Bernie Sanders has declared victory in Iowa, without the final results

[Uncle Joe]

(snip)

“We are now at a point with some 97 percent of the precincts reporting, where our campaign is winning the popular initial vote by some 6,000 votes,” Sanders told reporters in a Manchester field office. “In other words, some 6,000 more Iowans came out on caucus night to support our candidacy than the candidacy of anyone else. And when 6,000 more people come out for you in an election than your nearest opponent, we here in northern New England call that a victory.”

(snip)

This is the first year the Iowa Democratic caucuses have reported popular vote tallies — making it the first time a candidate could make an argument like Sanders’s. With 97 percent of precincts reporting in caucuses after major delays, there is a razor-thin margin of 0.1 percent separating the top two candidates in the traditional metric the Iowa Democratic Party has reported in the past: “state delegate equivalents” (also known as SDEs), which determines how many delegates each candidate will get at the Iowa state convention.

(snip)

Even though the number of SDEs had determined Iowa winners in the past — and is the metric the Iowa Democratic Party is prioritizing — Sanders argued that the race for national delegates and raw vote totals are a much bigger determinant of who won in 2020. He and Buttigieg are tied for their number of national delegates: 11 each, so far.

“But this difference — no matter who inches ahead in the end — is meaningless because we are both likely to receive the same number of national delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee,” Sanders stressed. “Those national delegates, not the state delegates, are the ones that really matter in the nominating process.”

(snip)


https://www.vox.com/2020/2/6/21126709/bernie-sanders-declares-victory-iowa-caucuses

With 97% percent of the vote in, the lead might slightly change in regards to SDEs but there is no way Pete will win the popular vote.

Even when given two rounds of votes, Buttigieg couldn't beat Bernie's 1st round of votes

On the first alignment vote, Sanders received 42,672 votes compared to Buttigieg’s 36,718. On the second and final alignment vote, Sanders’s vote totals increased to 44,753 while Buttigieg went up to 42,235.

With 97% of the vote in, there is no doubt that Bernie won Iowa, but watching the corporate media conglomerate pundits turn themselves into pretzels to avoid crediting Bernie with the win is both perversely entertaining and tragic at the same time.

[George II]

1. Here's an excerpt from an email I received a few minutes ago:

Even though the vote tabulations have been very slow, we are now at a point where 97 percent of the votes have been counted and we are winning the popular initial vote by some 6,000 votes.

In other words, some 6,000 more Iowans came out on caucus night to support our candidacy than the candidacy of any other candidate.

And when 6,000 more people come out for you in an election than your next nearest opponent, we call that a victory.

Based on what you posted, that's totally false. Agree?

[Uncle Joe]

2. I have no idea what your point is?

[George II]

6. Really? Simple math - from your OP Sanders got 44,753, Buttigieg 42,235. That is not a 6,000 lead.

[HerbChestnut]

9. The email you quoted said "initial". Meaning the first round of voting.

[Uncle Joe]

10. You do understand the meaning of the word "Initial" don't you?

initial adjective
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.

Log In
ini·​tial | i-ˈni-shəl
Definition of initial (Entry 1 of 3)
1: of or relating to the beginning : INCIPIENT
his initial reaction
2: placed at the beginning : FIRST
the initial word of the verse

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/initial

"Even though the vote tabulations have been very slow, we are now at a point where 97 percent of the votes have been counted and we are winning the popular initial vote by some 6,000 votes."



That would be the first vote when people came to the caucus, do you have any information actually disputing Bernie's figures?

[bluewater]

3. Sanders was well within reason to claim he won the popular vote by 6,000

here's why...

There were 2 votes.

An initial "primary-like" vote where Sanders won by that 6,000 votes.

Then a second "rank-choiced" selection where SOME voters, thise in the nonviable groups, were allowed to change their votes.

Sanders still won that by over 2,000 votes.

Sanders is well within reason to claim he won the primary-like first popular vote by over 6,000 votes and hence should be considered the winner.

[George II]

7. But he won by less than 3,000 votes, still claiming he "won" by 6,000 votes.

[bluewater]

8. He won the straight up primary-like vote by 6,000 votes.

Then because caucuses are what caucuses are, SOME people, those from non-viable groups were allowed to vote again and change their votes.

