Wikipedia

2020 Iowa Democratic presidential caucuses

Main article: 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries

The 2020 Iowa Democratic presidential caucuses, the first nominating contest in the Democratic Party primaries for the 2020 presidential election, took place on February 3, 2020. Pete Buttigieg received the most state delegate equivalents (SDEs) and therefore the most delegates, with one SDE and two delegates more than Bernie Sanders, who had narrowly won the popular vote with 26.5%.[1] It was the first time that the Iowa caucuses published the popular vote results of their contest. Buttigieg became the first openly gay person to ever earn the most delegates in a state's presidential contest in the United States. The Iowa caucuses were closed caucuses, wherein only registered members of a party were eligible to vote,[2] and awarded 49 delegates to the 2020 Democratic National Convention, of which 41 were pledged delegates allocated on the basis of the results of the caucuses.[3]

2020 Iowa Democratic presidential caucuses
← 2016 February 3, 2020 2024 →
NH →
49 delegates (41 pledged, 8 unpledged)
to the Democratic National Convention
The number of pledged delegates won is determined by the number of state delegate equivalents (SDEs) won[a]
 
Candidate Pete Buttigieg Bernie Sanders Elizabeth Warren
Home state Indiana Vermont Massachusetts
Delegate count 14[b] 12[c] 8[d]
First vote 37,572
(21.3%) 		43,581
(24.7%) 		32,589
(18.5%)
Final vote 43,209
(25.1%) 		45,652
(26.5%) 		34,909
(20.3%)
SDEs 563
(26.2%) 		562
(26.1%) 		388
(18.0%)
 
Candidate Joe Biden Amy Klobuchar Andrew Yang
Home state Delaware Minnesota New York
Delegate count 6[e] 1 0
First vote 26,291
(14.9%) 		22,454
(12.7%) 		8,914
(5.1%)
Final vote 23,605
(13.7%) 		21,100
(12.2%) 		1,758
(1.0%)
SDEs 340
(15.8%) 		264
(12.3%) 		22
(1.0%)
  Joe Biden
  Pete Buttigieg
  Amy Klobuchar
  Bernie Sanders
  Elizabeth Warren
  Tie

The 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses were controversial due to the delays in reporting the results. These delays, caused in part by problems with a mobile application created by Shadow Inc. that was used to report voting totals, led to the resignation of Iowa Democratic Party chair Troy Price.[4] Further controversy resulted from errors and inconsistencies regarding the calculation and reporting of State Delegate Equivalents (SDEs) in several caucus locations.[5][6][7][8][9] Following a three-day delay in vote reporting, the Iowa Democratic Party declared that Buttigieg had won two more delegates than Sanders.[1]

The official result and calculation of pledged national convention delegates was delayed until six days after the election due to the need for a correction of reported results from 3.1% (55) of the precincts.[10][11] Buttigieg and Sanders then requested a partial recanvass for 8.1% of the official result,[12][13][14] which resulted in Buttigieg's lead over Sanders narrowing to 0.08 SDEs.[15] A final recount for 63 of the recanvassed precincts (3.6% of all results) was requested by both campaigns on February 19.[16][17] Two days later, the Iowa Democratic Party announced that it had accepted recount requests for 23 precincts (1.3% of all results).[18] The recounts took place from February 25 to February 27,[19] with the Iowa Democratic Party announcing the results of the recounts on February 27, 2020.[20] The results were certified by the state committee on February 29.[21] The Associated Press at that point still refused to call a winner due to too many discrepancies in the precinct vote records, though they acknowledged the official results in their delegate count,[21] and Sanders challenged the results after certification before the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, but there were no media reports about the outcome of that challenge.[22]

Despite his underperformance, Joe Biden would go on to win the nomination, becoming the first Democratic candidate to do so without winning Iowa since Bill Clinton in 1992. Additionally, with Biden defeating incumbent president Donald Trump in the general election, he became the first candidate to do so without finishing in the top 3 in Iowa since the inception of the caucuses in 1972.

