Final pre-Iowa Debate!

This time, no trump.

Fox News - Google GOP Debate | Live Coverage

stream link.

Starts at 8 Iowa time

@Darktan13 Official bet from the office of President Woodrow (wewlad) Wilson. Either Bernie sanders or Hillary Clinton will obtain the most Democratic Iowan delegates at the 2016 Iowa caucuses on the 1st of February. However both Bernie sanders and Hillary Clinton could win equal delegates, creating a tie, which is the second clause of the bet. Either clause may be true for the bet to be considered true.

Quoted from "Woodrow Wilson"

@Darktan13 Official bet from the office of President Woodrow (wewlad) Wilson. Either Bernie sanders or Hillary Clinton will obtain the most Democratic Iowan delegates at the 2016 Iowa caucus on the 1st of February.

Why did you do backsies on the League on Nations?

Final Des Moines Register poll is out, looks like the endless stream of anti-cruz stuff the past 10 days have worked. He's in second behind trump.

looks to be a trump cruz rubio finish. only surprise there, is how far people have gone to try and kill cruz off.

@IG 'Why did you do backsies on the League on Nations?"

I didn't you scrub, my goddamn republican congress did. They undermined all that hard work I put into the league and gave me a stroke! Take a hike tork.

Trump and Rubio functionally tied for second, both with 7 delegates. Sanders/Hillary also functionally tied.

Cruz takes first with eight.

GOP Iowa was much closer than people thought.

The Rubio late surge was well timed, and much larger than people expected. Perfect expectations management. Cruz was as resilient with evangelicals as evangelical candidates tend to be. This might just end up as 2012 v2.

Also, the shift in support to rubio may be an indication of serious tactical voting.


RIP Huckabee/Omalley.

Dem Iowa went broadly as people expected.

Quoted

There’s been some talk about coin tosses going against Sanders to settle who would get a delegate in the case of a tie. These ties are not for statewide delegate equivalents. They are for county delegates. Those are different, and not nearly as big a deal.

Minor, but worth noting.

Quoted from "Nick 30075"

Quoted from "Darktan13"

Quoted

There’s been some talk about coin tosses going against Sanders to settle who would get a delegate in the case of a tie. These ties are not for statewide delegate equivalents. They are for county delegates. Those are different, and not nearly as big a deal.

Minor, but worth noting.

I was aware of this, but have you seen some of the clips of Clinton supporters doing other really shady things?

Honestly, and this isn't likely to be overly popular with some of you, I don't think thats shady. For a couple reasons.

One, this is a (mostly) volunteer run caucus, these people are not trained professionals. many of the precinct captains will be doing this for the first time. These are LOCAL volunteers, not part of clintons paid national staff, IF you believe she's somehow shady for some reason, these people are as far removed from her as you can get. Assuming they're evil before assuming a volunteer made a ( correctable, and correctED ) mistake is misguided.

Two, it makes no sense strategically. If you intend to do anything shady, it wouldn't be in non-swing precincts in a small state with barely any delegates in a PUBLIC caucus. This isn't a primary where the votes are cast in a private manner, a caucus is much more public affair. IF you were going to do something against the rules, you'd do it where it actually mattered, and wouln't be public. so in a swing state with good numbers of delegates in a PRIMARY. anything else would yield no result that'd even be of any remote assistance to a candidate, even if successful.

Three, Clinton campaign isn't stupid. Regardless of what you think of any of the major candidates, the people running these campaigns aren't bad at what they do. These people have been involved in many successful campaigns. Many of clintons staff for example, are from 2008 obama run. They know this isn't (yet) a tight race. Clinton is the heavy favourite overall, and for good reason.
Iowa is easily top3-5 for most favourable to sanders states. The polls coming in had them neck and neck. If clinton can hold sanders in that kind of perfect state for him. she's in fantastic shape for an overall victory.
Democratic voters, especially clinton supporters, overwhelmingly want clinton to have a serious competitive nomination race. the reasoning being to prepare her for the general election. Anything that'd cheat to assist her in a sanders-favourable state would hurt that goal too.

Normally coin flips wouldn't be a big deal, I agree. Except for the fact that coin flips to determine a delegate are "extremely rare", and there were 6 of them, of which Hillary won ALL 6. That did actually make a tangible difference.

Also, Hillary has a app for her voters that did the math for them on who they should vote for to make sure Bernie didn't get a specific precinct. While that's not illegal, and people have done the math before to squeeze a candidate out by voting for a third party (O'Malley in this case), most voters weren't smart enough to do it themselves nor did they have the information readily at hand to make that decision. It was a case of technology evolving faster than the rules, and I think it was a bit silly that she had to play games like that to come out with a 0.2% lead. She's a well established politician who has run for president before, she's been in Iowa before, and the fact that she couldn't come up with a tangible lead speaks either to the large amount of people who dislike her, or the large amount of people who came out to support Sanders. I don't know which yet.

