I've informed myself about these "alignments" and SDEs (State Delegate Equivalents). The "first alignment" are the raw votes, the popular vote, what Republicans use for their caucuses in Iowa. Democrats eschew this - and use another term meant to hide truth, namely, the "final alignment". These are vote tallies that reflect second choices in those voters favoring "non-viable" candidates (getting less than 15%). Lastly, there are SDEs, which is a corrupt scheme used to reinforce the power structure within the party. Preset county convention delegates, vary widely and are internally determined by the state party and each county and are divided among the precincts of each county. There are 11,402 county delegates distributed among the 99 county conventions in Iowa, i.e. a LOT of party discretion. These serve as multipliers in the SDE calculations - it's truly ridiculous. Democrats should be ashamed - instead they blame "caucuses". Bernie will probably even win this artificial measure, this device used for party control purposes, as he has won the the first two of their "alignments". He surely won the popular vote and ranked vote by substantial margins in 2016, but these numbers were intentionally not recorded as they are now, fortunately (I now recognize). These state party tactics are then used by the national party and media to parlay an early victory in Iowa into the all-important succession of contests, manipulated along the way, to give us one of the two choices we have.
2
Democrats; it's hard to maintain this convoluted, undemocratic process and then complain about the Electoral College. Time for a change.
2
Does it even really matter who "wins" if the top three are all within one delegate of each other? I challenge the NY times to not declare a "winner" and to simply report the number of delegates earned.
3
Its a wonderful way to turn people off from voting and democracy in general.
How about a simple one-person-one-vote system? Is that too much to ask for.
9
@NH
No. The Republicans do it for their caucus in Iowa.
poor ol dems, 3 years to get this thing right and LOL, oops. lets just go ahead and give this thing to donald. trump 2020
1
Reading all this, I'm shocked at how horrid our system for electing presidents is. How are we a democracy if so few voters really make a difference in the ultimate outcome for electing presidents? Iowa first, New Hampshire second who are both tiny states compared to so many others, various other states next, we have the electoral college that ultimately decides the winner over the actual taxpaying voters. Every time the electoral college decided a presidential election, a Republican won over a Democrat. then we have gerrymandering, then the minority swing states which means the candidates pay little attention to the other states that are extremely unlikely to switch sides. Down ballot elections are much fairer, but this system desperately needs to change. Unfortunately, because our two party system favors Republicans, who benefit most from this flawed method, I doubt it ever will.
2
In looking about at the reactions to reports of delegates to the moment I have noticed one exact repeat of 2016 -the primaries overall, not the Iowa caucus in particular- in that extremist Sanders supporters are ALREADY
"berning down the system" with heated claims that it's all rigged against him.
2
As opposed to it actually being rigged against him?
7
@Art Jackson
The precinct I happened to sit in on in 2016 (with my kids as part of a home-school "civics field trip") was, in fact, "rigged" against Bernie. They shut the doors on four young Bernie supporters at 7:03pm, but then they (DNC reps) added 3 or four Hillary supporters to the roster at 8:30pm (!) after discovering that the vote totals didn't match the initial head count (used to determine how many delegates would be assigned). They therefore gave Hillary one delegate, at Bernie's expense, i.e. a 2 delegate spread; Hillary won Iowa by 3 delegates! The precinct just next to ours also gave Hillary a delegate and took one from Bernie because they rounded down both candidates' numbers to assign delegates, thereby leaving one free delegate. They should have flipped a coin here. But the DNC precinct chairs just gave it to Hillary because they had rounded her number down more than they did Bernie's number (by a few hundreth place!) So Bernie had a 50/50 chance of winning Iowa just from these two precincts I happened to have had experience with... and there are over 1,600 precincts in Iowa. At least this "rigging" I saw with my own eyes.
8
I find it disheartening to see how, when voters are asked to vote according to their preference, both women in this group have a good share of the votes. However, the further a voter goes down the path of adjusting votes to perceived chance of having other people vote for your preferred candidate, the fewer the votes for women. Not because voters dont think they are electable but because they are worried others won't. Truly a vicious cycle reinforced by cultural norms and yes, the US electoral system.
For what it may be worth, I don't vote in the US as I'm not a citizen and haven't lived in the US for a couple of yrs now.