Procedure

edit
Further information: Walking subcaucus

As the event was a closed caucus, only Iowans registered as Democrats could vote. However, Iowans who did not register as Democrats before the caucus day could still register as such on caucus night itself at their designated precinct, thereby gaining full voting rights at the event. The votes are cast by physically standing in a section of the caucus site corresponding to the preferred candidate. Proxy voting or absentee voting (i.e. by mail or through participation in a preceding "virtual caucus") was not allowed.[23][24]

1,678 Iowa precinct caucuses and 87 satellite caucuses around the world (organized as alternative voting sites for registered Democratic Iowans who were unable to vote locally at their precinct caucus) were held, with doors being closed at 7:00 pm CST on February 3, 2020, in order to elect precinct delegates for the subsequent county conventions and allocate the state's 41 pledged national convention delegates based upon the proportional accumulative result of all the precincts.[23][24]

Precinct caucus procedures

edit

In all precinct caucuses that elect more than one county convention delegate, the presidential candidates must meet a viability threshold within the individual precinct in order to qualify as a viable candidate. The thresholds are:[23][24]

  • a minimum of 25% for precincts electing only two delegates;
  • a minimum of 16.66% for precincts electing only three delegates;[f] and
  • a minimum of 15% for the majority of precincts electing more than three delegates.

After the first round of voting, supporters of viable candidates have their votes locked to their chosen candidate, while the supporters of non‑viable candidates are allowed through a second final round of voting (called realignment) to transfer their vote either to an already‑viable candidate or to a non‑viable group as long as they make it viable. If the number of viable groups formed in the first round or final round exceeds the number of electable county convention delegates in the precinct, then the smallest viable group(s) are forced to realign until the number of viable groups no longer exceeds the number of delegates. Precinct caucuses that elect a single county convention delegate have no viability threshold and thus do not need to go through realignment, but instead elect their single delegate based upon a simple majority vote expressed by the "first alignment" round.[23][24]

After the final realignment round has ended and the correct maximum number of viable groups formed, then each of those viable groups (supporting a candidate or being uncommitted) elects the county convention delegate(s) their group won according to its proportional percentage share of the qualified votes won after the final alignment in the local precinct. However, due to rounding errors, it is still possible, by following the outlined calculation procedure, that the total number of county convention delegates awarded by the precinct will be higher or lower than the delegate number to which the precinct is entitled. Therefore, as a last correctional step, the viable groups might also gain or lose a delegate depending on the size of their calculated delegate fraction before rounding in order to compensate for the rounding issue. In this last correctional rounding procedure, a special rule ensures that a group can never lose its only county convention delegate won (meaning that a fractional 0.5 delegate calculated to have been won by a group will always be rounded up to one, even when other larger groups are calculated to have higher fractions).[23]

A summary in the table below, display the ratio between state delegate equivalents (SDE's) and county convention delegates (CCD) for all of Iowa's 99 counties. Each county has a different SDE ratio per county convention delegate, with the most populous counties having the highest SDE ratio and the least populous counties having the lowest SDE ratio. The ratio is used when each county converts the results of won county convention delegates into the number of won SDE's. The use of a different ratio in each county mean, that some county convention delegates will be counted to be more worth in SDE-terms compared to their fellow county convention delegates elected in other counties (similar to the principle of the United States Electoral College, where it is possible to win the popular vote without winning the race deciding delegate count).[25]

Satellite caucus procedures

edit

For the first time in the history of the Iowa caucuses, satellite caucuses around the world (60 in-state and 27 out-of-state) were all organized on election day February 3, as alternative voting sites for registered Democratic Iowans who were unable to vote locally at their precinct caucus. The list below display all types of satellite sites (of which most were open for participation of all Iowans, while some were closed caucuses only for those with a private residence or workplace affiliation):[23][26]