Sanders won that half-baked rank-voting like vote by over 2,000 votes too.

[George II]

59. This caucus was what it was because that's the way Sanders insisted it be like this...

Gotta give him credit though - he rolled the dice. Too bad it came up snake eyes.

[bluewater]

62. C-

Needs more effort.

[unc70]

5. Totally true, but with a spin

Key words are initial and first.

[radical noodle]

13. It's cherry picked, George

This is likely why they pushed so hard for so many different counts. If one doesn't like the final totals, pick a different total.

[Cal Carpenter]

57. It's not cherry picked

It is very clear that they are referring to the initial popular vote.

It is similar to pointing out that Clinton won the popular vote in the general election in 2016.

Not sure why this is confusing, let alone why people are reacting as though he is manipulating the results or misrepresenting them.

[radical noodle]

60. That's exactly what I'm talking about

The first people to jump on anyone talking about Hillary's popular vote win by saying that it doesn't count are Bernie supporters. So there's that.

To claim victory due to having 6000 votes more in the first total shows how weak he really is. He was unable to attract a lot of secondary voters. Pete may not win the nomination... he might never win another primary... but Sanders did not beat him by 6000 votes when it counted and we all know it.

But that's okay, I understand that Sanders doesn't want to be seen as a loser.

[Cal Carpenter]

61. From the OP:

“But this difference — no matter who inches ahead in the end — is meaningless because we are both likely to receive the same number of national delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee,” Sanders stressed. “Those national delegates, not the state delegates, are the ones that really matter in the nominating process.”

Bernie is well aware what these numbers mean. He is very clear about it.

I'm stepping out of this thread now. I feel that intellectual honesty is in short supply in this forum. Because (as you perceive it) Bernie's supporters don't recognize the importance of Clinton's popular vote win, so therefore his popular vote win is irrelevant even though Clinton's should be relevant...? This is so inconsistent. I see there is no point in continuing this conversation.

[msongs]

4. if 3 people vote and two vote for you you WIN by a huge margin lol nt

[SunSeeker]

11. Sanders admits they're both getting the same number of delegates.

"But this difference — no matter who inches ahead in the end — is meaningless because we are both likely to receive the same number of national delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee,” Sanders stressed. “Those national delegates, not the state delegates, are the ones that really matter in the nominating process.”

In other words, it's a tie where it matters. And not at all a "strong victory" for Sanders. Turnout was comparable to 2016, not the groundswell of new voters Sanders predicted. Sanders underperformed.

On the other hand, Pete exceeded expectations, overperformed in Iowa and came out of the state with momentum.

Pete is the "winner" in this picture.

[Laelth]

16. The unexpectedly low turnout is of concern to me.

The actual final tally of votes is not.

-Laelth

[Uncle Joe]

21. I believe the % of 18-29 aged voters dramatically increased

from 2016.

[Laelth]

22. I saw that statistic too.

That means we suffered a significant drop in participation among the older demographics (especially compared to 2008).

-Laelth

[Uncle Joe]

24. We lost a fair amount

to mortality since 2016 as a percentage of the population.

Millennials projected to overtake Baby Boomers as America’s largest generation

Millennials are on the cusp of surpassing Baby Boomers as the nation’s largest living adult generation, according to population projections from the U.S. Census Bureau. As of July 1, 2016 (the latest date for which population estimates are available), Millennials, whom we define as ages 20 to 35 in 2016, numbered 71 million, and Boomers (ages 52 to 70) numbered 74 million. Millennials are expected to overtake Boomers in population in 2019 as their numbers swell to 73 million and Boomers decline to 72 million. Generation X (ages 36 to 51 in 2016) is projected to pass the Boomers in population by 2028.

The Millennial generation continues to grow as young immigrants expand its ranks. Boomers – whose generation was defined by the boom in U.S. births following World War II – are aging and their numbers shrinking in size as the number of deaths among them exceeds the number of older immigrants arriving in the country.

Because generations are analytical constructs, it takes time for popular and expert consensus to develop as to the precise boundaries that demarcate one generation from another. Pew Research Center has assessed demographic, labor market, attitudinal and behavioral measures and has now established an endpoint – albeit inexact – for the Millennial generation. According to our revised definition, the youngest “Millennial” was born in 1996. This post has been updated accordingly (see note below).