5
Bernie supporters seem to be awfully paranoid about media coverage of Bernie, I can't tell you how often I've seen on mainstream media sites complaints the press is being mean to him (see many of the comments here).
Is this the excuse they're planning to use when Bernie loses?
2
@klm It's because the media manufactures consent, in which self-censorship prevents reality from being shown. It's not that journalists are purposely putting Sanders down, but that if they liked Sanders, they wouldn't be in the position that they're in right now.
5
@klm The NY Times is not a fan of the Bern Wiki isn't the best but here is their entry:
"Critic Matt Taibbi accused The New York Times of favoring Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders in the paper's news coverage of the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries.[291] Responding to the complaints of many readers, The New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan wrote that "The Times has not ignored Mr. Sanders's campaign, but it hasn't always taken it very seriously. The tone of some stories is regrettably dismissive, even mocking at times. Some of that is focused on the candidate's age, appearance and style, rather than what he has to say."[292] Times senior editor Carolyn Ryan defended both the volume of The New York Times coverage (noting that Sanders had received about the same amount of article coverage as Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio) and its tone.[293]"
3
@klm
No but, they are giving more money like mad to him, to try to help him win!
Where is Andrew Yang? Come on NYTimes. Seriously?
4
@Clea Doing extremely poorly, not viable in any caucus so far reporting numbers even for first allignment that I have seen.
Let's nominate Adam Schiff!
4
watch out DNC, a revolutionary democracy is coming your way.
4
Four sets of results? Right... where were all these spin opportunities last time around? There were no 'alternative interpretations' last time; there was only a, "Hillary is the Winner!!!" declaration (that actually occurred before the delegate counts were in). This time around they are looking for face-saving strategies NOW because it's looking like Bernie will carry the day.
8
@carl bumba Yep, the DNC is scrambling to disenfranchise any voters who aren't in favor of a centrist neoliberal agenda. Great plan, DNC. Because it was so successful last time, right?
We'll be a three or four party country after November, which is ultimately a good thing. Because the RNC and DNC are tweedle dum and tweedle dee, and they don't come close to representing the plurality of American voters!
3
@Betsy There are too many of us now, they won't ultimately be able to disenfranchise us.
I’d like to make one last plea for Democratic unity by reminding all of us about a simple truth of animal nature: mama bears are wired to protect their young. So it’s not surprising that for us humans, it’s suburban women who have been the deciding voting block of every recent election. While we are an educated and compassionate bunch who believes in social justice and economic equality, ultimately there is nothing that we will choose over protecting our own children and families if forced. We can’t help it; it’s in our nature, evolved over millions of years. Despite our distaste for Trump and his ugly policies, if he can make a compelling enough case that a far left progressive could endanger the economy, and thus our ability to provide for our children, then I fear most of my cohort will not be willing to take that risk. Luckily for me, I don’t have to choose between protecting my children and bringing about bold change and justice because I support a candidate who I believe will do both: the progressive but pragmatic, smart, and capable Pete Buttigieg. But I see many others, often without kids of their own (including my old college aged self) who are so excited about this opportunity to go for broke, that they completely underestimate what a mother will put up with for the sake of her children. Let’s not aggravate the bear or we risk another 4 years of Trump!
2
Why do you show Klobuchar is second alignment. Isn't she out if < 15% in first round.
The lengths NYT will go to to tell you how Bernie will lose is unbelievable. When in fact Bernie wins, they will concoct a loss. The panic is delicious, but my God, the mis-direction! Don’t be fooled, dear reader...
7
This system is an abomination.
There should be a national primary on one (or maybe two) days and then on to the elections.
9
@David It is an abomination, yes.
I like 4 primary dates with each date including a reasonable balance of region and population size.
And in your state, that day should be a paid holiday, with paid child care. And you should leave the polling station with a rotisserie chicken.
5
Last time was SO CLOSE. But we've learned a few things since then. This time it won't be so close... or so corrupt.