  • 14 working-related sites
  • 24 student sites on college campuses
  • 29 sites accommodating accessibility needs (including aging service centers)
  • 11 sites accommodating language and culture needs
  • 9 out-of-state sites accommodating Iowans wintering in another state

Doors at most satellite caucuses closed at 7:00 pm CST; while some satellite caucuses however closed doors a few hours earlier or later (between 10 am to 8:30 pm CST of the same day).[26]

Iowa Democrats who are out-of-state on February 3 and want to participate in an out-of-state satellite caucus, as well as those who were in-state but were unable to attend their precinct caucus and therefore have to take part in an early in-state satellite caucus before 6:00 pm CST, all need to pre-register their attendance for these satellite events (including a membership of the Democratic Party) by January 17, 2020. Iowans who instead attend an in-state satellite caucus at 7:00 pm CST or later, however, do not need to pre-register attendance and party membership, as they will be granted the same opportunity as precinct caucusgoers to change their party registration at the door. Those Iowans who participate in any form of satellite caucus will be barred from participating in their designated precinct caucus.[23][26]

The voting procedure for satellite caucuses was largely identical to the one used for precinct caucuses. However, it differs by the fact that no real county convention delegates are elected; instead, each satellite caucus will be granted a number of "virtual county delegates" depending on the number of caucus attendees:[23]

Number of attendees 1–20 21–40 41–60 61–80 81–100 More than 100
Virtual county delegates 4 5 6 7 8 9

The viability threshold for a group supporting a presidential candidate at a satellite caucus is also set at a minimum of 15%. The calculation rules for allocating "virtual" delegates at a satellite caucus are identical with those used when allocating "real" elected county convention delegates at a precinct caucus.

Accumulated results (number of won virtual county delegates being recalculated to SDEs) of the satellite caucuses are reported from five designated "virtual satellite counties":[23][26]

  • One in each of Iowa's four congressional districts, where the results from all in-state satellite caucuses will be reported and added up within each congressional district.
  • One at-large statewide satellite county, where the results from all out-of-state satellite caucuses will be reported and added up.

In addition to the number of precinct elected district and state delegates (elected at the county convention as per the accumulated SDE result of each precinct caucus), each satellite county and their satellite caucuses will also be allocated an additional amount of real district and state delegates (who will not be present at county conventions but only participate in the district convention and state convention).[23][26]

The available number of the satellite elected district and state delegates will depend on the accumulated voter turnout from all satellite caucuses within respectively each of the four virtual congressional district satellite counties (for in-state satellite caucuses) and within the fifth virtual at-large statewide satellite county (for out-of-state satellite caucuses). Each virtual satellite county will hereby allocate the following number of SDEs among its satellite caucuses:[23][26]

Virtual congressional district satellite county SDEs
(calculated as a percentage of the district SDE base total decided by real precincts)
Total satellite attendance for the CD county 1–600 601–1200 1201–1800 1801–2400 2401–3000 3001–3600 3601–4200 4201–4800 4801–5400 5401 or more
Virtual CD1 satellite county 5.60 SDEs (1%) 11.20 SDEs (2%) 16.80 SDEs (3%) 22.40 SDEs (4%) 28.00 SDEs (5%) 33.60 SDEs (6%) 39.20 SDEs (7%) 44.80 SDEs (8%) 50.40 SDEs (9%) 56.00 SDEs (10%)
Virtual CD2 satellite county 5.43 SDEs (1%) 10.86 SDEs (2%) 16.29 SDEs (3%) 21.72 SDEs (4%) 27.15 SDEs (5%) 32,58 SDEs (6%) 38,01 SDEs (7%) 43.44 SDEs (8%) 48.87 SDEs (9%) 54.30 SDEs (10%)
Virtual CD3 satellite county 5.93 SDEs (1%) 11.86 SDEs (2%) 17.79 SDEs (3%) 23.72 SDEs (4%) 29.65 SDEs (5%) 35.58 SDEs (6%) 41.51 SDEs (7%) 47.44 SDEs (8%) 53.37 SDEs (9%) 59.30 SDEs (10%)
Virtual CD4 satellite county 4.11 SDEs (1%) 8.22 SDEs (2%) 12.33 SDEs (3%) 16.44 SDEs (4%) 20.55 SDEs (5%) 24.66 SDEs (6%) 28.77 SDEs (7%) 32.88 SDEs (8%) 36.99 SDEs (9%) 41.10 SDEs (10%)
Virtual at-large statewide satellite county SDEs
(will be allocated in addition to the statewide SDE base total decided by real precincts)
Total satellite
attendance
for the
at-large county 		1–500 501–1000 1001–1500 1501–2000 2000 or more
Virtual
at-large
satellite county 		2 SDEs 3 SDEs 4 SDEs 5 SDEs 6 SDEs

