Will the IA caucuses effect your vote if the winner is not your candidate?

[Tiggeroshii]

Will you change your vote based on the winner of the IA caucus if it is not your candidate?

14 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	0 (0%)
	No
	14 (100%)
	Depends (please state)
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[brooklynite]

1. If I don't think Buttigieg is viable after Iowa and going into NH, I'll switch my support

[scheming daemons]

2. I'll wait until at least after Super Tuesday

Iowa and NH are *SO* unrepresentative of the country, that I discount those results.


After Super Tuesday, if my candidate is not looking viable, I'll probably switch.

[Turin_C3PO]

4. It's true

that IA and NH don’t represent the country but often there’s momentum that comes from winning those states. Not all the time, but often enough.

[The Revolution]

3. I'm in Iowa, so probably not ;)

If I were not in Iowa, then it would probably depend on how poorly my candidate did and what their future prospects looked like. And of course if they decided to drop out, that would affect my vote.

[GemDigger]

5. I vote in June, it is a long time between IA, NH and me.

People will drop out, people will rise and people will fall.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

6. It depends who drops out

We may not really know the answer until after New Hampshire, but I think after that we will be down to +/- five.

[totodeinhere]

7. Well it seems unanimous so far. n/t

[tiredtoo]

8. I also will wait until later

if I have to switch . Not exactly super Tuesday, it may be more obvious prior to that.

[snowybirdie]

9. Saw an article

a day ago that said there could be three different Iowa "winners"! Depends upon what the counters call winning. A ridiculous way to start the primary season.

[yardwork]

10. I don't think the IA caucuses are predictive of much.

Caucuses in particular are problematic as their representation is skewed due to the lengthy time commitment, requirement that participants argue with one another, etc. Lots of people are unwilling or unable to participate in caucuses.

[frazzled]

11. Nope

Iowa and New Hampshire have become such outliers that it won't influence me at all.

I am specifically remaining uncommitted because my state does not vote until after Super Tuesday (which now includes California). Since I have considered that this will require a more strategic voting strategy, I will start to look at the race after SC and NV, and probably base my ultimate choice on the basis of who among those I feel comfortable with is competitive after Super Tuesday.

This is new for me. I've always been able to pick a candidate fairly early on and stick with them through as far as they get in the primary. Not this time. In part because no one has jumped out at me as the preferred candidate (though there are several I don't prefer), and in part because I don't want to see a brokered convention in the event no one gets the required number of delegates. I'll probably vote from among the candidates I like best who still have a viable path. It's still a fair ways off.

People always say to "vote your conscience." I've never believed that fully. And this time the stakes are too high to resort to one's own preferences. Just get behind a horse you can stomach and try to drive them across the finish line.

[Gothmog]

12. It is difficult to care about a caucus in a 90+% white state

Iowa does not reflect the demographics of the party