In 2016, I witnessed it first-hand. I took two of our home-schooled kids up to Ottumwa to observe the caucus as sort of a "civics field trip". The process was pretty impressive - the shared interest and participation by ALL groups in the community (precinct) actually made me a little proud, as an American. But it was disturbing how DNC officials at our event used different criteria for registering the participants, thereby GIVING Hillary seven extra votes or one extra delegate (at Bernie's expense, since O'Malley had no supporters). The net effect of two delegates in this one precinct we happened to attend was nearly the difference that Hillary had for the entire state, three delegates! In the precinct just next to ours (I learned from a conversation with the precinct captain the next morning) they had rounded both Bernie's and Hillary's vote numbers down to calculate the awarded delegates, thereby leaving one delegate free to assign - which they did based on the fact that Hillary's number was rounded down MORE than Bernie's (by a few hundreth places) - when they should HERE have flipped a coin. Thus, Bernie would have had a 50/50 chance of picking up two more delegates. These two precincts alone could have given the state to Bernie... and there are 1,681 precincts in Iowa! This time there are multiple, viable establishment candidates - and we're a lot wiser.
6
It is sad and frustrating that even in an article that explains the second alignment, even here Yang is not mentioned.
Yang actually won the Youth Straw Poll which should make him at least worth mentioning in the same sentence as Klobuchar (at a minimum), but if he does not reach 15% viability in the first round then his supporters have a second choice which could help shift results.
3
Probably the rest of the nation can't get rid of the Iowa caucuses, which are worth bazillions to the state's economy. But, in recognition of how convoluted, undemocratic, and ultimately meaningless this whole rigmarole is, shouldn't presidential candidates simply reach a non-aggression pact not to compete? To simply ignore them?
5
@James Miller
Dear James,
While I agree with most of your description of the Iowa caucuses, I don't agree that they are undemocratic. You just vote with your feet instead of with a ballot.
2
@gpickard
No everyone has time to vote with their feet. Voting should be easy and take minimal amount of time. Making it harder, longer and convoluted suppresses the vote
8
@gpickard
They are undemocratic, in my mind, because simply getting to a caucus (perhaps in bad weather, and at night). and then sitting/standing there for several hours of speechifying, shifting around from corner to corner, cookie-eating, and being beguiled, exhorted, and yelled at by strung-out cadres on every side, is daunting and exhausting. How many ordinary voters have the time and the energy for that? How many can get off from work in time to go, or can leave their children or relatives for whom they must care?
From all this hullabaloo, how representative are the results? A quick vote (any time during the day, or with an absentee ballot) is a much surer way to sample the popular will.
This is the reason that most states have abandoned using caucuses. Iowa's caucuses are now an outlier and an anachronism. They should be abolished for, as you say, voting with a ballot.
10
This explanation of the caucus system makes it sound like ranked choice voting.
It doesn't sound representative, nor does it sound democratic. One can only hope that Democrats are still capable of recognizing when an electoral system is inherently unfair.
6
I have to ask - why do the american people accept this political system?
The two party system - why not more parties
The president cant get a fair trail - and cant be guilty
The winner takes all the votes- throw the rest away
The complicated rules - the public barely understands
Superdelegates
I honestly dont understand why USA has not maintained and updated its democracy. From afar it looks more like the democracy is being dismantled, one piece at the time.
18
@Simon
Dear Simon,
America is not a democracy and never has been. We are a democratic republic of if you like a representative democratic republic.
People who are out of power moan about the system all the time, but those who are in power are just fine with it.
We frequently do have more than one party in elections, but in recent history none of the "third parties" ever had any real staying power. This goes to the money problem in our system.
Trump got the the trial that our republican (small "r" ) system produced. But just because Trump may be acquitted does not mean a future president could not be removed from office for doing the same things or even less serious things, because at bottom the impeachment is a political process and that means you have to have the votes in the House and the Senate to get rid of a president and that is not easy.
I know our system looks messy, but the parliamentary system in Europe is pretty messy too.
Cheers!
3
@Simon There's a good chance this election may be the breaking point, across the political spectrum. For some reason, many Americans are stuck in the belief system that says a political system devised 250 years ago by a few dozen white, moneyed, male millennials is sanctified by god. It may have been visionary in its day, but then, so was slavery and indentured servitude.
If the DNC doesn't recognize their complicity in rigging elections, in November 2020, this calcified, archaic system will bring our country down.
Time to dust off that equally ancient document, the Constitution --revered by believers on a par with the bible--and see what is worth keeping, what is absurd, take a clear look at who the American public is now and will be over the next 50-100 years, and let this new generation frame the means by which they want to carry the American experiment forward.
