ChrisWeigant.com

My Iowa Picks

[ Posted Monday, February 3rd, 2020 – 16:43 UTC ]

We're finally at the point where Democratic primary voters (or "caucus voters," today) get to register their choices in an actual election. It's been a long and winding road to get here, and along the way 18 of the announced 29 Democratic candidates have already dropped out of the race, leaving us with only (!) 11 remaining. After the Iowa and New Hampshire results are in, that field should narrow down to, hopefully, single digits.

Of course, only 10 of those 11 candidates are actually competing in Iowa tonight (since Michael Bloomberg is sitting out the first four states), which does make it marginally easier to guess what's going to happen. Although maybe not, because Iowa will be announcing not just one but three sets of results tonight. So let's run down what's going to happen tonight. I should mention that I'll only be making picks for the entire primary season on the Democratic side, because Donald Trump is a sitting president who is pretty much guaranteed to win the Republican nomination, so "picking" him over and over again in Republican primaries would make no sense.

 

Caucus mechanics

First a word or two about the mechanics of the Iowa caucuses is necessary here, because the rules have changed somewhat since last time. In 2016, there was a very close finish between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders -- Hillary won the night, but only by a margin of two-tenths of one percent -- and the Sanders camp was annoyed that only the final delegate count was announced. This meant that counts of actual voters was not available, and due to the peculiarities of the Iowa caucus, nobody really knows who got more actual votes. That has all changed now. Tonight, three totals will be announced.

Iowa caucuses are like a very personal slow-motion version of ranked-choice voting. Iowans gather in caucus sites across the state, and each individual caucus holds its own vote. There is no such thing as a secret ballot -- you must physically stand in a corner with other people who also support your chosen candidate. Or you can stand in a corner marked "undecided" (but there's a curveball with this one, so few will likely do so). At the end of this first shuffling, everyone is counted up.

At this point, any candidate who has not garnered 15 percent of the total of the people attending that particular caucus is eliminated. Well, except for candidates who have very close to 15 percent, because all the voters from the candidates who didn't meet this bar then have to decide who else to support -- and that means personally trying to convince more candidates to join your corner. So if your preferred candidate got 13 percent then you can still try to convince these floaters to caucus in your corner, which could push you over the 15 percent threshold. However, the people supporting a candidate over the 15 percent mark cannot change at this point -- and, bizarrely, neither can the "undecided" voters. So standing in the "undecided" corner is exactly the same as not showing up at the caucus at all, in essence, because your vote will not matter in the second round. After all this shuffling is done, the votes are tallied in the second round for all the candidates above 15 percent, and these votes are finalized and sent in. A certain number of delegates are awarded to each of these remaining candidates, in each of the caucuses.

Complicated? You bet. Byzantine? Yeah, I'd even go that far. But that's the Iowa caucus process, as it stands.

Adding to the confusion will be the way the results are reported. Previously, as mentioned, only the final delegate count was announced. The candidate with the most delegates won the Iowa caucuses, period. However, due to the complexities inherent in the process, the winner of the most delegates might not have actually won the most votes. Getting a whole lot of lightly-attended caucuses in the western part of the state could give you more delegates than running up the totals in the more-populated eastern part of Iowa, for instance. This is what Bernie complained about last time, so this time around we will get three totals: the total vote count from the first round of voting, the total vote count of the final vote, and the total number of delegates won. Most news organizations are going to go with the delegate count to determine the winner of the state, but (obviously) the individual campaigns will tout a "win" in the other two categories even if they didn't win the most delegates. This will only add to the confusion, unless one candidate sweeps all three categories. I'm going to go with the delegate count as well, for my prediction, although it will be interesting to see what a split result will mean, going forward.

 

What a win would mean for each candidate

Obviously, a surprise win for a candidate that nobody's expecting to win any delegates would be a real boost, but due to the high threshold, it's not all that likely to happen. There are two candidates in particular who this could apply to: Andrew Yang and Tom Steyer. Neither is really expected to win any delegates, but if they have a concentrated group of supporters in any one particular caucus, they could win a handful of delegates tonight. This would legitimize their candidacies and offer them a path forward, but in the grand scheme of things will probably not mean much at all.

The candidate who is really on the cusp of becoming either a surprise winner or perhaps becoming totally irrelevant is Amy Klobuchar. She's staked her whole campaign on the idea that she would be the best candidate to compete in the Midwest, and she hails from a state bordering Iowa. However, her polling even within the state has been well below the 15 percent mark, meaning she could wind up with no delegates at all tonight. It's likely that she'll meet the minimum in at least some caucuses, though, which would delay calls for her to gracefully exit the race -- although perhaps not by much. But if Klobuchar is completely shut out of the delegate count then her campaign will effectively be over.

This leaves the top four candidates, who will all be vying for what is normally described as the "three tickets out of Iowa." Nobody wants to come in fourth, in other words. And the polling has been so mixed that any of them could actually wind up losing to the other three.

Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg are, according to most polls (but not all of them), the ones who are most in danger of placing fourth. Either of them could be shut out of the final round in at least some of the caucus sites tonight. But then again, either of them could have a much better night than expected and surprise everyone.