The amount of available SDEs to be won in each satellite caucus will be decided based on its proportional allocated share of the "total number of virtual county delegates allocated throughout all satellite caucuses within its own virtual satellite county", which shall be equal to its share of allocated available SDEs within its virtual county.[23][26]

When the accumulated satellite county SDEs finally gets converted to satellite elected "district and state delegates" for each satellite county as a whole, all presidential candidates having won SDEs within the specific satellite county at a share of less than 15% will have all their SDEs eliminated (meaning they will win 0 district and state delegates), while the remaining qualified presidential candidates having won at least a 15% SDE share within the specific satellite county then finally will win a number of delegates equal to their share of qualified SDEs (with fractions rounded up/down to nearest integers).[23][26]

As part of the caucus procedures, each satellite caucus will have written down potential candidates among its caucusgoers for the available additional "district and state delegate" positions, later to be selected by the preference of the presidential campaigns to which they have pledged support.[23][26]

County, district, state convention and national convention delegates

edit
Pledged national
convention delegates[27]
Type Del.
CD1[g] 7
CD2[h] 7
CD3[i] 8
CD4[j] 5
PLEO[k] 5
At-large[l] 9
Total pledged delegates 41

A total of 11,402 county convention delegates are elected according to the procedure described above across 1,678 precinct caucuses and 87 satellite caucuses. They will then go to their local county convention on March 21, to choose 2,107 district and state delegates who are pledged to support presidential candidates according to the proportional state delegate equivalents (SDEs) result of the caucuses. These elected districts and state delegates will subsequently go to the district conventions on April 25 (selecting the names of the 27 pledged national convention delegates from the congressional districts) and state convention on June 13 (selecting the names of the remaining statewide elected pledged national convention delegates: nine at-large and five party leaders and elected officials).[24] In total, 41 pledged national convention delegates are elected for the 2020 Democratic National Convention with their pledged support being determined proportionally to the presidential candidate's total number of SDEs won statewide and in each of the state's four congressional districts; but only for those presidential candidates who manage to qualify by winning at least a 15% share of the SDEs statewide or in the specific district. Meaning that all presidential candidates winning less than a 15% share of SDEs statewide and in CD1, CD2, CD3, CD4, will win 0 pledged national convention delegates.[27]

If a presidential candidate based on the statewide caucus result won a number of pledged PLEO delegates or pledged at-large delegates, but then later decides to withdraw as a candidate before the state convention on June 13, their allocation of won pledged PLEO/at-large delegates will then instead be proportionally divided among the other remaining presidential candidates who already managed to qualify with a number of won pledged PLEO/at-large delegates.[23]

The 41 caucus-elected pledged delegates Iowa sends to the national convention are to be joined by eight preselected unpledged PLEO delegates (superdelegates): five members of the Democratic National Committee and three members of Congress (of which all three are U.S. Representatives).[27] The eight superdelegates no longer have the right to cast any decisive vote at the first ballot for determining the Democratic presidential nominee for the presidential election (meaning they can only play a role if allocation of all pledged delegates results in a contested convention); and they are automatically selected independently of the caucus results as unpledged delegates, according to the rules of the Democratic Party.[28][29]