The means are clear -- to convene and engage in an extended national Constitutional Convention to bring the governing framework into the era of globalism, multiversity, and climate change. Whether the will can be summoned is another story. And power will not cede to reality easily.
2
Words alone cannot describe the sorry state of the Democratic Party.
What a fiasco. And, this should have been an easy election to beat Trump.
8
So, Iowa is a largely rural and unrepresentative state with outsized influence, as has been mentioned in some comments.
However, I’ve just listened to NYT’s ‘The Daily’ podcast - here a woman was interviewed who had had in person conversations with the majority of the candidates, which they indicated is not as rare as it would seem. She and her friends had also gone to see most of the candidates’ events, some very intimate and including no more than a handful of people.
If Iowa is going to have such an outsized influence, and be a launching pad, isn’t it at least a good thing that they are meeting and vetting the candidates personally, and asking them the tough questions, rather than just relying on Superbowl ads of billionaires to choose their candidates? Traditional retail politics has helped someone like Mayor Pete, a virtually unknown middle class candidate, reach the top tier in Iowa and NH. Would that have even been possible otherwise?
10
Looks to me like this is the Times twisting stats as much as they can to make it look like Bernie isn't the clear frontrunner. (The article even admits to modifications and tweaks.)
13
The Democratic party leadership's credibility is on the line.
We will soon know if they really do want to defeat Donald Trump, by their actions, words and priorities.
From what we've seen and heard, I'm not convinced.
3
Democrats: "Vote for us. Trump is a threat to democracy"
Democrat version of democracy:
1. "First Alignment"
2. "Second Alignment"
3. "Viable"
4. "State Delegate Equivalents"
5. "Pledged Delegates"
6. "Super Delegates"
You can't make this stuff up.
28
@John
Republican version of Democracy:
1. Close polling places in minority areas.
2. Throw as many black people off the voter rolls as possible.
3. Include military absentee ballots received after the legal deadline.
4. Exclude all other overseas absentee ballots received, even before the deadline.
5. Full out and submit fake absentee ballots.
6. Vote multiple times (including an Illinois election judge who voted for her dead husband and the chairman of the Colorado GOP, who voted twice).
7. Go to court asking Supreme Court to stop counting votes.
8. Candidate implores foreign countries to interfere with the presidential election on live TV.
9. President extorts foreign country to dig up dirt on his political rivals.
10. Candidate calling for their opponent to be locked up for no discernible crime.
Which sounds more Democratic to you?
17
Well it beats the Republican model: gerrymander to assure a favorable result, and disenfranchise minorities, ex-felons and students using a fake voter fraud justification. Use state level oversight to set favorable voting conditions in red leaning counties and unfavorable voting conditions in blue leaning counties.
5
@John What makes you think the Republican caucuses in Iowa don't work the same way? I'm pretty sure they do.
9
If there is no clear winner, then look forward to a very interesting Super Tuesday.
3
blah blah blah
the only poll that matters is in November
get of the couch and cast your vote
14
Why do the NYT illustrations and graphics continually show only, at most, Warren, Biden, Sanders, and Buttigieg when there are still several other Democratic candidates in the running?
Doing so gives the fairly strong impression, intentionally or negligently, of biased reporting by the NYT. Like it or not (and one suspects the creators of the graphics/illustrations and their editors (do they still have professional editors versed in and committed to the ethics of professional journalism?) do indeed like it), your illustrations and who they include or omit impacts readers’ impressions and understanding of reality.
By leaving out some of the candidates who are in fact still running in the Democratic presidential primary (or the Republican ones, for that matter), you give the public the inaccurate impression that they are no longer running for the nomination or that they are not worthy of even readers’ consideration, let alone their vote.
Remember the saying, “Out of sight, out of mind”? Well, your illustrations keep certain candidates out of sight and thus out of voters’ minds — including, inexplicably, one of the two candidates the NYT endorsed.
Do better.
11
The Times has six articles on the Iowa primary including this completely speculative one. Plus an opinion piece arguing that Democrats should ignore both Iowa and New Hampshire! How can we ignore a topic you blanket with ridiculous coverage for months on end? The Iowa caucuses are absolutely over hyped due in no small part to the Times.
