2020 Presidential Election

[crimsondevil]

Unless Sanders wins by a wide margin, I doubt fivethirtyeight shifts to have Sanders as the favorite. As of now, they have Biden as the plurality favorite (43% to Sanders' 30%) for the nomination, and that's despite them predicting that Sanders wins Iowa.

Now, if Sanders totally dominates Iowa, maybe the narrative shifts. But I doubt there will be enough of a margin to push fivethirtyeight that far. But, we'll see soon enough.

I think the shift might be more than you are thinking. Keep in mind that while they have Sanders as the most likely to win Iowa, his listed chances are only 41%, so no result is really "priced in." Also, based on some numbers they showed a couple weeks ago on conditional cases, their model is leaning into the "bounce" idea fairly substantially. Whether that's right or not is another question, though.

Since 1980, only 2 candidates have not won and been the nominee. Dukakis came in 3rd with a respectable 22%, but in 1992 some guy named Bill Clinton didn't even 3% of the votes, and came in 4th. (Tom Harkin destroyed everbody that year with 76.5%. Who is Tom Harkin?)

Yes, but there have only been 7 "open" (non-incumbent) contests in that span ('84, '88, '92, '00, '04, '08, '16), so I'm not sure how predictive that stat actually is.

[bundabergdevil]

I’m putting the line for number of corn dogs consumed by the candidates today at 19.

Ok. Actual prediction is that Warren and Klobuchar outperform their polls, Biden underperforms his, and Sanders about expected.

Back of the envelope reasoning...

Warren has the best ground game from what I’ve read. That matters more in the Iowa caucus format...

I don’t think Klobuchar is setting any worlds on fire as an orator but she’s got the most nuanced understanding of Iowa-specific issues.

I’ve thought Biden would ultimately flame out from the beginning. He’s lost, what, 3 times already? There’s a reason for that and it’s worse now, not better.

Sanders may have pulled in some more young voters entering the electorate but his people are mostly his people.

I think Yang will surprise in a few states but not Iowa.

No idea about Pete.

Edit: should we have a poll for Iowa victor? Just put in our posts? Guess I’m going Biden in an uninspired squeaker...

[CDu]

I think the shift might be more than you are thinking. Keep in mind that while they have Sanders as the most likely to win Iowa, his listed chances are only 41%, so no result is really "priced in." Also, based on some numbers they showed a couple weeks ago on conditional cases, their model is leaning into the "bounce" idea fairly substantially. Whether that's right or not is another question.

But delegate counts don’t work like elections. They aren’t winner take all; they are divided among the candidates based on support at the end of the caucus. So unless Sanders totally dominates, he isn’t likely to separate much from Biden (the presumptive #2) in Iowa.

And since FiveThirtyEight bases their overall predictions on how each candidate does in all the states, they would probably need to see a dramatic win in Iowa to shift the needle enough overall to flip that 13% edge Biden has nationally.

Now, I am not saying it can’t happen. I just think it is unlikely.

[duke79]

Ok. Actual prediction is that Warren and Klobuchar outperform their polls, Biden underperforms his, and Sanders about expected.

Back of the envelope reasoning...

Warren has the best ground game from what I’ve read. That matters more in the Iowa caucus format...

I don’t think Klobuchar is setting any worlds on fire as an orator but she’s got the most nuanced understanding of Iowa-specific issues.

I’ve thought Biden would ultimately flame out from the beginning. He’s lost, what, 3 times already? There’s a reason for that and it’s worse now, not better.

Sanders may have pulled in some more young voters entering the electorate but his people are mostly his people.

I think Yang will surprise in a few states but not Iowa.

No idea about Pete.

Edit: should we have a poll for Iowa victor? Just put in our posts? Guess I’m going Biden in an uninspired squeaker...

I'll predict...Bernie...Joe...Elizabeth...Amy...and Pete. Tonight...in that order. Not predicting actual numbers. And just a wild guess.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I'll predict...Bernie...Joe...Elizabeth...Amy...and Pete. Tonight...in that order. Not predicting actual numbers. And just a wild guess.

[/B]

Pete after Amy would be a surprise.

[CDu]

But delegate counts don’t work like elections. They aren’t winner take all; they are divided among the candidates based on support at the end of the caucus. So unless Sanders totally dominates, he isn’t likely to separate much from Biden (the presumptive #2) in Iowa.

