Who will win Iowa?

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Sat Jan 11, 2020 1:10 am

WaPo says it's tight, with Sanders > Warren > Buttigieg > Biden, but the spread is small.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Sat Jan 11, 2020 1:24 am

With a 4-way tie going into a caucus I think the winner is Trump.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Sat Jan 11, 2020 11:10 am

The idea that in 2020 the result of whatever happens in Iowa are deterministic in finding a Presidential candidate is depressing. I honestly don't know what to expect from the results, other than more depression.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Sat Jan 11, 2020 11:44 am

I'm rooting for a tie (between two or more of the four that are statistically tied).

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Sat Jan 11, 2020 11:51 am

Also, to add to the context - Sanders voters are more excited and more made up in their decision, but Buttigieg and Biden are the second choice for more of those with candidates unlikely to make the 15% cutoff and are being actively considered by more of those who haven't made a decision. In addition, if the articles of impeachment go to the Senate soon, it may mess up the schedules of those candidates that are Senators.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Sat Jan 11, 2020 12:27 pm

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 11:10 am The idea that in 2020 the result of whatever happens in Iowa are deterministic in finding a Presidential candidate is depressing. I honestly don't know what to expect from the results, other than more depression.

According to this story, "Historically, if Granite Staters affirm Iowa’s choice, then that candidate has always won their party’s presidential nomination. However, the last two times the decision was split, it led to a protracted 50-state campaign marathon through June." So those of you hoping for a fast resolution ought to be cheering for Bernie, who's barely ahead in IA and comfortably so in NH.

One would think that Bernie and Warren would both be strong in NH, being from neighboring states, but Warren is weaker in New England than one might expect. I believe it's because she's running as if she's from Oklahoma. Biden is currently #2 in NH because "Folks, Biden isn’t lighting anyone’s hair on fire. He’s neither making anyone’s heart sing nor their dreams come true. Whatever the descriptor, his events aren’t bringing huge crowds and are usually just “low energy.” But that might not matter. Insiders are expecting record turnout for the primary. If that happens, there will be a lot of voters who really haven’t paid that much attention to the race. But they will know Biden — and maybe even buy into the idea that he is the most electable. Among those low-information Democratic primary voters, Biden could easily grab a lot of votes."

I probably ought to start a NH poll, but I think I'd like to wait for the IA results to do that.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sat Jan 11, 2020 12:50 pm

Kraken wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 12:27 pm
Smoove_B wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 11:10 am The idea that in 2020 the result of whatever happens in Iowa are deterministic in finding a Presidential candidate is depressing. I honestly don't know what to expect from the results, other than more depression.
According to this story, "Historically, if Granite Staters affirm Iowa’s choice, then that candidate has always won their party’s presidential nomination. However, the last two times the decision was split, it led to a protracted 50-state campaign marathon through June." So those of you hoping for a fast resolution ought to be cheering for Bernie, who's barely ahead in IA and comfortably so in NH.

I just paged through all the state-polling charts available at 538. Almost everywhere it's one of two patterns:

1) Biden with a significant lead, Sanders and Warren pretty close to each other, Buttigieg somewhat behind them, or
2) Biden and Sanders basically tied, with Warren and then Buttigieg somewhat behind them.

The numbers right now show Biden getting more and more comfortably ahead in the early primaries and into Super Tuesday (March 3). Of course each primary result affects the following ones, so there's no guarantee the pattern will hold, but Biden is in best place.

In my gut I feel like this race is going to turn on something more dramatic than just the float of the numbers: Biden stumbling badly in public, Sanders having another heart attack, Cory Booker again saving someone from a burning building, etc.

Jaymann · Post by **Jaymann** » Sat Jan 11, 2020 12:57 pm

The prospect of a confused Biden debating an incoherent, drug-addled Trump is both intriguing and horrifying.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Sat Jan 11, 2020 1:25 pm

Kraken wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 12:27 pm Bernie, who's barely ahead in IA and comfortably so in NH.

There's been four polls released in NH this week (the first polling there in a month). One has Sanders ahead by 2, another has him tied for first with Biden, and two have him in third place (down 2-3 points from first). All of the polls have a statistical tie.

(I'd also be wary in assuming that a victory in IA and NH would mean a victory overall. For Biden, those two states are some of his weakest, based on the demographics of his base, and he's likelier than most to be able to win without those two states (especially if he places a strong second or third in those states)

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Sat Jan 11, 2020 2:08 pm

Defiant wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 1:25 pm
Kraken wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 12:27 pm Bernie, who's barely ahead in IA and comfortably so in NH.