If Warren beats expectations, it will largely be due to her heavy investment in the ground game of Iowa politics. She's been the most aggressive in setting up precinct captains and doing all the nitty-gritty work that can translate into a big finish on caucus night -- as even the other campaigns have honestly had to admit. So even though her polling numbers are down, she could do a lot better than expected. Mayor Pete has been polling better (he's even led a few recent polls), so he too could have an unexpectedly good night tonight.

Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden are currently neck and neck for the lead in the polls. In some polls Bernie is up, and in others Biden still leads. Bernie has seen a late-breaking surge in his support, which is usually seen as key to doing better than expected on polling night.

But the key for all of the four frontrunners may be who picks up votes from the candidates who don't meet the first-round cutoff, especially if the race for first and second (or for third and fourth, for that matter) is very close in the first round. If Bernie and Biden are running close for the lead while Warren and Buttigieg are fighting for third place, then it will be absolutely critical to see where the voters from the bumped candidates go.

Andrew Yang voters are most likely to go to Bernie Sanders, but there may not be enough of them to make much of a difference. Tom Steyer voters are harder to predict, but again there probably won't be all that many of them. The biggest question is where voters for Amy Klobuchar are going to go, because she is most likely to be the one who (1) gets bumped in the first round, but (2) has enough support to actually make a difference in the second round.

The conventional wisdom seems to be that Klobuchar voters would most likely be split between Buttigieg and Biden in the second round, for ideological reasons. But some may also drift to Warren, if they are most enthused about voting for a woman candidate. Few Klobuchar voters will likely gravitate towards Bernie, though, given the amount of scorn Klobuchar has heaped upon him in the debates. This will most likely help both Biden and Buttigieg out in the second round, which is a phenomenon which we'll actually be able to delve into afterwards, since they'll be reporting both the first and the final rounds of vote totals.

If Elizabeth Warren falls below the 15 percent threshold in any caucus, her voters will most likely go for Bernie over the other candidates, but this is not guaranteed. The dustup between the two right before the last debate may have left some raw feelings, and this could be a factor in Warren voters' second choices. But although Warren is polling right around the 15 percent mark, it's not likely that she'll get shut out of the final round in many caucus sites. Please remember, 15 percent times four candidates is only 60 percent of the total vote. This means all four top candidates are very likely to meet the threshold in the majority of the caucus sites. Even with a field of 10 candidates, the other six in the race are not likely to add up to over 40 percent, to put it another way. And even though Bernie and Biden are out in front in the polling, they're not out in front by all that much -- meaning neither of them (or even both together) is likely to dominate any individual caucus to the extent that would be necessary to shut Warren out.

Who wins Iowa is going to shape the next month of the race, that's the only thing that is certain at this point. If Biden wins, he could wind up in the dominant position even if Bernie goes on to win both New Hampshire and Nevada. Biden would then win South Carolina and we'd all be talking about a two-man race heading into Super Tuesday.

If Bernie wins, however, this dynamic may flip. If Bernie wins Iowa and then goes on to pick up both New Hampshire and Nevada, then he will have won the first three states to vote. Biden may win South Carolina, but then again he may not -- his argument that he is the most electable will be a lot harder to make after losing three straight states, which could lead to movement among the African-American voters in South Carolina that Biden has been betting on.

If Pete Buttigieg wins Iowa it could shake the race up in a big way, as people begin to see him as a more-electable moderate candidate than Biden. If Elizabeth Warren were to win Iowa, then she would undercut Bernie's surge in the polling in a big way (although Bernie could then even the score with a win in New Hampshire).

And, once again, any of the top four candidates could wind up being the overall winner tonight -- things are that close, and Iowa results can often be very surprising.

 

My Iowa picks

Having said all of that, I'm now going to make my first official picks of the 2020 primary season. Since we've had such an enormous field of candidates this campaign cycle, I'm going to go ahead and predict the top five Iowa winners.

The polling is not, as I mentioned, clear-cut. And Iowa can have surprising results. But this time around I think I'm going to hew pretty closely to what the polls show. I think one of the biggest factors in Iowa is who has gained support in the last weeks of the campaign, and from what I've seen that means that Bernie Sanders is going to win the overall prize. I think a lot of Iowa voters didn't really believe Bernie could win until just the last week or so, but they've seen how their fellow Iowans have gotten behind him and therefore will decide that he's worth a chance. Bernie's got excitement on his side, and I think that'll propel him into first place.

I also think that Joe Biden is going to come in second, although how close the top two spots will be is impossible for me to even predict. I think Biden will benefit the most from second choices, and will pick up the lion's share of Amy Klobuchar's voters in any caucus where she fails to qualify. Biden's base skews a lot older, and (crucially) older people reliably turn out to vote. I haven't heard any weather reports of giant blizzards expected tonight, which would be the only thing which could possibly change this dynamic. So Biden will do well tonight, but still fall short of Bernie in the final tally.

I'm also going to optimistically choose Elizabeth Warren for third place. I think the ground game she's invested in is going to pay dividends tonight, and I think she'll rake in a goodly number of delegates due to her concentration on the boots-on-the-ground aspect of the race.