Here’s a look at some generational projections:

(snip)

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/01/millennials-overtake-baby-boomers/

[Laelth]

27. Interesting. Thanks.

The fear, naturally, is that the older generations are becoming more Republican, but it's comforting to have an alternative explanation.

Still, I hoped for enthusiasm of the kind Iowa saw when Obama was nominated in 2008. Instead, we got 2016-type numbers. That is a cause for concern.

-Laelth

[SergeStorms]

32. My question......

will Millennials stand in line for 2 hours to vote? They're the instant gratification generation. If there isn't an app on their phone for voting and can't have the results on that app 5 minutes later, will they lose interest in this new voting thing? Elections and government don't really fit their rapid-fire attention span. I guess that's an unknown for everyone.

[George II]

55. Caucuses and primaries are open to voters of all ages.

[SunSeeker]

52. Yes, me too. But caucuses suppress participation.

I sure hope this is the end of caucuses.

[Pachamama]

12. Iowa is meaningless

Move on...seriously

[Laelth]

14. It appears that Sanders and Buttigieg will each get 11 delegates from Iowa.

Last edited Thu Feb 6, 2020, 07:12 PM - Edit history (1)

I am cool with the idea that Bernie "won" the Iowa caucus despite the fact that it was a tie (in terms of delegates). I am fairly certain Bernie's going to "win" in New Hampshire, and that's O.K. too. Iowa contributes only 1% of the 4,000+ delegates that will vote in Milwaukee, so I am not going to lose any sleep over who actually "won" this year in Iowa. It's early days, and remember. We're on the same team here.

-Laelth

[SergeStorms]

37. I agree.

Iowa is in the rear-view mirror and New Hampshire means very little in the big scheme of things as well. Iowa and New Hampshire may have been a big deal at one time, but those days are over. The real prizes are still ahead.

[brooklynite]

15. WOn't stop Pete's momentum

[bluewater]

17. No , it won't.

Pete has surged to the front of the moderate faction of the party and is surging in the polls for New Hampshire next Tuesday.

Good luck to you and your preferred candidate going forward.

[Autumn]

18. 44,753 to 42,235 sound like a victory to me. Bernie didn't declare himself a winner before

numbers were released.

[George II]

19. It's not 6,000, which is what he's claiming in his fundraising email.

[Autumn]

20. So? A 2518 difference. Maybe they didn't have all the numbers since 97% are in.

Which part did you not understand George.

we are winning the popular initial vote by some 6,000 votes."

[George II]

23. He did NOT win by 6,000. Facts are facts. "Which part did you not understand", Autumn?

[Autumn]

25. He won and they aren't all in. I could see you complaining George, had he proclaimed his win

before any votes were released. Mayor Petes started proclaiming his victory with 2% of the votes in. Fact are Fact. And Bernie has more votes.

Link to tweet

[George II]

31. Well, Autumn, with less than 5,000 votes still not counted I seriously doubt....

....that he's going to get half of those.

BTW, Buttigieg DID win, he's got more SDEs than Sanders. Remember, in Iowa popular vote doesn't count - in fact this is the first year ever that they announced popular vote.

Regardless of when one claims a "win", putting out a false margin is disingenuous.

Glad you find misrepresenting numbers to the people a laughing matter.

[Autumn]

34. Yeah, the wrong numbers is what has you upset. . .I'm sure of that George. That's all I got to say.

You had ZERO problem with Pete claiming he won with 2% of the count and now you're all about misrepresentation of numbers.

[George II]

38. No, Autumn, it's not simply the "wrong numbers", it's the fact that the "wrong numbers"....

...are being used to dupe some contributors into thinking that it was a bigger "win" than it really was by putting out a misleading fundraising email.

I guess you don't have a problem with that. You know what other candidate does that?

[Autumn]

41. His Feb fundraising will be great, I hear he was discussed on a talk show today.

For that matter what candidate claims victory with 2% of the votes released?? Don't answer. I know

[George II]

42. Well, inasmuch as that "fundraising" is based in part on giving potential contributors....

....old numbers and not the current numbers, it's nothing to be proud of.

[Autumn]

43. Do you know for a fact that the numbers are wrong George? No you don't. Might check that

burr you got, those can be irritating AF.