Quoted from "yugas42"

Normally coin flips wouldn't be a big deal, I agree. Except for the fact that coin flips to determine a delegate are "extremely rare", and there were 6 of them, of which Hillary won ALL 6. That did actually make a tangible difference.

Whilst this is unlikely, it isn't impossible for someone to win six times in a row. Also the state delegate equivalents wouldn't have changed regardless of the coinflip results. Further, these coinflips weren't secret. These were done as part of the public caucus in full view. Lady Luck, as fickle as she is, had no impact on the final result.

This isn't new either, this happened in 2008, a few precincts were called for Obama thanks to coin flip. though again, the ONE extra precinct delegate you get for winning that ( for example, votes are 50/50. of 5 delegates, 2 go to each candidate, the final is decided by coin toss. this ISNT winner takes all. ) isn't at all meaningful and hasn't in either 2008 or now, caused additional state delegates to be awarded to a candidate.

This link is one of the more explanatory links I could find specifically for the monday coinflips. Video included and such. calls for heads/tails in all instances were made before the coin either hit the ground, or was flipped at all. Rules for random allocation on ties really aren't that rare, pretty much everywhere uses them, gotta have some result in the event of a tie, yo.

Clinton wins at least six Iowa precincts by coin flip - The Washington Post

Quoted from "yugas42"

Also, Hillary has a app for her voters that did the math for them on who they should vote for to make sure Bernie didn't get a specific precinct. While that's not illegal, and people have done the math before to squeeze a candidate out by voting for a third party (O'Malley in this case), most voters weren't smart enough to do it themselves nor did they have the information readily at hand to make that decision.

Tactical voting is, as you said, not illegal, and has been used to great effect all over. Some of Rubios apparent strength is likely to have been a tactical vote. However, the dem Caucus rules prevent smallscale disruption like that, as a candidate needs 15% or greater to be considered viable at all, nonviable candidate voters are given half an hour to decide on which viable candiate to vote for, and as such, you'd need serious tactical voting in order to produce an effect at all.

HOWEVER, the support Omalley managed on the night, is equal to the support he got in the predictions, if there was serious tactical voting ( that was successful ) he would have had unusually higher support. The Hillary/Sanders support has long been predicted, and was pretty darn accurate, with the expected Omalley nonviable votes going ( as expected ) to sanders, boosting his numbers. Hillary was pretty much exactly in line with her polls, as was everyone else.

Average of Iowa polling pre-vote - 49.1% Clinton. 44.7% sanders. 4.7% Omalley.

actual delegates %.
49.9% Clinton - 49.6% Sanders. 0.6% omalley.

As we can see, the roughly 5% omalley vote was in almost all precincts declared nonviable, and slotted into sanders vote, as expected. giving us an almost 5% higher share for sanders. exactly in line with predictions. Zero evidence of meaningful tactical voting.

Of course, not all omalley votes shifted to sanders, just the vast majority. Which is exactly the result polls predicted.

Quoted from "yugas42"

I think it was a bit silly that she had to play games like that to come out with a 0.2% lead. She's a well established politician who has run for president before, she's been in Iowa before, and the fact that she couldn't come up with a tangible lead speaks either to the large amount of people who dislike her, or the large amount of people who came out to support Sanders. I don't know which yet.

First, I don't think there's any real evidence of the clinton campaign engaging in underhanded tactics in Iowa. As scandal prone as she seems to be, there's no reason to believe that happened here.

Second, her lack of tangible lead in the state of iowa has Long been predicted ( when using an average of polls, of course there are many individual polls with occasionally wild results for both candidates ) and thanks to polling, we know where it comes from. By and large, the dem caucus goers love both of their candidates, both sanders and clinton are equally well liked ( functionally ), so it's not a matter of her being disliked. it comes from a huge belt of support for sanders. Which is also expected.

Sanders does well in two core groups, one, the young. he captures well the under 30s. and does a reasonable job of capturing the under 45s. But his real core support comes from White voters who describe themselves as very liberal. Iowa is an EXTREMELY white state, and has many many dem caucusgoers who describe themselves as such.

In a list of states that has a strong number of that core white liberal sanders vote, Iowa would rank in the top 5. Which means there's a great many states with LESS of this core vote. though he has plenty of time to make progress with other voter blocs.

Although it's obvious, I'll say it anyway.

Iowa changed little for the Dems, Sanders proved he can pull the expected numbers, as can Clinton. Its still an active, competitive race. With clinton as the overall favourite, which is no surprise. she's a better idealogical fit for the vast majority of the party.