Closely behind Warren in fourth place will be Pete Buttigieg. I think the last-minute closeness between Biden and Bernie is going to actually hurt Mayor Pete, because I think some of his supporters will jump ship in an effort to boost Biden over the top. So I think Buttigieg is going to have a rather disappointing night.

And in fifth place, obviously, will be Amy Klobuchar. She'll pick up a handful of delegates, but nowhere near enough to still be seen as a viable candidate. I think she'll soldier on through New Hampshire, but will also have a disappointing finish there too, which will lead directly to her announcing she's suspending her campaign before Nevada votes.

Those are my picks, and I fully admit that any or all of them could prove to be wrong. Well, except Klobuchar -- that one I'd bet the farm on, personally. But the top four are really up for grabs and anything could happen tonight. A good or bad performance here is not going to knock any of the top four candidates out of the race, but it could go a long way towards setting the tone of the race all the way up to Super Tuesday.

As I said, those are my picks -- what are yours? If you think I've gotten any of these monumentally wrong somehow, please let me know about it in the comments. Oh, and I'll be commenting live myself tonight as the results come in, so please join in for that conversation too.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

98 Comments on “My Iowa Picks”

  1. [1] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Good colume. Whether or not Bernie "wins" (cross my fingers) I believe the overall.results will reflect that there are more than two tickets out of the Hawkeye state.

    It's going to be a good news viewing night out here in country-Cali - woot!

  2. [2] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    MtnCaddy -

    There may well be four tickets out of Iowa this year, but I think five is doubtful, personally.

    Waiting to see results... nothing in yet...

    -CW

  3. [3] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    My predictions:
    first: a big money candidate
    second: a big money candidate
    third: a big money candidate
    fourth: a big money candidate

    Remember the old saying:

    When candidates say "Iowa" we all know-a who they owe-a.

  4. [4] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    still no results...

    Numbers! I want numbers!

    Sigh...

    -CW

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I don't understand.

    Counting votes isn't really a difficult proposition.

    What!? Has there been some sort of election interference going on here or is there something about caucuses?

    Unbelievable.

  6. [6] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [4]

    No kidding! We have the Left Coast advantage of being two hours behind Iowa, but we need the bleeping numbers.

  7. [7] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    The official explanation is:

    They're double-checking everything.
    This is new because we have to report 3 different numbers.
    This is also new with the remote caucuses as well.
    We have a new app to report numbers, meaning some confusion.

    But who knows what's really going on, especially after that last minute poll was yanked, too...

    -CW

  8. [8] 
    Kick wrote:

    Multiple peeps on the ground in Iowa are telling me that Buttigieg is doing much better than the polls indicated. I'm hearing it was a lopsided electorate of about 60% women and 40% men. Not sure if any of that is true, but I heard that from multiple contacts.

  9. [9] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Bottom line … good news for Biden supporters. Ahem.

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Amazing..

    Democrats could screw up an iron football... :eyeroll:

    Multiple peeps on the ground in Iowa are telling me that Buttigieg is doing much better than the polls indicated. I'm hearing it was a lopsided electorate of about 60% women and 40% men. Not sure if any of that is true, but I heard that from multiple contacts.

    BBBBBWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Yea.. Just like your "contacts" told you Hillary was going to win FL, PA and the presidency.. :D

    But it's OK.. I am sure hearing "voices" in your head seems perfectly normal to you.. :smirk: :D

  11. [11] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kick -

    I've been hearing anecdotal stuff as well, some of it contradictory.

    This is why we need numbers!

    Grrr...

    They're now reporting "inconsistencies" which is not reassuring, and that officials from the caucuses are waiting for "an hour" on the phone to report their numbers.

    WTF?

    -CW

  12. [12] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, Michale, the IRP ain't much better at this vote counting, you know.

    But, then, that's your point, isn't it. Heh.

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    My "peeps" on the ground are "telling me" that Buttagig is at 3rd and Biden is at 5th...

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/

    :smirk: :D

    Who could have POSSIBLY predicted that Biden would fall by the wayside.. :D

    oh.. wait.. :D

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, then, that's your point, isn't it. Heh.

    It is indeed..

    It comes from the Democrat penchant to try and please everyone and ending up pleasing no one and pissing off everyone..

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    WTF?

    It's Democrat's version of "quality control"..

    IE Controlling the "votes" so the desired outcome is achieved..

  16. [16] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW
    11

    I've been hearing anecdotal stuff as well, some of it contradictory.

    Me too, CW... totally contradictory information from about a dozen people. I heard only two things that were consistent, and it was:

    (1) Buttigieg outperforming his polling numbers.
    (2) The caucus goers being lopsided with females.

  17. [17] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The real problem with Iowa is that the state itself is lopsided.

  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    … and, they don't know how to count votes. Which isn't, apparently, limited to Iowa ...

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    BREAKING NEWS from my "peeps" on the ground in Iowa..

    Sanders wins IOWA! :D

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    I heard only two things that were consistent, and it was:

    (1) Buttigieg outperforming his polling numbers.

    And yet, the FACTS don't support your "peeps on the ground in Iowa"...

    Funny how that is ALWAYS the case, eh? :D

  21. [21] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale, clearly, it doesn't matter who "wins" Iowa.