And since FiveThirtyEight bases their overall predictions on how each candidate does in all the states, they would probably need to see a dramatic win in Iowa to shift the needle enough overall to flip that 13% edge Biden has nationally.

Now, I am not saying it can’t happen. I just think it is unlikely.

Edit later: I just read their latest post on possible outcomes. It does in fact sound like they are giving a huge boost based on tonight’s results. A Biden win would push him to somewhere between 66-84%. A Sanders win would bump him to 44-71%. I guess because this will be the first real data point they are weighting it more than the polls.

Based on that article, I concur that the odds are slightly in favor of Sanders being the front runner on FiveThirtyEight tomorrow... but that Biden will overtake him again by Super Tuesday once the Southern voters weigh in.

[Acymetric]

Least bad coverage...CNN or MSNBC?

[JasonEvans]

I just love that at 8pm CNN breathlessly revealed their first entrance poll and it showed...

Biden, Buttigieg, Sanders, and Warren are the co-leaders.

Really? Really? So your entrance poll just showed what every single poll has shown for the past 4 months? Wow... color me shocked.

-Jason "seeing as folks are making predictions, mine will be that Mayor Pete outperforms expectations and that Warren is a disappointing 4th" Evans

[bundabergdevil]

Least bad coverage...CNN or MSNBC?

I can't watch the talking heads so I usually have one of the live update sites...NYT, TheHill, WaPo, 538...up online. Sometimes as it gets toward calling the race time I'll turn on the TV but I don't have a particular allegiance. Just so long as whoever is using the touchscreen technology has a look of mild panic every time something doesn't work, I'm happy.

[sagegrouse]

Kansas City, Kansas is the third largest city in Kansas.. So there is one in Kansas.. But he should have known which was which..lol

Actually, there is old time Kansas City, Kansas, a pretty tough town with some -- I hear -- great jazz. Then there is the thriving metropolis of Kansas City, Missouri. But, as a matter of fact, lots of people who say they hail from Kansas City, MO actually live in Kansas -- as the KC suburbs bend south and west through places like Overland Park and Shawnee. No, but it's not Kansas City, Kansas.

[JasonEvans]

CNN has reporters inside several caucus sites and it is amazing to watch the horse trading as groups seek viability (15%). It is great coverage and a ton of fun to watch.

Based on what I am seeing at these sites, Biden is not having a good night. Bernie is winning and Klobuchar is getting more viability than I would have thought.

[Troublemaker]

Dave Wasserman
@Redistrict
1h
Widespread reports of Joe Biden barely/not viable in types of precincts he should be to have any type of chance. Having a hard time seeing him in top three...long way to go.

[fuse]

Has anyone actually caucused(?) (participated in a caucus as a voter)?

Is it as bonkers as it appears on TV?

I wonder if allowing a 30 day window for primaries and elections would generate higher voter turnout.

[OldPhiKap]

Dave Wasserman
@Redistrict
1h
Widespread reports of Joe Biden barely/not viable in types of precincts he should be to have any type of chance. Having a hard time seeing him in top three...long way to go.

FWIW, Nate posted that Biden was 4th in the Des Moines Register poll that was scuttled because of the polling irregularity that left Pete out of some polling. But this is a big unknown tonight.

[sagegrouse]

Has anyone actually caucused(?) (participated in a caucus as a voter)?

Is it as bonkers as it appears on TV?

I wonder if allowing a 30 day window for primaries and elections would generate higher voter turnout.

Yep, in Colorado in 2008. We copied the Iowa system at the time -- it was minus-three degrees AND snowing -- either is normal, both together is unusual.

A bunch on new people showed up who had never come to a Dem meeting -- they all voted for Obama, while the party regulars voted for Hillary. Ms. Sage Grouse spoke on behalf of Hill and did very well. The speaker on behalf of Obama was a kid who came up from Denver -- he was so bad, he got gonged by the County chairman after two minutes. Didn't matter.

[bundabergdevil]

Apparently unusual we don’t have results yet.

[Troublemaker]

If the end result in Iowa is Bernie winning with Buttigieg a strong second, that's probably one of the better scenarios for Bernie.

[CameronBornAndBred]

The Iowa Democratic Party is not making many new friends tonight.

[JasonEvans]

I’m going to say it right now... the next time there is a contested Democratic race for President, Iowa will NOT be the first state to vote.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Officials from two Democratic campaigns tell CNN they were told the app to tabulate results had crashed. They said they had not been given any other information.

Way to go.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-ne...020/index.html