Key changes from previous caucuses

edit

In previous caucuses (most recently in 2016), the reported precinct results were used to compute the expected number of pledged national convention delegates according to the state delegate equivalents for each presidential candidate, meaning that the campaigns after the precinct caucuses still needed to hold onto their computed expected pledged national convention delegates as their support were locked to the candidate only at the final step of the selection process (i.e. at the state convention in June).[30] This has changed in the 2020 caucuses, where the computed final number of pledged national convention delegates will be locked to the candidates already when the SDEs result of the precinct caucuses are known.[31]

On February 11, 2019, the Iowa Democratic Party proposed several changes to the procedures used in the previous caucuses, including the addition of a period for "virtual caucuses" from January 29 to February 3, 2020, which would allow participants unable to physically attend the precinct caucuses to join in an online virtual caucus or teleconference in which they will be given the opportunity to rank candidate preferences, with support for non-viable candidates redistributed to viable ones.[27] This process continues until no non-viable choices remain, and the results are aggregated with congressional districts for the purposes of delegate allocation, but limited to 10% SDEs, regardless of the number of those using the virtual caucus option. The results of both the virtual and the precinct caucuses were to be released on the night of February 3, and as a result of rules changes by the national party, raw vote totals for the first and second alignment periods of the caucuses were to be published.[32]

In late August 2019, the DNC ordered both the Iowa and the Nevada Democratic state parties to scrap their plans for "virtual caucuses" due to security concerns.[33]

On September 20, 2019, the DNC conditionally approved a plan for "satellite caucus sites", allowing Iowa Democrats to participate if they are working or going to college outside of the state on February 3, 2020.[34] Eleven of those 87 sites will have Spanish translation services. Latinos made up 6% of the population and 3.4% of registered voters.[35]

The party announced in late January 2020 that a "raw vote count" for both the "first initial alignment" and the "second final alignment" would be reported (along with the computed state delegate equivalents and pledged national convention delegates), for the first time in the history of the caucuses. In previous caucuses, the reported result of the precinct caucuses comprised only the final computed state delegate equivalents and expected number of pledged national convention delegates.[36][24][31]

Polling

edit
 
 
 
 
Sanders, Buttigieg, Warren and Biden campaigning in Iowa throughout the lead up to the caucus
Polling aggregation
Source of poll aggregation Date
updated 		Dates
polled 		Bernie
Sanders 		Joe
Biden 		Pete
Buttigieg 		Elizabeth
Warren 		Amy
Klobuchar 		Andrew
Yang 		Tom
Steyer 		Other Un-
decided[m]
270 to Win[37] Feb 3, 2020 Jan 22 – Feb 2, 2020 22.6% 18.2% 15.2% 15.6% 11.8% 3.8% 3.6% 3.6%[n] 5.6%
RealClear Politics[38] Feb 3, 2020 Jan 20 – Feb 2, 2020 23.0% 19.3% 16.8% 15.5% 9.0% 3.3% 3.0% 2.5%[o] 7.6%
FiveThirtyEight[39] Feb 3, 2020 until Feb 2, 2020[p] 22.2% 20.7% 15.7% 14.5% 10.1% 3.7% 3.6% 2.9%[q] 6.6%
Average 22.6% 19.4% 15.9% 15.2% 10.3% 3.6% 3.4% 3.0%[r] 6.6%

The results of a final poll from The Des Moines Register were not released as scheduled on February 1, after an interviewee complained that Pete Buttigieg was not given as a poll option during their interview, with the omission reportedly attributed to human error. As the polling firm was unable to determine whether the mistake was an isolated incident or not, pollster Ann Selzer decided to withhold the results of the poll altogether, marking the first time in 76 years that the final pre-caucus poll was not released by the Register.[40][41] The poll was later leaked on Twitter, with results confirmed by FiveThirtyEight showing Sanders in the lead with 22%, followed by Warren with 18%, Buttigieg with 16% and Biden with 13%.[42]

