and I frankly don't entirely understand how caucuses even fucking work, but take from it what you will. I'm personally a bit of a pessimist.

 

[Lead]

Just means that not enough caucus-goers would commit to any candidate. That seems like it doesn't happen much these days though. People are more willing to get into a camp or switch camps if candidates aren't viable.

So they attend but don't pick anyone? I can't imagine someone doing that today.

 

[LuchaBear]

 

[Couch Ninja]

How?

What does Bernie need from the establishment?

What lever do they have on him?

Propaganda. If you think they won't slur him as an anti-semite and anti-Israel just because he is Jewish, you're wrong. They will. I've already heard it a few times. They will smear him into being Israel's bitch just like every American president is

 

[Lead]

So it all hinges on Iowa? Thanks.

Not exactly but after this and New Hampshire, you have a pretty clear idea of who is still viable and it's usually 1 or 2 candidates even if some stay around. I think after SC, most races are pretty much determined but there's been a few that stayed competitive throughout.

 

[Fawlty]

So they attend but don't pick anyone? I can't imagine someone doing that today.

The way the math works out, I think that had to have been the case. If 30+% are not committed, then it's more than just some candidates not being viable. I guess uncommitted caucus-goers aren't much of a thing now.

 

[sickc0d3r]

So it all hinges on Iowa? Thanks.

The Iowa winner has become the dem nominee every time since 2000, and either 8 or 9 of the last 11. I believe 2 of those were Iowans.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Propaganda. If you think they won't slur him as an anti-semite and anti-Israel just because he is Jewish, you're wrong. They will. I've already heard it a few times. They will smear him into being Israel's bitch just like every American president is

Naw, the optics don't work. I already showed that in my thread. All I have to do is accuse you of hating this American Jew.

Calling him a anti-semite is absurd optics.

 

[Fawlty]

The Iowa winner has become the dem nominee every time since 2000, and either 8 or 9 of the last 11. I believe 2 of those were Iowans.

There's also the fact that the eventual nominee is likely to have won Iowa, so there isn't good evidence for causation. Even the correlation is too weak to call it strong.

 

[Lead]

The way the math works out, I think that had to have been the case. If 30+% are not committed, then it's more than just some candidates not being viable. I guess uncommitted caucus-goers aren't much of a thing now.

Despite calling this originally the 2016 Iowa caucus thread, everything is very blurry on the last one. That does sound familiar though where it's like rounds and different candidates getting eliminated in precincts. Is this the state that involved a coin toss in 2016?

 

[Couch Ninja]

Naw, the optics don't work. I already showed that in my thread. All I have to do is accuse you of hating this American Jew.

Calling him a anti-semite is absurd optics.

Of course, it's absolutely asburd - but that's never stopped them before. But I'm sure you're right, every president somehow ends up being co-opted by the establishment but Bernie won't, okay. Sure. I'll be here when you get sad I was right

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

Read my post ffs....lazy biotch...

Ehh I'm kind of with @Fawlty

I get the concerns but so what? We're not getting any new candidates

I saw that the Dems need to win the popular vote by 4.5% to guarantee victory.

Last I checked Biden and Bernie are ahead of him in the polls by about that (not taking into account margin of error)

So I'm hoping one of them win it.

But I'll enthusiastically support whoever gets the nomination

 

[sickc0d3r]

There's also the fact that the eventual nominee is likely to have won Iowa, so there isn't good evidence for causation. Even the correlation is too weak to call it strong.

True. And this is a big field, which you’d assume makes it less of a factor. Still, the early appearance of strength is something all the candidates want, for a good reason. And someone like Bernie especially since he’ll probably also smoke everyone in NH next week.

 

[bobgeese]

Jesus Christ, they got a 16 year old girl doing the math to decide the future of the country.

Smdh...

 

[Fawlty]

Despite calling this originally the 2016 Iowa caucus thread, everything is very blurry on the last one. That does sound familiar though where it's like rounds and different candidates getting eliminated in precincts. Is this the state that involved a coin toss in 2016?

There were lots of coin tosses in Iowa in 2016 (maybe more than 10?). I've seen it reported that Clinton won six, which is normal. But there aren't great records on that, because it's more than 1,000 precincts that aren't the most organized things in the world.

Those only happened in precincts where there was both a caucus tie and an odd number of delegates to distribute. And those are local delegates, not state ones, so winning a coin toss doesn't give you a state delegate. Even the numbers reported at the end of tonight won't necessarily be correct, because they're extrapolating the state delegate count from the local delegate count.

 

[Trotsky]

Holy shit, the guy on CBS said volunteers for Bernie Sanders knocked on over half a million doors in Iowa in the past month. Seemed so extraordinary that I had to verify it on Google. Per Times, they knocked on more than 400,000.