There's been four polls released in NH this week (the first polling there in a month). One has Sanders ahead by 2, another has him tied for first with Biden, and two have him in third place (down 2-3 points from first). All of the polls have a statistical tie.

(I'd also be wary in assuming that a victory in IA and NH would mean a victory overall. For Biden, those two states are some of his weakest, based on the demographics of his base, and he's likelier than most to be able to win without those two states (especially if he places a strong second or third in those states)

I was adjusting for Bernie's NH blowout in 2016. That 22-pt margin won't be repeated, but I think polls might be understating his strength there (as they did last time). But this is the IA thread.

I'll agree that the nomination might still be wide open, because none of the candidates are runaway favorites. Biden has the power of the establishment and big donors behind him, and Sanders has the grassroots and youth excitement. Both benefit from better name-recognition than any of their rivals, and they both poll well against Trump. It will probably come down to those two.

I still give Warren good odds in IA, which is a must-win for her. If she doesn't take IA or NH, she's probably toast.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Sat Jan 11, 2020 5:03 pm

I'm surprised that Biden has a plurality in this poll. It's one of his weakest states. IF he does win, though, the primary could be headed for an anticlimactic end.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Sat Jan 11, 2020 11:30 pm

The prospect of anybody tying drug-addled Trump into a serious debate, anytime in the next year, is a small beacon of hope.

Lagom Lite · Post by **Lagom Lite** » Sun Jan 12, 2020 5:08 pm

Des Moines Register has Bernie currently leading Iowa at 20%, followed by Warren (17%), Pete (16%) and Biden (15%).

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Sat Jan 25, 2020 9:38 pm

Des Moines Register endorses Warren, and a new NYT poll has Sanders on top -- "A new New York Times/Siena College poll of likely Iowa caucusgoers finds Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders with a clear lead at 25%, former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg at 18%, former Vice President Joe Biden at 17%, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren at 15% and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar at 8%."

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Mon Jan 27, 2020 1:45 pm

I think it is too early to say how this will all play out just yet but the outlines in Iowa are indicating trouble. I think that the big players in the Democratic party have potentially again made huge strategic errors. And in a funny way it mirrors what happened to get Trump up front. I don't know if that will mean anything done the line but it is something of note that may become interesting when people look back later.

Anyway, the clown car primary has like the Republican process in 2016 appeared to be poised to split the vote in upcoming primaries. Many of the centrists focused their fire on Warren to the benefit of Sanders. Let's posit that Biden/Buttigieg would have trouble getting the Bernie Bros. And vice versa with the more conservative Democrats. Warren actually was well positioned to be a unity candidate. Her positions are more moderate than Bernie and more progressive than those two. Instead they might have built a divisive Frankenstein's monster of their own. We'll see but this feels like they are risking a very messy primary fight while Trump is solidifying his front. Luckily, impeachment is still firing on his flanks but eventually Mitch is going to succeed and bury it and it'll be open season. Meanwhile, we might not have a clear Dem candidate until July. That is hardly ideal at all.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:09 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 1:45 pm I think it is too early to say how this will all play out just yet but the outlines in Iowa are indicating trouble. I think that the big players in the Democratic party have potentially again made huge strategic errors. And in a funny way it mirrors what happened to get Trump up front. I don't know if that will mean anything done the line but it is something of note that may become interesting when people look back later.

Anyway, the clown car primary has like the Republican process in 2016 appeared to be poised to split the vote in upcoming primaries. Many of the centrists focused their fire on Warren to the benefit of Sanders. Let's posit that Biden/Buttigieg would have trouble getting the Bernie Bros. And vice versa with the more conservative Democrats. Warren actually was well positioned to be a unity candidate. Her positions are more moderate than Bernie and more progressive than those two. Instead they might have built a divisive Frankenstein's monster of their own. We'll see but this feels like they are risking a very messy primary fight while Trump is solidifying his front. Luckily, impeachment is still firing on his flanks but eventually Mitch is going to succeed and bury it and it'll be open season. Meanwhile, we might not have a clear Dem candidate until July. That is hardly ideal at all.

I agree. I will say that I think Warren's decision to sign on to Bernie's Medicare For All bill instead of coming up with her own plan was a major strategic mistake, and cost her a lot in this primary.

I will say that in terms of having a clear Dem candidate, Biden is doing better in IA than I had expected, especially since his strong states aren't until a few states in (especially the southern states). There is a scenario where Biden wins IA, either wins NH (with a post-IA bounce) or finishes a close second, then dominates the next few states (wins SC by 25+ points), and basically cruises to the nomination.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:17 pm

I still would love Buttigieg to win. Every time I hear him speak, I'm surprised at how thoughtful and diplomatic he is. Even with his missteps in handling racial issues back home during his time as a mayor, I still think he's a great choice.