  Debate qualifying poll as designated by the Democratic National Committee
Polling from December 1, 2019, to February 3, 2020
Poll source Date(s)
administered 		Sample
size[s] 		Margin
of error 		Joe
Biden 		Pete
Buttigieg 		Tulsi
Gabbard 		Amy
Klobuchar 		Bernie
Sanders 		Tom
Steyer 		Elizabeth
Warren 		Andrew
Yang 		Other Undecided
Emerson College[43] Jan 30 – Feb 2, 2020 853 (LV) ± 3.3% 21% 15% 1% 11% 28% 4% 14% 5% 2% –
Data for Progress[44] [1] Jan 28 – Feb 2, 2020 2,394 (LV) ± 1.6% 24%[t] 22% – – 28% – 25% – – –
18% 18% 2% 9% 22% 4% 19% 6% 2%[u] –
YouGov/CBS News[45] (MRP) Jan 22–31, 2020 1,835 (RV) ± 3% 25% 21% [v] 5% 25% [v] 16% [v] [v] [v]
David Binder Research/Focus on Rural America[46] Jan 28–30, 2020 300 (LV) ± 5.7% 46%[w] – – – 40% – – – – 14%
15% 19% 3% 11% 17% 3% 15% 1% 2%[x] 12%
American Research Group[47] Jan 27–30, 2020 400 (LV) ± 4.0% 17% 9% 2% 16% 23% 3% 15% 5% 4%[y] 6%
Civiqs/Data for Progress[48] Jan 26–29, 2020 615 (LV) ± 4.7% 20%[z] 18% 1% 0% 31% 2% 25% 1% 1%[aa] 2%
15% 15% 2% 8% 28% 2% 21% 5% 0%[ab] 2%
Park Street Strategies[49] Jan 24–28, 2020 600 (LV) ± 3.0% 20% 17% 1% 12% 18% 4% 17% 5% <1%[ac] 6%
Monmouth University[50] Jan 23–27, 2020 544 (LV) ± 4.2% 29%[ad] 20% – – 25% – 19% – 1%[ae] 6%
22%[af] 17% – 12% 22% – 16% 5% <1%[ag] 6%
23% 16% 1% 10% 21% 4% 15% 3% 1%[ah] 5%
Civiqs/Iowa State University[51] Jan 23–27, 2020 655 (LV) ± 4.8% 15% 17% 2% 11% 24% 4% 19% 5% 2%[ai] 3%[aj]
Emerson College[52] Jan 23–26, 2020 450 (LV) ± 4.6% 21% 10% 5% 13% 30% 5% 11% 5% 2%[ak] –
Suffolk University/USA Today[53] Jan 23–26, 2020 500 (LV) ± 4.4% 25.4% 17.6% 0.8% 5.6% 18.6% 2.2% 13.2% 3.0% 13.6%[al] –
Change Research/Crooked Media[54] Jan 22–26, 2020 704 (LV) ± 3.7% 22%[am] 23% – – 30% – 20% – – 5%
18% 19% 1% 10% 27% 4% 15% 4% 2%[an] –
Siena College/New York Times[55] Jan 20–23, 2020 584 (LV) ± 4.8% 23%[ao] 23% – – 30% – 19% – – 8%[ap]
17% 18% 1% 8% 25% 3% 15% 3% 1%[aq] 8%
Morningside College[56] Jan 17–23, 2020 253 (LV) ± 6.2% 19% 18% 3% 12% 15% 6% 15% 4% 2%[ar] 4%
YouGov/CBS News[57] Jan 16–23, 2020 1401 (RV) ± 3.9% 25% 22% 0% 7% 26% 1% 15% 1% 2%[as] 1%
Civiqs/Data for Progress[58] Jan 19–21, 2020 590 (LV) ± 4.8% 17% 19% 2% 6% 24% 3% 19% 5% 0%[at] 5%
