2020 Iowa Democratic Caucus

[HorusRa2 5,005]

 

For those interested here are all the discrepancies found so far. 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

Honestly, they're going to publish 100% without checking for the errors people have tried to contact them about  They only did that one correction because of a freaking facebook post from the county supervisor of Black Hawk. There are several others trying to get the same coverage. They didnt even respond to the person who left that complaint, they only corrected it when Nate Cohn, a writer at The New York Times, tweeted about it and it started trending on Twitter because hes a media figure with a platform.

We should just accept its going to show Buttigieg as the leader for pledged delegates + SDEs or both (god forbid popular vote, but we cant know since the results will be arguably inaccurate) 

 

[HorusRa2 5,005]

 

 

Another thread showing the caucus sheets with rounding errors that benefited Pete more than any other candidate. 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

5 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

 

 

Another thread showing the caucus sheets with rounding errors that benefited Pete more than any other candidate. 

( ._.) This is a mess. But I have no faith in the DNC or IDP to take appropriate action (That would require them to call on every leader in charge as well as to release publicly the results of these worksheets)

They aren't going to do that, even though it is what would be the most transparent. 

Looks like we really do need the U.N. to officiate our elections next time  This is literally Bolivia 2.0 for me, I can't believe it.

[Morphine Prince 109,683]

12 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

 

 

Another thread showing the caucus sheets with rounding errors that benefited Pete more than any other candidate. 

It’s clear Sanders is the winner.

At this point there isn’t much we can do. The fix is already set up.

Sanders and Buttigieg will each have the same amount of delegates at the end. 

Iowa is only 41 delegates total. 

 

[President Biden 5,898]

1 hour ago, OG Gaga Stan said:

Just to add some perspective for the few aggressive centrists who are taking the possibility of Buttigieg eeking out a win amid blatant inaccurate reporting to sh*t on Bernie:

And Iowa isn’t even over yet. 

Bernie was forecasted to win Iowa & is tied with an unknown Mayor from a small town. 

I wouldn’t say that’s good. He’s down 20% from 2016 results

[Brainiac 11,171]

4 minutes ago, Halsey said:

Bernie was forecasted to win Iowa & is tied with an unknown Mayor from a small town. 

I wouldn’t say that’s good. He’s down 20% from 2016 results

He was facing 1 person in 2016. You REALLY think it was realistic for him to get 50% of the vote with 10 other people on the ballot? Ok, Jan. And he DID win Iowa in the popular vote. Still may eek out the SDE count as well.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

So, it seems that the rounding and tie breaking coin flips were done somewhat inconsistently, or perhaps people weren't properly trained on when/how to do them.

In this example, a coin toss must have been warranted, as Biden and Warren had the exact same number of members, and would therefore - by Iowa's party rules need a coin toss. (This could've been easily marked as a like, 1 + 1 on the tally or some kind of system, so this is bad planning on the IDP's part, it makes this harder to verify lmao  )

But in this example, there is not a direct tie, and these results should indicate 1 - 2 - 1 - 1, with 2 outstanding delegates.

And here, we don't know what their process for determining who got what delegates was. Did they do a round robin coin toss for every candidate? Did they do a coin toss just between the people who already had the highest "result"? The rules just mention a tie in supporters, not a tie in rounded delegates (and here there are TWO to give out, so would they do 2 coin tosses between Biden and Sanders? That could lead to Buttigieg getting 2 but Biden getting 3)

We don't have a way of knowing, and if there are rules we don't know of, they should release some kind of statement describing the process  So far we just have people who are swearing that their caucus announced different results from what was written on these papers, which is unverifiable, but messy nonetheless. 

Honestly, this part was completely avoidable, and is another example of faulty planning by the IDP  

Feel free to correct me with any insider knowledge on coin toss rules, but what I found was just what people have tweeted + what the IDP said from 2016 when they justified it then.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

Overall, I'm gonna say that the potential rounding issues are less likely of a red flag than the blatant misreporting of data that officials have publicly given receipts for (again, they put in numbers that don't match what  people reported to them. In one instance, they gave Steyer 396 more VOTES (not sdes) than he received in their county  )

[President Biden 5,898]

Bernie’s lead and shrinking & Pete is catching up quick. If Bernie loses his NH firewall, it’s game over.

[HorusRa2 5,005]

8 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

So, it seems that the rounding and tie breaking coin flips were done somewhat inconsistently, or perhaps people weren't properly trained on when/how to do them.

In this example, a coin toss must have been warranted, as Biden and Warren had the exact same number of members, and would therefore - by Iowa's party rules need a coin toss. (This could've been easily marked as a like, 1 + 1 on the tally or some kind of system, so this is bad planning on the IDP's part, it makes this harder to verify lmao  )

But in this example, there is not a direct tie, and these results should indicate 1 - 2 - 1 - 1, with 2 outstanding delegates.

And here, we don't know what their process for determining who got what delegates was. Did they do a round robin coin toss for every candidate? Did they do a coin toss just between the people who already had the highest "result"? The rules just mention a tie in supporters, not a tie in rounded delegates (and here there are TWO to give out, so would they do 2 coin tosses between Biden and Sanders? That could lead to Buttigieg getting 2 but Biden getting 3)

We don't have a way of knowing, and if there are rules we don't know of, they should release some kind of statement describing the process  So far we just have people who are swearing that their caucus announced different results from what was written on these papers, which is unverifiable, but messy nonetheless. 

Honestly, this part was completely avoidable, and is another example of faulty planning by the IDP  

Feel free to correct me with any insider knowledge on coin toss rules, but what I found was just what people have tweeted + what the IDP said from 2016 when they justified it then.

I’m now seeing someone debunk the original post. So idk what’s right now but generally I trust Ryan Grim. 

 

 

[HorusRa2 5,005]

2 minutes ago, Halsey said:

Bernie’s lead and shrinking & Pete is catching up quick. If Bernie loses his NH firewall, it’s game over.

What did you expect after the media crowned him the winner for the past 2 days with incomplete results? He’s gained 9 pts in 2 days. It won’t last. It’s driven by media coverage. 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

Well then. We love luck somewhat deciding delegates  

Oh well. On to NH.

[Brainiac 11,171]

4 minutes ago, Halsey said:

Bernie’s lead and shrinking & Pete is catching up quick. If Bernie loses his NH firewall, it’s game over.

Bernie ain't losing NH. Keep dreaming. That Buttigieg bump will not last through next Tuesday.

[Othon 34,299]

4 minutes ago, Halsey said:

Bernie’s lead and shrinking & Pete is catching up quick. If Bernie loses his NH firewall, it’s game over.

Literally what the hell are you talking about? Bernie doesn’t have a “NH firewall”? He’s competitive in every single state going forward, unlike Buttigieg who has only poured millions of dollars into those first two states and has zero room to expand with his zero support with voters of color.