No more Iowa polls. That's over.

[MineralMan]

Now, or later on this evening, Iowans will actually get together and literally stand together to support their favorite candidate. Its Caucus day. Some will have to move from where they're standing into another group if not enough supporters for a particular candidate show up. But, in the end, we will have some actual numbers to look at that actually matter.

According to some over the past couple of weeks, one or another candidate has "surged" to the top of the Iowa dogpile. Depending on which poll just came out, the lead has switched back and forth tens of times. None of that matters today.

Later tonight, the results will be in. Very likely three or four candidates will end up getting delegates to the next level district conventions and, finally, the state convention. It's also likely that things will be divided up fairly evenly, with nobody ending up with an overwhelming lead in the number of delegates in the end.

Tomorrow, the first delegate count estimates will be made. They'll be very close to the final result. We'll find out that Iowa doesn't really mean that much in selecting the Democratic Nominee. Nothing will be decided in Iowa today, except that some current candidates will come up with no delegates at all and will be forced to make unpleasant decisions.

Iowa's interesting, but not really very important at all, in the race to the nomination.

[getagrip_already]

1. one more poll....

The caucuses aren't really elections. They are a time to yell at your neighbors, coworkers, employees,, and family while bullying them to support your candidate.

It's more of a public opinion poll.

But in the end meaningless in terms of what it means in the primary or even general election.

[Thekaspervote]

2. This!!

[MineralMan]

5. Yes, the only decisive one, too.

I'm familiar with caucuses, having been a caucus chair and convener three times in Minnesota. They often don't reflect the actual opinion of the general population of Democrats, which is why Minnesota has switched to a primary election.

However, my point is that it comes to a conclusion this evening and we can move on to other races.

[getagrip_already]

8. unfortunately, given the new mechanics of reporting....

this poll will go on for weeks.

[rsdsharp]

24. "They are a time to yell at your neighbors, coworkers, employees,, and family while bullying them. .

while bullying them to support your candidate."

I've never seen that at any Iowa caucus I've attended.

[pandr32]

26. I've seen it

I watched some leave because of the horrible way they were treated, too. Not everyone is good at holding their own--especially seniors and women who have children with them.

[rsdsharp]

28. May I ask where in Iowa the occurred?

I've never seen it at any of the caucuses I've attended in the Des Moines area.

[pandr32]

29. Washington State ahead of the 2016 election

Sorry, I was talking about how ugly caucuses can be in general--not only Iowa. Even with people reporting the bullying it was hard to contain. People with a microphone urging civility got booed, too.

[rsdsharp]

31. I'm sorry about you experience in Washington.

However, using the phrase "not only in Iowa" assumes the caucuses in Iowa are ugly as well. I've never seen that. Maybe it's happened in some instances, but we're not called "Iowa nice" for for nothing.

[pandr32]

33. I sure hope it doesn't happen there

Tribalism has become too common in today's social behavior and a reason I loathe caucuses. I wish you all the very best today in Iowa.

[bluewater]

3. Lowering expectations again?

"Iowa's interesting, but not really very important at all"



Imagine, all these silly campaigns over all these years of Presidential politics expending so much effort in early states like Iowa when that's not really important at all.

According to you.

Maybe, just maybe, you are wrong and the actual political experts and campaigns are seeing something you have missed?

Or, maybe, just maybe, you are lowering expectations in case Joe Biden under performs?

Seems so.

[getagrip_already]

4. it's NEVER been important to a frontrunner...

https://www.palmerreport.com/analysis/iowa-new-hampshire-40-years-nominee/24869/

2016: Ted Cruz won the Iowa caucus, but lost the Republican nomination to Donald Trump.

2016: Bernie Sanders won the New Hampshire primary, but lost the Democratic nomination to Hillary Clinton.

2012: Rick Santorum won the Iowa caucus, but lost the Republican nomination to Mitt Romney.

2008: Hillary Clinton won the New Hampshire primary, but lost the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama.

2008: Mike Huckabee won the Iowa caucus, but lost the Republican nomination to John McCain.

2000: John McCain won the New Hampshire primary, but lost the Republican nomination to George W. Bush.

1992: Tom Harkin won the Iowa caucus, but lost the Democratic nomination to Bill Clinton.

1988: Dick Gephardt won the Iowa caucus, but lost the Democratic nomination to Michael Dukakis.


1988: Bob Dole won the Iowa caucus, but lost the Republican nomination to George H.W. Bush.


1984: Gary Hart won the New Hampshire primary, but lost the Democratic nomination to Walter Mondale.


1980: George H.W. Bush won the Iowa caucus, but lost the Republican nomination to Ronald Reagan.

[bluewater]

7. Cherry picking? Seems so.

Which Republican won New Hampshire in 2016? TRUMP

I can continue listing counter examples you omitted, but I think I have made my point.

Cherry picking examples that support your argument while ignoring counter examples is sloppy at best.

[getagrip_already]

10. actually, it proves my point...

There is no lesson to be learned since you can find multiple examples that point different ways.

None. Nothing. No correlation. Meaningless.

There is no lesson. Or spoon.