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Iowa officially has its first caucus-deciding coin flips of the year
    10:21 p.m.
    In some cases, Iowa is leaving the Democratic caucuses up to chance.

    In the case of a tie during Monday night's caucuses, the state is resorting to an old-fashioned coin flip to decide which candidates win delegates. A couple have already occurred.
    https://theweek.com/speedreads/893489/iowa-officially-first-caucusdeciding-coin-flips-year

    Democrats.. :eyeroll:

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale, clearly, it doesn't matter who "wins" Iowa.

    The ONLY winner in Iowa tonight is going to be President Trump...

    At least, that is what my "peeps" are telling me on the ground... :D

  24. [24] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Did anyone notice, or was it just me, that Biden had his very own 'Howard Dean' moment, tonight … next up, the SOTU!

  25. [25] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    There you to again!

  26. [26] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Heh. And, make mine a double.

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have just heard from another one of my "peeps" on the ground in Iowa :D

    Iowa's Democratic Party hung up on a precinct secretary while he was live on CNN
    11:57 p.m.
    If one feverish scramble of a segment on CNN could describe Monday night's Iowa caucuses, this is it.

    Iowa faced what CNN portrayed as a crisis Monday night as the state took longer and longer to report any results from its Democratic caucuses. Thanks to an apparent snafu with a reporting app, the network was forced to turn to tweets from Story County precinct secretary Shawn Sebastian to get a taste of one area's results. CNN's Wolf Blitzer eventually called Sebastian to hear more, and his frustration with it all was obvious.

    Sebastian complained to Blitzer about how the app "just doesn't work" as he waited on hold to speak to an Iowa Democratic party official on Monday. And when Sebastian finally got through, the Iowa Democrat's luck got even worse.
    https://theweek.com/speedreads/893500/iowas-democratic-party-hung-precinct-secretary-live-cnn

    "Let's vote with an APP!!! What could POSSIBLY go wrong!!???"
    -Democrat Party

  28. [28] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, I could have told you that. I heard it live, you know.

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, I could have told you that. I heard it live, you know.

    ANYONE could have made that call..

    Except Democrats, of course..

    One thing is perfectly clear from the Great Democrat Iowa Debacle of 2020...

    Democrats are still against Sanders and will damage him at ALL costs...

  30. [30] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    When half the country known as the world's greatest democracy is worried about another four years of Trump, they're worried about the wrong thing.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats are proving in Iowa, beyond ANY doubt whatsoever, that they are incapable of governing..

    How are Democrats gonna govern 329 million Americans when they can't even handle a few thousand voters in Iowa???

  32. [32] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    17

    The real problem with Iowa is that the state itself is lopsided.

    It's certainly not indicative of the Democratic electorate at large since it's around 90% Caucausian (if that's what you mean). :)

  33. [33] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    I hate to admit it, but a word is springing to mind, and it begins with "cluster..."

    Sigh.

    -CW

  34. [34] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Silver lining:

    Maybe this will be the ultimate death of the whole "caucus" idea, which in my opinion would be a good thing.

    Dems have already switched almost all of the caucus states to primaries, I think only about 3 or 4 remain. So maybe what we're hearing now is the death knell of the whole caucus concept?

    Primaries are a lot easier to count, period.

    -CW

  35. [35] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Indeed.

  36. [36] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Sounds like Buttigieg won.

  37. [37] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think I'm okay with that.

  38. [38] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris[33],

    Careful ...

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    I hate to admit it, but a word is springing to mind, and it begins with "cluster..."

    Sigh.

    Welcome to the Dark Side.. :D

  40. [40] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Though, that wouldn't have exactly been gratuitous. :)

  41. [41] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Stop it, Michale!

  42. [42] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The First Gentleman of the United States!

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:
  44. [44] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If you think I'll click on that, then you're crazy.

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, gonna try and sleep.. AGAIN..

    Let me know how the 'cluster----' works out.. :D

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you think I'll click on that, then you're crazy.

    You won't regret it.. It's hilarious.. :D

  47. [47] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Me, too.

  48. [48] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Enough already!

  49. [49] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW
    34

    Maybe this will be the ultimate death of the whole "caucus" idea, which in my opinion would be a good thing.

    Totally agree... just look at Washington State in 2016. Two totally different results when they held caucuses and primaries.

    So maybe what we're hearing now is the death knell of the whole caucus concept?

    About time. :)

  50. [50] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM

    Did Buttigieg give a victory speech?

  51. [51] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    This isn't a party thing. It's a caucus thing. Please remember:

    Eight years ago, Mitt Romney was declared the apparent, but narrow, winner of the Republican caucuses over Rick Santorum. But the absence of full results on caucus night left the outcome unresolved. Weeks later, Santorum was declared the official winner, but long after it made any difference for his candidacy.

    In other words, not a snafu, but a fubar. From either side of the aisle...

    Sigh. The problem, of course, is that Iowa cannot change to a primary, because the minute it does, NH will try to leapfrog in front of it in the calendar. NH law states that their primary doesn't happen on a set date but rather "two weeks before any other primary in the country." That sets up a battle royale with Iowa should they decide to change...