21
@KJ
"...How can we ignore a topic you blanket with ridiculous coverage for months on end?"
Apparently, the same way we can vote for both Democrat candidates that the NYT endorsed.
And, after the general election we can all have 'free' everything!
5
Either I missing something, or this doesn’t take into account the new rule that candidates with 15% of the room have their supporters locked in, and can’t go to other camps during realignment. That means Elizabeth Warren would keep her 15.7% and only Amy Klobuchar supporters would be viable to go into other camps. Maybe these percentages for all precincts lumped together instead of a single, hypothetical room?
3
@Andrew I think it's because the first alignment they show is less than 100% (probably includes some undecideds as well) so, while Warren had 15% in the first pass, the top 5 listed only add up to about 90%. In the second one it adds up to almost 100% so maybe her totals stay close to the same but percentage goes down because of that?
I could be wrong too but that's my guess as to why it looked weird (I had the same initial reaction).
1
@Andrew The 15.7% is statewide, whereas I think the "locking in" happens at the precinct level? So in many precincts the Warren supporters were locked in but in (20%?) of precincts her support was <15% and so they redistributed, resulting in her statewide percentage going down.
I wouldn't believe anybody who declares "victory" in such an unrepresentative state with such a small number of delegates chosen in such a convoluted process. A number of candidates may be eliminated. And when we get to the end of March, we may see real front runner, or we may find ourselves going into an open convention. That will test various candidates' mettle: will they choose ego above "victory" over Trump.
3
What I can see from these four possible “win” combos is a media opening to bash Bernie Sanders if he fails in any one of the tabulations, and rush to declare “Anybody but Bernie” the “clear winner” in Iowa. Pundits and political journalists have been itching to destroy the Sanders campaign from its inception, and to put paid the notion of a viable “Socialist” candidate. Once again, the DNC and its media allies will go after with a vengeance the truly progressive candidate in favor of the tiresome and stereotypical “centrist” alternative, who lacks any sort of “vision” or programmatic answer to what ails us. 2016 all over again, and better a Trump win than - horror of horrors! - a rerun of McGovern v Nixon...or so the elite believe.
7
But that’s what happened in 2016. Bernicrats voted for Trump in the elections. My grandson & his high school friends.
2
@vic_bold_II
Making Bernie into a victim every day is not working. It goes on and on and on.
Drop the script . He is a big boy. Or is he?
It’s time to make the Democrats the party of the workers, the common men and women who work hard every day just to feed their families. We must provide access to healthcare, education, and protect the environment. It’s time to take our party back from the liberal elites who have told us for so long to shut up and vote for whomever they chose. It’s time to vote America, it’s time to vote for the revolution of our generation, it’s time to vote for Bernie Sanders.
9
The fact that you and other pundits have effectively erased Elizabeth Warren from the conversation is proof of the deep misogyny in the media, and the country. It's disappointing.
9
@Katie
It has been very insulting and upsetting. The world wants a yelling man.
In a year where every left leaning person I know has intensified their disdain for hierarchy, where everyone from the Turner Prize to the New York Times could no longer abide by picking just one winner - a possible four-way tie isn’t a surprise. Maybe the Dems, instead of being fractured into pieces this time, will eventually all get behind one candidate. But maybe, we’ll end-up with a dynamic duo instead, arguing for the merits of America getting a two-for-one. Or, it also wouldn’t surprise me, if the only configuration many of my students and collogues could get behind is a four-person “collective” whose membership, thru identity and credibility, together, challenges “ableist, cis hereto-normative, racist, sexist” etc. culture. I am very grateful for Bloomberg’s anti-gun violence Super Bowl ads, but I get the sense he wants to be more a part of the conversation (and to help to destroy Trump) than he wants to be the leader of the free-world. Regardless of how it unfolds, it will take a Herculean team effort to get the current President out of office.
5
Iowa is insignificant. If it didn’t exist we wouldn’t notice.
Super Tuesday is what counts.
7
Ridiculous that this tiny rural unrepresentative state has such outsized power to shape the primary narrative.
Ridiculous complex confusing and outdated voting mechanism. Caucuses should be replaced by voting booths and a straight tally.