[bluewater]

16. Actually, it does not.

You have not shown there is no correlation, you have just cherry picked examples to support your argument.

If you want to provide actual statistics showing how often the eventual nominee won Iowa or New Hampshire compared to the rest of a contested field of candidates, I would love to discuss those results. But you have not.

Saying "But Ted Cruz won Iowa so Trump winning NH doesn't show early states having a statistical correlation to getting the nomination" is wrong simply because there were MORE THAN TWO CANDIDATES contesting the Republican nomination in 2016.

Trump, the eventual nominee, winning NH was STATISTICALLY significant compared to the 6 or so other candidates who did NOT win Iowa OR New Hampshire and did NOT end up winning the nomination.

[getagrip_already]

17. I feel like I'm talking to trump... ;)

I am not, but you are!

Just in jest. don't take it personally.

But I respectfully disagree since you can't show correlation either way, no matter how you cut the data.

[bluewater]

21. Your argument is simply flawed and based on cherry picking examples.

The data shows the eventual nominee outperforms the contested field in IA, for example.

You keep making the mistake of saying, essentially, "but someone else wins sometimes, so there is no correlation".

Looking at contested nominations from 1972 onwards, the eventual nominee has WON IOWA 11 times. Someone else, from a field of multiple candidates, has won only 8 times.

That's 11 to 8 for the eventual nominee winning Iowa. If those were just head to head races, the eventual nominee would be winning 58% of the time.

But, there were more than two candidates in all those contested fields. The eventual nominee VASTLY outperforms the field in winning Iowa.

Contested Iowa Caucus Winners versus Becoming Nominee

1972 Muskie - NO
1976 Ford - YES
1976 carter - YES
1980 Carter - YES
1980 Bush - NO
1984 Mondale -YES
1988 Gephardt- NO
1992 Harkin - NO
1996 DOLE - YES
2000 Gore - YES
2000 Bush - YES
2004 Kerry - YES
2008 Huckabee - NO
2008 Obama - YES
2012 Santorum - NO
2016 Clinton - YES
2016 Cruz - NO

Hence, Your argument is simply flawed and based on cherry picking examples.

Enjoy the rest of your day

[Dave in VA]

11. Thanks for this

important information.

[happybird]

30. Didn't batshit crazy Michelle Bachman once win one of these?

[MineralMan]

6. Not at all. I've been saying that the Iowa caucuses are meaningless

for a very long time. It doesn't matter who "wins" tonight. There just aren't enough convention delegates to really matter at all, and those will be divided among three or four candidates.

Maybe it's not me who is missing something.

[bluewater]

12. Using your logic, no individual state matters much then.

Since the total number of delegates is vastly larger than any single state. Even States like California.

But all the states do matter. Especially the early contests that help shape public perception.

Sorry, but I am going with the political experts and all the campaigns that have shown by the time and money they have invested that states like Iowa really are very important.

[MineralMan]

15. Yes, well...who got Iowa's electors in 2016?

Who got my state's? There are differences, you see.

[myohmy2]

9. "Iowa's interesting, but not really very important at all..."

...getting nervous?

...

[MineralMan]

13. Not at all. As I said, even if the candidate I support gets the most

delegates from Iowa, it won't make any difference at the convention.

I'm never nervous about elections or even caucuses. They reflect the wishes of the people where they vote.

Why would you think what I wrote was because of my being nervous? I've been saying the same thing for weeks now.

So, are you in Iowa? If not, then your opinion matters no more than mine there.

[getagrip_already]

14. not at all, just realistic...

Last edited Mon Feb 3, 2020, 12:13 PM - Edit history (1)

in 2016, clinton won iowa and walked away with 2 more delegates than bernie. Bernie won nh and walked away with 6 more than clinton, for a net of 4 for the two races.

Once SC hit, clinton was ahead and never looked back.

In 2008, clinton actually had more total votes than obama, but obama won more delegates.

Oh, and she won nh in 08.

Iowa and NH are only important for nervous candidates who know they will fall behind once the larger, more diverse states hit.

They wrongly think they can get momentum, but really that is only important to corporate media that has to have a horse race.

So whoever wins, there will only be losers. Because it only matters to the weaker nervous candidates.

[AtheistCrusader]

18. Obama.

[getagrip_already]

19. apologies... fixed... learning disability. ;) n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

20. No worries.

I realize you meant no disrespect.

[underpants]

22. Breaking!

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287468129

[RhodeIslandOne]

23. They muffed the last one.

[highplainsdem]

25. Um, not quite. 538 just added two results from a new Iowa poll. The primary results have Buttigieg

ahead.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287468150

And the same pollster asked voters for whom they'd vote if the primary came down to Biden and Sanders.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287468153

[bluewater]

27. Groan

I think you missed the point of the OP.

lol

Or perhaps I did. lol

I took it as 'well, enough with the polls, Iowa is finally voting'.

[Progress_Dem]

32. "Iowa's interesting, but not really very important at all, in the race to the nomination."

I disagree with this. Iowa is actually very important.

There is a reason these campaigns focus so much on Iowa. Iowa creates the narrative. And it can be a positive or negative narrative for each candidate depending on where they finish and what the expectations were.