    -CW

  52. [52] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Kick -

    Everyone gave a victory speech. Klobuchar is getting kudos for leaping out as the first to do so.

    After all, when there are no results, why not give a victory speech?

    Heh.

    -CW

  53. [53] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [34]

    CW-

    Agreed. But wouldn't adopting a "ranked choice" ballot combine the best attributes of both the caucases and primary balloting?

    The caucases allow for local individualized face to face political participation, perhaps reminiscent of Democracy back in old Athens,
    including the option (for some) of considering evidence and changing one's mind. Primary balloting yields easier to interpret results and with the quickness that addresses our national obsession with getting instant results. Everybody wins and our politic system will have a refined awareness of America's politica will and aspirations.

  54. [54] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kick,

    Buttigieg gave one of the best victory speeches I've heard in a long time ...all of the others paled in comparison tonight. Yesterday.

  55. [55] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick,

    I don’t think it is that shocking if Buttigieg did well in Iowa — he has focused his campaign there early on — spending a good bit of time going door to door trying to meet as many folks as he could. I think it shows that in person meetings has a better response than tv and radio ads.

  56. [56] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW
    52

    Everyone gave a victory speech.

    What!? That's hilarious. Yang too? Steyer too?

    Klobuchar is getting kudos for leaping out as the first to do so.

    Seriously!?

    After all, when there are no results, why not give a victory speech?

    That's one way to spin it; no results equals good results. It's comical to watch them fight like Hell over 41 delegates every 4 years. With all those candidates, it seems like anyone who comes out of Iowa with around 8 or more delegates is in decent shape.

  57. [57] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale, [from prev]

    And you STILL have not adequately explained why Democrats loved Donald Trump when he had a -D after his name..

    You’ve never adequately proven that Democrats loved Donald Trump ever. The real question is why you love him more since he is arguing that he is a dictator with no checks and balances that can hold him accountable for any improper or illegal actions?

    And for the record, when Trump didn’t have an -R behind his name, he was all for illegal immigrants working at his properties. Before he became a Republican, he couldn’t rip children out of the arms of their asylum seeking parents, no matter how much he might have liked to do so. Prior to that -R behind his name, Trump wasn’t able increase the deficit to over $1 trillion dollars in good economic times.

    There are lots more reasons to dislike the traitor in the White House, but it’s easier for you to just ignore the facts and truth concerning him.

  58. [58] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    54

    Buttigieg gave one of the best victory speeches I've heard in a long time

    He seriously did or you're kidding?

    ...all of the others paled in comparison tonight. Yesterday.

    They seriously all gave victory speeches!? Buttigieg is a good speechifier. ;)

  59. [59] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    55

    I don’t think it is that shocking if Buttigieg did well in Iowa — he has focused his campaign there early on — spending a good bit of time going door to door trying to meet as many folks as he could.

    Buttigieg learned a lot from the "school of hard knocks" campaigning for Obama in 2008.

    I think it shows that in person meetings has a better response than tv and radio ads.

    Smart guy. :)

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    You’ve never adequately proven that Democrats loved Donald Trump ever.

    Actually, I have.. Several times..

    Do you deny it?? Because, if you deny it and are willing to concede when I prove it again, I'll be happy to do so..

    And for the record, when Trump didn’t have an -R behind his name, he was all for illegal immigrants working at his properties.

    Yea.. Most successful businessmen are.. What's yer point??

    There are lots more reasons to dislike the traitor in the White House, but it’s easier for you to just ignore the facts and truth concerning him.

    And that's your problem.. You don't WANT to listen to the FACTS about him and the only "truth" you have with President Trump is your "truth"..

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    This isn't a party thing. It's a caucus thing. Please remember:

    I don't think the GOP was stoopid enough to depend solely on an app for their caucus..

    It's reminiscent of the disastrous TrainWreckCare website rollout..

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    ‘It’s a total meltdown’: Confusion seizes Iowa as officials struggle to report results

    The Iowa caucus results appear to be indefinitely delayed, leaving the Democratic candidates in a lurch.
    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/03/iowa-caucus-2020-election-110600

    This is not just a run o' the mill caucus issue...

    This is a full blown snafu... An unmitigated disaster..

    Leave it to Democrats to destroy an American institution..

    "I always knew that thing was a bad idea. Leave it to the Catholics to destroy existence."
    -Serendipity, DOGMA

    :D

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's becoming readily obvious that it's President Trump who is the big winner in Iowa today.. :D

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    , he couldn’t rip children out of the arms of their asylum seeking parents, no matter how much he might have liked to do so.

    President Trump was simply following the same policy that yer Messiah, Odumbo was..

    Funny how you didn't complain about children being ripped out of the arms of their alleged "parents" then, eh??

    How come??

    Obviously the FACTS prove that you really don't care about the children being ripped out of the arms of their alleged "parents"..

    Apparently, you prefer to keep children with the rapists and the child sex traffickers..

    Which, to be perfectly honest, is a really sick and twisted position to take. Promise me you'll never be left alone with children, eh? :smirk:

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ready, Dems? Hillary Wants a Starring Role

    A divided Democratic Party, united only in a quest to defeat President Trump this year, is stretched to breaking over fault lines of young and old, liberal and moderate, persuaders and mobilizers, stabilizers and revolutionaries. About the last thing they need now is another Hillary Clinton revival tour -- but here it comes.
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/01/31/ready_dems_hillary_wants_a_starring_role_142275.html

    Hillary Clinton..