Ridiculous the many millions of dollars already spent by the candidates, blanketing the state with messaging.
Ridiculous that major states with major urban and suburban populations don’t get to weigh in until the primary race has already been well defined and narrowed.
Ridiculous that the mainstream media has a clear pro-establishment bias and engages in voter manipulation both overtly and covertly.
Ridiculous that the USA sees fit to lecture other countries far more democratic and less corrupt and archaic on the principles and importance of democracy.
5
@Xoxarle
Dear Xoxarle,
You sound like the green eyed monster of envy is sitting on your shoulder.
I find the caucuses rather an interesting and very direct form of voting. You vote with your feet instead of with a ballot.
Your complaint that
"...major states with major urban and suburban populations don’t get to weigh in until the primary race has already been well defined and narrowed." is hardly a complaint at all.
If the most populous states just "go along" with what voters in Iowa decided, then they must be a bunch of lemmings, but of course they are not.
When the delegates are counted at the convention the most populous states have the advantage in selecting the candidate which is only right.
The bottom line is that the media only has as much control over the narrative as you allow them to have.
1
That's how it works with these people. Everyone is a winner.
All one has to do is participate. Soon, one of these individuals will face off against a real competitor and see what reality looks like up close.
4
1% Corporate America, including their "mainstream media" and the New York Times, are wringing their hands, terrified over Bernie Sanders, champion of we, the 99%, who are sick, tired & fed up over corporate status quo championed by Biden & Warren. POWER TO THE PEOPLE! GO BERNIE!
7
@James Michie Warren is not STatus quo.
She just knows what she is doing.
for the love of Pete ... who died and made Iowa king .. and why on earth can they not simply vote like every other primary in the country ... enough already ... the frozen tundra has gone to their heads
4
I’m sorry—I thought Yang was running too. Where is he on your chart?
19
My congratulations to the Times for, once again, making an incredibly difficult topic understandable.
2
Nate, the Democrats nominated George S. McGovern and Thomas F. Eagleton Jr., in 1972. The Democrats are good at losing.
3
One Art - Elizabeth Bishop
The art of losing isn’t hard to master;
so many things seem to be filled with the intent
to be lost that their loss is no disaster.
Lose something every day. Accept the fluster
of lost door keys, the hour badly spent.
The art of losing isn’t hard to master.
Then practice losing farther, losing faster;
places, and names, and where it was you meant to travel. None of these will bring disaster.
I lost my mother’s watch. And look! My last, or next-to-last, of three loved houses went.
The art of losing isn’t hard to master.
I most two cities, lovely ones. And, vaster, some realms I owned, two rivers, a continent.
I miss them, but it wasn’t a disaster.
—Even losing you (the joking voice, a gesture I love) I shan’t have lied. It’s evident the art of losing’s not too hard to master though it may look like (Write it!) like disaster.
The are of losing, Oh Democrats, will be a disaster. The art of losing isn’t hard to master.
But let’s try winning.
Amy Jean Klobuchar, Michael Farrand Bennet, or Mike Bloomberg - would avoid disaster.
The art of winning isn’t hard to master.
Try the winners that will avoid disaster.
Mike Bloomberg won three times. As a Republican and a Democrat. Amy Jean Klobuchar won EVERY time. And so did Michael Farrand Bennet.
The art of losing isn’t hard to master.
Let’s try winning. Let’s avoid disaster.
Sandy Lewis
1
@S B Lewis We are, alas, we are. Especially when we use "purity tests." Like in '72.
The art of winning avoids disaster.
We can win with winners.
There are three I like. Alphabetically-
Michael Farrand Bennet
Mike Bloomberg
Amy Jean Klobuchar.
The complexity of the caucuses is the very reason they are useless. It's like playing poker with so many wild cards it defies logic. Midwest folks claim to be simple and straightforward. End this insanity with a tried and true process: a simple vote-based like the rest of the world. Get rid of the caucuses and end Iowa's and New Hampshire's first in the nation shakedown. Four primaries - either regional, by lottery, or some representative formula - starting in March and ending in May. To win, a candidate needs to hobble together coalitions. Coalitions force people to coalesce for a common purpose which is the most effective way of governing. Coalitions are glue of a democracy and functioning republic AND the disinfectant of polarization and extremism. It starts with ending the Iowa-New Hampshire poison.