David Binder Research/Focus on Rural America[59] Jan 15–18, 2020 500 (LV) ± 4.4% 24% 16% 1% 11% 14% 4% 18% 3% 2%[au] –
Neighbourhood Research and Media/Breitbart[60] Jan 14–17, 2020 300 (LV) ± 4.8% 23% 17% –[av] 11% 10% 2% 15% 2% 6%[aw] 13%
Jan 13, 2020 Booker withdraws from the race
Monmouth University[61] Jan 9–12, 2020 405 (LV) ± 4.9% 28%[ax] 25% – – 24% – 16% – 2%[ay] 4%
24% 17% 2% 8% 18% 4% 15% 4% 4%[az] 5%
Selzer/CNN/Des Moines Register[62] January 2–8, 2020 701 (LV) ± 3.7% 15% 16% 2% 6% 20% 2% 17% 5% 2%[ba] 11%
YouGov/CBS News[63] Dec 27, 2019 – Jan 3, 2020 953 (RV) ± 3.8% 23% 23% 1% 7% 23% 2% 16% 2% 2%[bb] 1%
KG Polling[64] Dec 19–23, 2019 750 (LV) ± 3.8% 24% 12% – 5% 31% – 13% 10% – 5%[bc]
Civiqs/Iowa State University[65] Dec 12–16, 2019 632 (LV) ± 4.9% 15% 24% 3% 4% 21% 2% 18% 3% 4%[bd] 4%
Emerson College[66] Dec 7–10, 2019 325 (LV) ± 5.4% 23% 18% 2% 10% 22% 3% 12% 2% 8%[be] –
Dec 3, 2019 Harris withdraws from the race
Polling during November 2019
Poll source Date(s)
administered 		Sample
size[s] 		Margin
of error 		Joe
Biden 		Pete
Buttigieg 		Tulsi
Gabbard 		Kamala
Harris 		Amy
Klobuchar 		Bernie
Sanders 		Tom
Steyer 		Elizabeth
Warren 		Andrew
Yang 		Other Undecided
Civiqs/Iowa State University[67] Nov 15–19, 2019 614 (LV) ± 4.9% 12% 26% 2% 2% 5% 18% 2% 19% 4% 6%[bf] 3%
Des Moines Register/CNN[68] Nov 8–13, 2019 500 (LV) ± 4.4% 15% 25% 3% 3% 6% 15% 3% 16% 3% 6%[bg] 5%
YouGov/CBS News[69] Nov 6–13, 2019 856 (RV) ± 4.1% 22% 21% 0% 5% 5% 22% 2% 18% 1% 4%[bh] –
Monmouth University[70] Nov 7–11, 2019 451 (LV) ± 4.6% 19% 22% 2% 3% 5% 13% 3% 18% 3% 6%[bi] 8%
University of Iowa[71] Oct 28 – Nov 10, 2019 465 (LV) ± 4.6% 15% 16% 3% 2% 1% 18% 3% 23% 3% 2%[bj] 13%
Public Policy Polling[72] Nov 5–6, 2019 715 (LV) – 13% 20% – 3% 9% 14% 6% 21% 3% – 10%
Quinnipiac University[73] Oct 30 – Nov 5, 2019 698 (LV) ± 4.5% 15% 19% 3% 4% 5% 17% 3% 20% 3% 4%[bk] 8%
Nov 1, 2019 O'Rourke withdraws from the race
Polling before November 2019
Poll source Date(s)
administered 		Sample
size[s] 		Margin
of error 		Joe
Biden 		Cory
Booker 		Pete
Buttigieg 		Kamala
Harris 		Amy
Klobuchar 		Beto
O'Rourke 		Bernie
Sanders 		Elizabeth
Warren 		Other Undecided