    The gift to the GOP that keeps on giving..

    Hillary will never be missed...

    How can we miss someone who will never go away??

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    As far as the Iowa caucus goes.. The Demcorat Party's intent is clear..

    They realize that Bernie was going to have a really really good day..

    So they engineered this caucus debacle to blunt the impact on Bernie's huge win...

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's rather hilarious...

    Russia doesn't have to bother interfering with our elections..

    The Democrats are perfectly capable of fraking things up all on their own...

    :smirk: :D

  68. [68] 
    dsws wrote:

    I would like to see a process that involves substantive deliberation, not just voting. That's the idea of having caucuses and delegates. The problem is that, if opinions are set beforehand, basically any process will boil down to the question of who wins.

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump just won the Iowa Democratic caucuses

    Whatever the eventual outcome of the 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses — and whether or not anyone in our conspiracy-addled country believes in the veracity of the officially certified result — there is one clear winner of the vote, and that is President Donald Trump.

    That's because the night was a disaster across the board. It was a disaster for the Democratic Party of Iowa, which suffered a total meltdown before the country and the world. It was a disaster for the Democratic National Committee, which showed that it was incapable of overseeing a functional election. It was a disaster for the crowded and jumbled field of Democratic presidential candidates, which lost a valuable opportunity to achieve some early clarity before heading into next Tuesday's New Hampshire primary. And it was a disaster for American democracy, which added another faceplant to the hanging chads of 2000 and the winning-the-White-House-while-losing-by-nearly-three-million-votes absurdity of 2016.

    It was a night of chaos that set up what is bound to be a week of chaos, with individual campaigns touting their own internal numbers and casting doubt on those of the other candidates. Meanwhile, once official numbers are released — assuming they are eventually released — the losers will object, alleging foul play or sloppiness so widespread that the vote should be disregarded. And really, who will be able to blame them? The results weren't released slowly and carefully over several hours, precinct by precinct. They were almost totally embargoed all night long, raising questions that no explanation will be able to dispel. The result is bound to be tainted.

    And that is why Trump is the true winner. Jeb Bush was right to call him the chaos candidate early on in the 2016 primary season. Bush meant that Trump sowed chaos. He did, and he does. But it was also true in another sense. Trump thrives on chaos, even that which he doesn't create. The more American democracy degrades, becomes a circus, and gets permeated by a miasma of bad faith and bad blood, the more politicians like Trump will flourish and succeed in their efforts to act as ringmasters of a carnival freak show at the core of our public life.
    https://theweek.com/articles/893559/trump-just-won-iowa-democratic-caucuses

    Even Left Wing rags that hate President Trump acknowledge that he is the undisputed winner in Iowa today.. :D

  70. [70] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    It appears that at this point I am the only one here that can claim victory for my picks on who would win.

    While I'm on a roll, here's my predictions for the State of the Union speech and the Dems response:

    The title for CW's article should be "The Misstatements of the Union".

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    STILL no numbers from Iowa????

  72. [72] 
    Kick wrote:

    Can you imagine the outrage if Obama had acted like this during our National Anthem? You can hear the Russian associate of Trump's who posted it to his Instagram account speaking:

    https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article239913588.html

    Being that Trump has created a hierarchy of sycophants wherein loyalty is determined by boot licking/ass kissing that must follows his every idiotic move, it'll sure be interesting to watch the spinners, holsters, rubes, and dipshits defend this.

    You have to stand proudly for the National Anthem or you shouldn't be playing; you shouldn't be there. Maybe you shouldn't be in the country. ~ Donald Trump

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    Simply a different take on AMERICA: LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT

    Only a moron or an America-hating dirtbag would have a problem with it..

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats wanted to show the world how awesome and united they are...

    Joe Biden flopped in Iowa. And so did the Democratic party's reputation

    The apparent malfunctioning of a new app, meant to transmit vote totals, threw the Iowa caucus in disarray. And this benefited some more than others
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/04/joe-biden-flopped-badly-iowa

    As usual, Democrats EPIC'LY failed..

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    NOW can we get some condemnation of the Democrat Party??

    Or just more equivocating and excuses???

  76. [76] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i'm curious what donald will say about his own impeachment the day before the senate votes, and whether or not he'll stay on script. iowa was already looking chaotic even before the vote reporting fiasco, so why dwell on it for being even moreso than expected?

  77. [77] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW
    51

    Eight years ago, Mitt Romney was declared the apparent, but narrow, winner of the Republican caucuses over Rick Santorum. But the absence of full results on caucus night left the outcome unresolved. Weeks later, Santorum was declared the official winner, but long after it made any difference for his candidacy.

    Yes, sir. Rick Santorum actually was the victor over Mitt Romney by a margin of only 34 votes, but Ron Paul carried a huge chunk of the rural portion of Iowa and came in a very strong third place. The caucus certified the results, but the GOP declared a "split decision" because the information from 8 precincts was still missing and unreported.