7
It's not a winner-take-all scenario. The two or three front-runners will all emerge from Iowa with a similar number of delegates; the "winner" will only be ahead by a few. It would be silly to declare any of them as having "won" the state. It doesn't work like that.
10
It looks increasingly like Bernie will be the beneficiary coming out of Iowa as he takes out Warren as his only rival on the left-wing of the Democratic party. He's already way ahead of Warren in NH, and with momentum from Iowa will pretty much doom Warren's candidacy.
On the moderate side, I wouldn't be suprised if Buttigieg is the odd man out. Biden is likely to lead, but I suspect Klobuchar will win more rural precincts than Buttigieg and ultimately do better than Mayor Pete overall.
In any case, Iowa is an expectations and momentum game. If Bernie wins big, as expected, Warren is done. But if Biden finishes significantly behind Sanders, there will be a lot of angst among moderates about who can beat Sanders for the nomination. Ultimately that could be Bloomberg.
I suspect more Iowans like Klobuchar than will vote for her, thinking she can't win. But she may get another look in NH if she finishes ahead of Buttigieg, particularly if Biden looks weak coming out of Iowa.
She may end up being the VP under Biden or Bloomberg, but the race for the moderate choice opposite Sanders could heat up after Iowa.
6
@Warren Ludford
Why do you discount warren so much?
She is the brightest one running.
I prefer this scenario to what happened in 2016 when DWS, the DNC and HRC worked so feverishly to rig the convention (remember Super Delegates and Saturday night debates?). I'm not a Bernie fan by any means but this chaotic approach seems refreshing compared to 2016. Muddled results in both Iowa and New Hampshire would mean that the more representative states like California will be important.
3
Frankly I think it's fine if the Iowa results are muddled. It's one very non-representative state. Why should candidates drop out based on the results of Iowa?
29
First alignment, final alignments, precincts, county conventions, state delegate equivalents, pledged delegates, caucuses that only able-bodied people who don't hold evening jobs can attend. Multiple candidates declaring victory.
Now picture this: every registered vote walks into a polling both on election day (or mails in a ballot), ranks his or her preferences on a piece of paper, and walks out. The delegates are distributed according to the proportion of votes earned.
One system is convoluted, Byzantine, abstruse, and discriminatory. The other system is simple, easy to understand, and fair. What's your preference, Iowa?
22
@SWalker I live in a city with ranked choice voting, and it doesn't work nearly as cleanly as you suggest. First, the results take much longer to tabulate. Then you have the uncomfortable voting pacts that encourage the backroom deals everyone is so opposed to. In the end you often get nonsensical voting patterns with the voters frequently placing diametrically opposed candidates as first and second choice which makes you question the competence of your fellow citizens who don't appear to know what they are voting for. I think there are models where it could work better, but we shouldn't pretend it's a cure all.
8
Iowa represents slightly more than 1% of the delegate count (41 out of nearly 4000).
It would be good news for our democracy if things come out muddled after just one percent of the delegates are in.
The disproportionate influence early (often demographically unrepresentative) states have on choosing our Presidential nominees is a much greater assault on our democracy than the Electoral College.
45
Maybe if the Times didnt print five
articles per day about Iowa, the caucuses wouldnt have such disproportionate influence.
9
The winner in this scenario is Donald J. Trump. Internecine squabbling among the Democrats will extend the primary season past Super Tuesday, increase the stature of Yang and Bloomberg, and strengthen the Republicans as they fund raise and hone their message.
10
All of which will eventually inure to Bloomberg's benefit. The lack of conviction to a single current participant should send us a message.My advice to the voters of Super Tuesday: Ignore Iowa.
11
If Biden wins then it will mean he is still holding a torch that he reuses to pass on to a new generation. If Bernie wins it will be an end to the Democratic party as we know it and the dominance of the Socialists in the Democratic party and if Butti wins he will be taken seriously and his inexperience will not matter.
Declaring victory by the 3 B list candidates Biden, Bernie and Butti will blow the chances due to identity politics of the Democratic party gaining steam. With neither of the 2 women senators Warren and Amy endorsed by the Edi board of NY Times firmly in the front runner trio crowd after Iowa and no African Americans in sight in the presidential race, democrats will lose their trump card and demoralize its base.