BUT he's too young. And the homophobic rubes out there still exist in large numbers in this country. So I see Biden taking it. Sanders and Warren have effectively tousled their way into oblivion, if you ask me. They should have kept the gloves on and avoided such a public dust up (I don't know who's telling the truth between them...but I don't think either one has come out of it unscathed).

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Mon Jan 27, 2020 4:09 pm

Going 0-2 against the most unsuitable candidate in history and worst incumbent in history would probably be reason for dismantling the DNC.

There's a path to pleasing the most Democrat voters and there's a path to victory. They aren't the same path.

coopasonic · Post by **coopasonic** » Mon Jan 27, 2020 4:23 pm

To be fair, the Republican machine is unified behind strict messaging around Guns and God with a dash of Nationalist hate while giving all the money to the corporations. The Democrats are all over the place primarily centering around healthcare, maybe education and some human rights all to differing degrees depending on where they are willing to go based on costs. The Republican message doesn't have any nuance making it much simpler. All the guns, none of the abortions, one God. It's just so much simpler that it's easy to communicate and sell.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Mon Jan 27, 2020 4:33 pm

That may explain 2016 but doesn't work for 2020. The Democrats shouldn't have any nuance either. Their message should be even simpler with only one goal of note. This is a single issue election and pissing about in party popularity contest time, aka primary season, on things that are not the one consideration in the general is dangerous.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:06 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 4:09 pm Going 0-2 against the most unsuitable candidate in history and worst incumbent in history would probably be reason for dismantling the DNC.

Please describe to me what "the DNC" is, what culpability it would have for losing to Trump, and how one would dismantle it.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:54 pm

Fireball wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:06 pm
LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 4:09 pm Going 0-2 against the most unsuitable candidate in history and worst incumbent in history would probably be reason for dismantling the DNC.
Please describe to me what "the DNC" is, what culpability it would have for losing to Trump, and how one would dismantle it.

Ok, you got me. I'm using the DNC as a stand-in for the entire party. Mostly because they say:

The Democratic National Committee is committed to taking back the White House in 2020

They had a similar commitment to keeping it in 2016.

They, or rather the Party, have culpability because in this two party system you either win or lose an election.

How to dismantle? No idea. Same way you'd dismantle the GOP I guess.

rittchard · Post by **rittchard** » Tue Jan 28, 2020 7:03 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:17 pm I still would love Buttigieg to win. Every time I hear him speak, I'm surprised at how thoughtful and diplomatic he is. Even with his missteps in handling racial issues back home during his time as a mayor, I still think he's a great choice.

BUT he's too young. And the homophobic rubes out there still exist in large numbers in this country. So I see Biden taking it. Sanders and Warren have effectively tousled their way into oblivion, if you ask me. They should have kept the gloves on and avoided such a public dust up (I don't know who's telling the truth between them...but I don't think either one has come out of it unscathed).

I don't buy the "too young" argument - I'd say you could just as easily argue most of the other candidates are way too old. I do believe the underlying homophobia does hurt him now. Have you noticed the negative attention he has drawn for incredibly inane things that others aren't? I am so tired of hearing the narrative about his lack of black support (only to see one AA after another join his team or endorse him). One minute he's too gay, the next he's not gay enough. He's corrupted by "big money" donors (like me apparently) even when his competitors have done the same things and worse. Even the age thing I'd wager in part is from anti-gay bias; if he was an uglier straight guy I don't think there would be as much of this "concern". Or maybe just call it "gay doubt" I don't know.

In my heart I feel like Pete should (and will) take Iowa, and use that momentum to do well in NH and eventually win the nomination. He's been drawing a lot of crowds in places where they flipped from Obama to Trump, so it seems to be going well, but for whatever reason the polls don't seem to reflect that. My head, though, says I am in for a major disappointment and he will fall below Bernie and Biden, maybe even slip to 4th. That would be devastating.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Jan 28, 2020 7:13 pm

rittchard wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 7:03 pm
hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:17 pm I still would love Buttigieg to win. Every time I hear him speak, I'm surprised at how thoughtful and diplomatic he is. Even with his missteps in handling racial issues back home during his time as a mayor, I still think he's a great choice.