    As for GOP delegate count coming out of Iowa in 2012, Santorum and Romney got about the same number... just kidding. Iowa is a stupid caucus (all caucuses are stupid, IMO) wherein the delegates are awarded much like an electoral college type system where a person can receive a large portion of the votes yet a smaller portion of delegates depending on which part of the state the votes were earned. In short, rural areas of the state with way less people have equal numbers of delegates as do thousands.

    So, about those delegates, Rick Santorum having won the majority of votes won zero delegates... just kidding... *shakes head*... not kidding! Rick Santorum "won" Iowa and zero delegates. Romney got the vast majority... just kidding:

    Delegates
    Santorum ...... 0
    Romney ......... 6
    Ron Paul ...... 22

    Popular vote
    Santorum ...... 29,839
    Romney ......... 29,805
    Ron Paul ........ 26,036

    Since the guy who won the popular vote got zero delegates... which GOP candidate actually won Iowa in 2012?

    Answer: Who cares? Caucuses suck. Caucuses have always sucked.

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL<

    and whether or not he'll stay on script. iowa was already looking chaotic even before the vote reporting fiasco, so why dwell on it for being even moreso than expected?

    There is "chaotic" and then there is "unmitigated disaster"..

    As far as what President Trump will say about impeachment??

    Read back thru all my gloating of the last couple days.. :D That should give you an idea. :D hehe

    The victory lap is going to be EPIC. And Pelosi will have a front row seat!! :D hehehe

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course, caucuses have always sucked..

    But it takes Democrats to elevate such suckiness to extreme levels of incompetence and disaster...

  80. [80] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    76

    so why dwell on it for being even moreso than expected?

    Because the hatred and fake outrage toward Beyonce and Jay-Z staying seated during the National Anthem blew up in their hypocritical faces when Donald's Russian friend posted him failing to meet his own National Anthem purity test.

    Also, the manufactured outrage at the Iowa caucuses (which is nothing new) takes the focus off President Impeached In Perpetuity who is being pronounced guilty by multiple GOP Senators.

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    What mindless drivel..

    If the shoe was on the other foot and the GOP had such an unmitigated disaster and displayed such gross incompetence at the Iowa Caucus, ya'all would be attacking them to the high heavens..

    The hypocrisy that permeates Weigantia knows no depths... :eyeroll:

  82. [82] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    If the shoe was on the other foot and the GOP had such an unmitigated disaster and displayed such gross incompetence...

    what's with all this "if" stuff?

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    what's with all this "if" stuff?

    By all means.. Find me such an Iowa frak-up to match the current Democrat one..

  84. [84] 
    Kick wrote:

    I wasn't watching television, but I heard that at some of the precincts when a candidate wasn't deemed viable but "almost viable," they were allowed to try to recruit a few people from the "less viable" candidates, and apparently this happened on live television on MSNBC!?

    I heard it was a group of Elizabeth Warren caucus goers who missed it by only two and were allowed to pick up two and become viable, but by the caucus rules, when Warren's group wasn't viable, they were supposed to choose another candidate. So apparently on live television this happened -- with recorded proof via cable new network -- and no one knows how many caucus sites at which this happened. It is pathetic if that actually happened on live television, but it's still SSDD in Iowa... pretty much par for the course on both sides of the aisle... because caucuses suck for everybody.

    And releasing part of the results is equally stupid. They should release all the results or nothing. Release the delegate counts. Who won which delegates? You can get huge numbers of voters in a caucus that amounts to almost no delegates. Still, this election isn't going to be won in one lily white state. Talk to me on Super Tuesday. :)

  85. [85] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    First results finally in.

    Pete up in delegates, Bernie up in votes. 62% in.

    Big story: Pete beats expectations by a mile, and Biden falls far short of expectations.

    More later...

    -CW

  86. [86] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    It'll be interesting to watch the polling out of SC over the next week or so. If Biden is toast, where will his voting base migrate to? Of course, he could still stage a big comeback in SC, but Bloomberg is suddenly looking a lot stronger for Super Tuesday, that's for sure...

    -CW

  87. [87] 
    Kick wrote:

    So the whining Bernie supporters might turn out to be happy as Hell Iowa didn't release the numbers last night because right now, Bernie isn't leading the pack.

    All the upset Bernie supporters who were beside themselves livid that Bernie wasn't announced as the winner last night can now quit your whining. As of now -- since they only released partial numbers -- Bernie might not have won after all, and Buttigieg has apparently overperformed his polling numbers... as I was told almost universally by my friends in Iowa (who've moved on to New Hampshire now).

    Buttigieg ran basically the same race Obama did. He ran as a centrist who could reach people on both sides of the aisle and invited Republicans to caucus for him while knocking on doors. People forget, but that's exactly what Obama did, and Buttigieg organized for Obama in Iowa in 2008 and knocked on a lot of doors for him... and the rest is history. :)

  88. [88] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW
    85

    Big story: Pete beats expectations by a mile, and Biden falls far short of expectations.

    That's what I had heard last night from about a dozen people there on the ground in Iowa... that Buttigieg had over performed his poll numbers. This was about the only universal theme I was hearing from friends in Iowa... most of them now in New Hampshire... one on their way back to Texas... that and the caucus goers being overwhelmingly female.