9
@Girish Kotwal you know, the democratic base does care about more than whether the nominee looks like them or potentially share a commonality in their background whether that be race, religion, sex, orientation, etc.
I think your view of what turns people out to vote is too simplistic. People don't just want a representation of someone from their background, they want someone who will fight for issues and policies that help people from their background.
4
"Iowa Could Have Multiple Candidates Declare Victory"
Because multiple candidates are liars!
The best outcome for Democrats is to have a single decisive front runner after the first primary caucuses. The closer and more acrimonious the primary election becomes, the less likely Democrats will come together when it's time to face Trump this year.
13
@Joel
I disagree. A healthy Primary fight airs a lot of ideas and passion which is at the heart of democracy.
The convention July 13-16 will be a soaring high for Democrats. We will coalesce and our Democrat Stars will make rousing speeches about our ideals and our candidates (President and VP). Barack Obama will bring the house down with his arm around whomever it is and a whole lot of other people from the Left, Center and Center-Right of our Party. And I bet a couple of Republican leaders from the past will also give speeches about why we must stand together against Trump.
I call this continued hysteria from NY Times Op Ed columnists as well as commenters "The Battered Spouse Syndrome" which translates to "If we don't do X, then they won't do Y to us" or "If we don't do this then that won't happen".
Nope, we just charge forward, stand hard, volunteer hard, donate hard and vote hard and have faith that our Party will emerge victorious with a Wave big enough to get us the Presidency and the Congress.
Then we impeach Kavanaugh for lying in his confirmation hearings and take back the SC.
We can do this people!!!!!
2
@Joel. So, in other words, one small, rural, Christian, demographically unrepresentative state choosing the democratic nominee with only 1% of the delegates work well for you.
1
Why is Yang never mentioned?
36
@Jack
Because Yang interesting but ultimately irrelevant.
32
@Jack Because he's at 3%
7
@Jack Why should he be?
Each candidate is part of an entangled state fluctuating from total victory to total loss, like a ball of Schrodinger's cats, and the caucus will be resorting to Feynman diagrams.
26
There is beauty in uncertainly.
It suggests that nothing is "rigged", and I hope that is the case for the Iowa caucus.
Last night's Superbowl was splendidly uncertain. No one could guess the outcome until late in the 4th quarter. Again, the excitement was watching two evenly matched teams, with different assets and liabilities, scrapping to the finish.
How different the Senate impeachment "trial" is...some Senators were certain before it started, and the outcome was predetermined not by reason, ethics or facts, but only by money and power.
What a wretched and sickening contrast.
20
@SJL "Some" Senators? I strongly doubt that a single Senator (or a married one) changed their vote to impeach or not to impeach from what they "knew" was the correct party-centric stance before the trial even started.
5
@SJL Yep, predetermined by members of both parties long before it ever came up for a vote in the House, let alone the Senate.
4
This convoluted scheme is in no way legitimate democracy.
63
@Roxanne Pearls In primaries I'd prefer a ballot where voters would be allotted 10 "votes", and choose to distribute them as they saw fit among the various candidates. A hard core supporter of one candidate might give all 10 of their "votes" to that candidate, while a less certain voter might give (say) 6 points to their first choice and spread the other 4 votes however they thought fit. Judging by most of the reporting I've seen on this campaign, I'd wager that many a voter would welcome such an option.
@A. Moursund
That sounds overly complex and easily gamed.
3
Let's face it, Iowa is a beauty contest, no more indicative of what America looks like than a can of beans.
Having said that, it is a feather in one's cap if you win it and you definitely want to finish in the top tier but it is not a killer if you don't.
If you lose Iowa and N. Hampshire and then the next one, I think W. Va. then you are in trouble.
8
@Paul The first two contests after Iowa and New Hampshire are the Nevada caucuses (Feb. 22nd) and the South Carolina primary (Feb. 29th). Then it's on to March 3rd and Super Tuesday, when 15 states and territories vote.
West Virginia doesn't vote until May 12th.
2
@Susanna Thank your for your reply. I stand corrected. Back in the day I think maybe W Va. was third but again I could be wrong, it was always the make or break state for people who did not do well in N.H. or Iowa.
1