BUT he's too young. And the homophobic rubes out there still exist in large numbers in this country. So I see Biden taking it. Sanders and Warren have effectively tousled their way into oblivion, if you ask me. They should have kept the gloves on and avoided such a public dust up (I don't know who's telling the truth between them...but I don't think either one has come out of it unscathed).
I don't buy the "too young" argument - I'd say you could just as easily argue most of the other candidates are way too old.

Except in this country, I would wager that too old is better than too young when you're arguing your credentials in front of voters.

Listen, I like Pete. I would love to see Pete win. But unfortunately, I don't think it's his time yet. Hopefully soon it will be though.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Tue Jan 28, 2020 7:13 pm

I read that TikTok users have dubbed him "Mayo Pete" because he's white and bland. I also read that none of the candidates have a presence on TikTok because 60% of its users are under the age of 18. The writer opined that they should be watching it because it's a place where memes (like Mayo Pete) spawn. And now I've told you everything that I know about TikTok.

If I had to put money on it right now, mine would be on Sanders winning Iowa. Probably NH, too, but we'll have that thread after IA caucuses.

rittchard · Post by **rittchard** » Tue Jan 28, 2020 7:45 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 7:13 pm
rittchard wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 7:03 pm
hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:17 pm I still would love Buttigieg to win. Every time I hear him speak, I'm surprised at how thoughtful and diplomatic he is. Even with his missteps in handling racial issues back home during his time as a mayor, I still think he's a great choice.

BUT he's too young. And the homophobic rubes out there still exist in large numbers in this country. So I see Biden taking it. Sanders and Warren have effectively tousled their way into oblivion, if you ask me. They should have kept the gloves on and avoided such a public dust up (I don't know who's telling the truth between them...but I don't think either one has come out of it unscathed).
I don't buy the "too young" argument - I'd say you could just as easily argue most of the other candidates are way too old.
Except in this country, I would wager that too old is better than too young when you're arguing your credentials in front of voters.

Listen, I like Pete. I would love to see Pete win. But unfortunately, I don't think it's his time yet. Hopefully soon it will be though.

The problem is, and a big reason he is running now instead of taking a traditional path through Congress (yawn), that the country needs him RIGHT NOW. We need something different to beat Trump AND to run the country afterwards, or we run the risk of getting another Trump in 4 years. I don't think Bernie can beat Trump, he's just too extreme and I think if he finally gets vetted harder the skeletons are going to keep falling out of the closet. That's another bad thing about being old is more years to find skellies lol. Honestly I don't even want to vote for him. Biden may seem to be a lower risk bet to beat Trump, but given some of his weaknesses, and the controversy stirred by the things with his son (fake or real, it will be used against him like Hilary's emails), I'm not so sure (also see skellie comment above).

Pete is like the anti-Trump; sure he may be a little bland for some (I have to say Mayo Pete is pretty funny even though it's also really stupid), but that can help him gain moderates and Republicans that would never vote Bernie, which he is already doing. I guess the good thing about the homophobia is that he is getting vetted harder earlier than everyone else, and thus far there has been pretty much nothing. War vet, dedicated/monogamous husband, devout Christian, book reader, it's like he was made to take down Trump.

P.S. Plus he's a nerd that likes boardgames, Game of Thrones and Picard so he is my candidate forever lol.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Tue Jan 28, 2020 10:52 pm

Mayo Pete has a long, bright career ahead, but I don't think it's here yet.

I'm just glad the voting is about to start. Seems like we've been spinning our wheels forever.

pr0ner · Post by **pr0ner** » Tue Jan 28, 2020 11:51 pm

Mayo Pete?!?

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Wed Jan 29, 2020 1:50 am

pr0ner wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 11:51 pmMayo Pete?!?

Please scroll up 3 posts.

pr0ner · Post by **pr0ner** » Wed Jan 29, 2020 9:55 am

I did. I still am at a loss as to who thought that kind of phrase for him was a good idea (full well knowing what mayo represents as a term for white people).

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Wed Jan 29, 2020 10:14 am

pr0ner wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2020 9:55 am I did. I still am at a loss as to who thought that kind of phrase for him was a good idea (full well knowing what mayo represents as a term for white people).

People who don't like him.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Wed Jan 29, 2020 10:33 am

Drazzil · Post by **Drazzil** » Fri Jan 31, 2020 6:02 pm

Go Bernie go!!!

Time to buy something from the Bernie gift shop.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Sat Feb 01, 2020 11:50 am

Warren's strategy for Monday: Be #2. Basically, any candidate who doesn't reach 15% support on the first "ballot" gets knocked out, and his/her supporters either go home or pick someone else, like an instant runoff. A strong #2 can win by hoovering up the most displaced "voters." As the sole viable female, Warren has her eye on Klobuchar supporters (although Biden is also making the same play, he doesn't appear to be succeeding).