    Biden almost has to win South Carolina now, but I think he can do that since Buttigieg and Sanders aren't exactly bowling them over here in the South.

    More later...

    Good. Buttigieg, Sanders, and Warren definitely benefit from the lily white states getting to vote first, and New Hampshire is even whiter than Iowa. However, the South -- so far -- doesn't show signs of jumping on their bandwagons... meaning: Writing off Joe Biden after the lily white states in the North and before South Carolina and Super Tuesday is silly. :)

  89. [89] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW
    86

    It'll be interesting to watch the polling out of SC over the next week or so.

    Yep. But keep in mind that Iowa is one state, and South Carolina isn't a caucus.

    If Biden is toast, where will his voting base migrate to?

    Bernie was supposed to win it easily, right? So what happened to Bernie? Why is Bernie not toast when he's been running for 5 years and hasn't made a whole lot of inroads with minorities? Super Tuesday will arrive. No one expected Biden to win in a lily white state... but Bernie? He was expected to win. 'Splain that while you're Biden bashing, please. :)

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    Big story: Pete beats expectations by a mile, and Biden falls far short of expectations.

    Story??? More like a fairy tale..

    Anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together KNOWS that Bernie was the big winner..

    The reason it took so long to get the "results" is because they needed to be tweaked and massaged to make sure the fact that Bernie was the winner by a mile didn't get out..

  91. [91] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    returns thus far look like pete in first, bernie in second. caucuses are all out in public, so it's not like results could be faked diebold style.

  92. [92] 
    Kick wrote:

    By all means.. Find me such an Iowa frak-up to match the current Democrat one..

    Iowa 2012... a total GOP eff up from the word "go." See [77] above.

    After that GOP shit show where Romney was declared the winner and then Santorum was the actual winner except he received zero -- count them -- zero delegates, Romney came in second and received 6 delegates, and Ron Paul in third received a whopping 22 delegates -- after all that playing out over months, then several of Ron Paul's aides were criminally indicted for a host of corruption charges connected to the 2012 GOP Iowa caucus and bribery for an endorsement -- campaign finance violations.

    https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2016/05/05/former-ron-paul-aides-guilty-payment-scandal-kent-sorenson-michele-bachmann-jesse-benton-dimitri-kesari-john-tate/83968234/

    #SSDD

  93. [93] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kick[89],

    Love ya!

  94. [94] 
    dsws wrote:

    Someone in Iowa really deserves a MDDOTW. It's over a day since the caucuses, and we have neither a tally nor an explanation. My guess is that it's just a prodigious FUBAR. But if they did this to help or harm a candidate's chances, they should face criminal prosecution.

  95. [95] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Trump blames Sanctuary City policies for forcing the release of illegal immigrants from jails after they were arrested or stopped on minor charges.

    Sanctuary City policies do NOT force cities to do anything — they actually do the opposite. It keeps the police from holding individuals on federal charges that do not rise to the level of a felony because they do not have the authority to do so! There are no policies that “force” cities to release criminals that aren’t supposed to be released.

    That is Trump lying to the public...once again! Fear mongering of how horrible illegal immigrants are...except for the ones he hires, apparently.

  96. [96] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Speech review column now up...

    -CW

  97. [97] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    93

    Love ya!

    Me? ;)

    Hey, EM, I don't expect you to click the link, but I did want to give a heads up to anyone interested that the GOP are planning to sabotage the South Carolina primary election against Biden. They've cancelled the GOP SC primary so no one can challenge Trump and are now planning to "vote for Trump" by voting for Bernie Sanders... their preferred candidate.

    https://www.postandcourier.com/politics/upstate-gop-leaders-plotting-to-meddle-in-sc-democratic-primary/article_f1e7abd2-4788-11ea-aa9f-33a1d262994c.html

    The fix is in.

    So to recap: The GOP in South Carolina cancelled their primary and are planning to sabotage Biden.

  98. [98] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ

    Russ: And for the record, when Trump didn’t have an -R behind his name, he was all for illegal immigrants working at his properties.

    Mike: Yea.. Most successful businessmen are.. What's yer point?? ~ Mike

    Point to Russ who just got Mike to admit that Trump (among others) is a criminal perp.

    The criminal "businessmen" are counting on that special kind of pure blind rube stupidity that would vilify a group of people as criminals while totally absolving the criminal cons who hire them. It's like it never occurred to Bubba Trump living in his trailer in Shithole that if those criminals he refers to as "businessmen" wouldn't hire illegal workers, they'd have a hell of a lot fewer reasons to enter the country illegally.

    As we've discussed many times, connecting the very big dots isn't exactly their strong suit, and you can bet your bottom dollar that the GOP "businessmen" are counting on that bone-deep ignorance and inability at reasoning regarding cause and effect while they're bending them over.

    It's all too easy to keep the penniless rubes angry and foaming at the mouth about the "others" versus the criminal cons like Trump himself who's been hiring them for decades and still doing so... meanwhile, pay no attention to Fat Bastard Criminal "Businessman" while he and his ilk pull your levers and laugh all the way to the bank... not laughing with you... laughing at you.

Comments for this article are closed.