[George II]

44. Yes, Autumn. And claiming a margin of more than double the real number is simply disingenuous....

But that's just fine with you, I guess.

[Autumn]

46. Facts are fact George, as you are fond of saying. All the votes are not in and I'm tired of reading

the same tired angry line from you.

[George II]

48. Yes, Autumn, facts are facts, and campaigns should not be putting out false "facts"....

It's not an "angry line", it's reality, and you're unwilling to admit that the winning margin is NOT 6,000 votes. We know it will be smaller even if it prevails. Apparently you're okay with that, but most Democrats are not.

Here's another fact, as of now Buttigieg is the "winner" (i.e., more SDEs) and the candidates will be no more than about five or six delegates apart.

Considering all the effort and money expended by the Sanders campaign and their "25,000 volunteers", that's more of a loss than a win in most people's minds.

[George II]

63. ....

[George II]

58. Well, Autumn, NOW all the results are in and Sanders didn't win by 6,000 votes...

Last edited Fri Feb 7, 2020, 12:07 AM - Edit history (1)

....and got less SDEs than Buttigieg.

Nice win.

[HerbChestnut]

28. Relax, George. That email said "initial" votes.

Meaning the 1st alignment vote. You can parse that however you want, it doesn't make the email untrue.

[George II]

33. So you have no problem with him misrepresenting the "winning" margin? Funny....

....I don't see Buttigieg putting out an email like "we won by 3500 votes" early on when his margin was that high. The winning margin is the FINAL margin, not some interim number.

But this is de riguere for some.

[HerbChestnut]

36. Considering most states vote 'first past the post', it's fine.

It's easier to understand than having to explain, "Well, we won, then we won again but by a smaller amount, then we might win a 3rd time, not sure, still depends on a few things working out."

[George II]

39. He's using "old" numbers to pump up his win (which is really a tie or narrow loss) to collect money.

[Ghost Dog]

45. Email doesn't refer to final winning numbers,

it refers to number of those who initially turned out to vote for him.

Sure, it's spin. But it is true.

[George II]

47. When the email was sent different numbers were available, but they didn't mention those, just...

...older numbers that were no longer valid.

Unfortunately some are comfortable with that.

[Ghost Dog]

49. Who knows what final numbers might be valid, actually

https://desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2020/02/06/iowa-caucus-2020-inconsistencies-found-iowa-democratic-party-data/4679824002/

[George II]

50. That's in keeping with the subject line of the OP - "Bernie Sanders has declared victory in Iowa....

....without the final results." And yet Buttigieg is being trashed relentlessly for doing the same, even though he hasn't used false numbers to do so.

[Ghost Dog]

53. Is he? I'm hearing it widely said that he did

very well.

[Uncle Joe]

54. I haven't bashed Pete but timing is everything.

Bernie announced with 97% of the vote in, I believe (could be wrong) it was around 62% when Pete declared victory, I thought that was a bit early at the time.

[yaesu]

26. Andrew Yang, the math guy, just agreed with Bernie on twitter

Link to tweet

[Uncle Joe]

29. Thanks for sharing yaesu.

[yaesu]

30. You're welcome. nt

[W_HAMILTON]

40. And this is supposed to be the "MATH" guy, right?

[emmaverybo]

35. Right now, Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders are riding the crest on the Ferris wheel. Will one

stay high and the other plunge? I think when we get to more diverse, bigger states their liabilities
could take them both down. Of the two, Sanders’ momentum likely more durable. But God folks, 55 states and you are calling it.

You know how stardom works.

[empedocles]

51. Pete is up there and the surging surprise of IA. Why all the bernie bros

raving all over these threads?

[myohmy2]

56. +1...

"With 97% of the vote in, there is no doubt that Bernie won Iowa, but watching the corporate media conglomerate pundits turn themselves into pretzels to avoid crediting Bernie with the win is both perversely entertaining and tragic at the same time."

...shameful...

...

...

[LanternWaste]

64. Quite the squeaker for what was prophesied to be a commanding and decisive victory.

I think I'm beginning to understand what "suRgE!!!" means... just more bs commercial branding from another career politician.

I'm guessing just as many people will turn into pretzels pretending the suRgE!!! was never an issue... it'll be one more example of the hipster revisionism from the faithful.