In recent weeks, Warren has been pitching herself as a “unity candidate” — someone most Democrats can be happy with, whatever their first choice. Iowa’s caucuses will be the first on-the-ground test of that theory.

Peter Leo, chairman of Iowa’s Carroll County Democratic Party and a Warren endorser, said he carefully courts voters while door-knocking, especially if they are committed to a candidate who he believes might not reach the 15 percent threshold Monday night.

“You want to be able to stay in touch with those folks and remain part of their thought process, even though they may have even told another campaign they’re committed to caucus for them,” Leo said. “Get inside the room and anything can happen.”

Warren is even personally pitching herself to many undecided voters in small groups her campaign calls “clutches,” as The Washington Post first reported. “If I can plant the seed of ‘Maybe she’s the one,’ and then they get invited to one of these clutches or they get a personal phone call from her, that can lay the foundation for her to be the one who closes the sale before caucus time,” Leo said.

Her team has been careful to stay friendly while persistently door-knocking, never pushing for a sale too hard or alienating other candidates’ supporters.

Kurth · Post by **Kurth** » Sat Feb 01, 2020 12:43 pm

Kraken wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 7:13 pm I read that TikTok users have dubbed him "Mayo Pete" because he's white and bland. I also read that none of the candidates have a presence on TikTok because 60% of its users are under the age of 18. The writer opined that they should be watching it because it's a place where memes (like Mayo Pete) spawn. And now I've told you everything that I know about TikTok.

If I had to put money on it right now, mine would be on Sanders winning Iowa. Probably NH, too, but we'll have that thread after IA caucuses.

Here's something else: There is strong evidence that TikTok is basically controlled by the Chinese government:

At the center of the debate is how far China’s control extends outside their national borders — a question US lawmakers are highly focused on. When TikTok appeared to be squashing content related to the pro-Democracy protests in Hong Kong, Senators like Josh Hawley (R-MO) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) began calling for an investigation. More congressional leaders joined when former TikTok employees told The Washington Post they were instructed to take down political posts. “Ample & growing evidence exists that TikTok’s platform for western markets, including the U.S., are censoring content in line with #China’s communist government directives,” tweeted Rubio.

In a statement emailed to The Verge, he added, “I remain deeply concerned that any platform or application that has Chinese ownership or direct links to China, such as TikTok, can be used as a tool by the Chinese Communist Party.”

His concern was echoed in a letter Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) wrote to acting National Intelligence Director Joseph Maguire late last month. “While ByteDance claims TikTok does not operate in China and stores U.S. user data in the U.S., ByteDance is still required to adhere to the laws of China,” the senators wrote.

See also:
TikTok and the Long Arm of the Chinese Government
How TikTok Censors Videos that do Not Please Bejing
Exercise Caution When Using Chinese Apps Like TikTok

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sat Feb 01, 2020 4:43 pm

Meanwhile, Bernie surrogates are out there making sure you know that Bernie is not your unity candidate.

Daehawk · Post by **Daehawk** » Sat Feb 01, 2020 4:59 pm

I just wish 2 things.

1. That Trump was out and I never hear or see his name again in my life.

2. That I never see or hear anything political especially campaign tv ads again in my life. Its all Ive heard for 4 years.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Sat Feb 01, 2020 5:05 pm

Interesting news about TikTok and China. Since I will never install/sign up for TikTok, can anybody explain its appeal or how it differs from other social media? I'm just wondering why American children would flock to Chinese spyware. Is it just that their parents aren't using it/disapprove of it?

Holman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 4:43 pm Meanwhile, Bernie surrogates are out there making sure you know that Bernie is not your unity candidate.

The Bernie bros that I know are convinced that the DNC/Clinton establishment will prevent Sanders from getting the nomination, even if they have to change or bend rules to do it. A proposal to let superdelegates vote on the first ballot has already been floated, although it hasn't gotten any traction yet. Expect that to surface if Bernie opens up a lead.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Sat Feb 01, 2020 5:58 pm

They just changed the DNC rules to allow Bloomberg to appear at the next debate. I have to believe Camp Bernie is getting ready to burn it all down.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Sat Feb 01, 2020 6:21 pm

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2020 5:58 pm They just changed the DNC rules to allow Bloomberg to appear at the next debate. I have to believe Camp Bernie is getting ready to burn it all down.

Not the next debate on the Seventh (unless he were to somehow win a delegate from Iowa, which I don't think would be possible), but the following debate on the Nineteenth.