Siena College/New York Times[74] Oct 25–30, 2019 439 (LV) ± 4.7% 17% 2% 18% 3% 4% 1% 19% 22% 8%[bl] 6%
Civiqs/Iowa State University[75] Oct 18–22, 2019 598 (LV) ± 5% 12% 1% 20% 3% 4% 1% 18% 28% 8%[bn] 4%
Suffolk University/USA Today[76] Oct 16–18, 2019 500 (LV) ± 4.4% 18% 1% 13% 3% 3% 1% 9% 17% 7%[bo] 29%
Emerson College[77] Oct 13–16, 2019 317 (LV) ± 5.5% 23% 3% 16% 2% 1% 0% 13% 23% 15%[bp] –
Firehouse Strategies/Øptimus[78] Oct 8–10, 2019 548 (LV) ± 3.6% 22% 2% 17% 3% –[bq] 1% 5% 25% 26%[br] –[bq]
YouGov/CBS News[79] Oct 3–11, 2019 729 (RV) ± 4.6% 22% 2% 14% 5% 2% 2% 21% 22% 7%[bs] –
Selzer/CNN/Des Moines Register[80] [2] Sep 14–18, 2019 602 (LV) ± 4.0% 20% 3% 9% 6% 3% 2% 11% 22% 11%[bt] 14%
David Binder Research[81] Sep 14–17, 2019 500 (LV) ± 4.4% 25% 2% 12% 5% 8% 1% 9% 23% 9%[bu] 6%
Civiqs/Iowa State University[82] Sep 13–17, 2019 572 (LV) ± 5.2% 16% 2% 13% 5% 3% 2% 16% 24% 11%[bv] 8%
YouGov/CBS News[83] Aug 28 – Sep 4, 2019 835 ± 4.3% 29% 2% 7% 6% 2% 2% 26% 17% 9%[bw] –
Change Research[84] Aug 9–11, 2019 621 (LV) ± 3.9% 17% 3% 13% 8% 2% 3% 17% 28% 9%[bx] –
Monmouth University[85] Aug 1–4, 2019 401 (LV) ± 4.9% 28% 1% 8% 11% 3% <1% 9% 19% 11%[by] 10%
Firehouse Strategies/Øptimus[86] Jul 23–25, 2019 630 ± 3.3% 23% 2% 7% 12% – 2% 11% 23% 4% 16%
YouGov/CBS News[87] Jul 9–18, 2019 706 ± 4.4% 24% 3% 7% 16% 4% 1% 19% 17% 9%[bz] –
Jul 9, 2019 Steyer announces his candidacy
Change Research[88] Jun 29 – Jul 4, 2019 420 (LV) – 16% 1% 25% 16% 1% 2% 16% 18% 5%[ca] –
David Binder Research[89] Jun 29 – Jul 1, 2019 600 ± 4.0% 17% 2% 10% 18% 4% 1% 12% 20% 9%[cb] 9%
Suffolk University/USA Today[90] Jun 28 – Jul 1, 2019 500 ± 4.4% 24% 2% 6% 16% 2% 1% 9% 13% 6%[cc] 21%
Change Research[91] Jun 17–20, 2019 308 (LV) – 27% 5% 17% 4% 2% 1% 18% 20% 7%[cd] –
Selzer/CNN/Des Moines Register[92] Jun 2–5, 2019 600 ± 4.0% 24% 1% 14% 7% 2% 2% 16% 15% 6%[ce] 6%
Change Research[93] May 15–19, 2019 615 (LV) ± 3.9% 24% 1% 14% 10% 2% 5% 24% 12% 9%[cf] –
Firehouse Strategies/Øptimus[94] Apr 30 – May 2, 2019 576 ± 4.1% 35% 2% 11% 5% 4% 3% 14% 10% – 16%
Apr 25, 2019 Biden announces his candidacy
Gravis Marketing[95] Apr 17–18, 2019 590 ± 4.0% 19% 4% 14% 6% 4% 5% 19% 6% 7%[cg] 16%
Apr 14, 2019 Buttigieg announces his candidacy
Monmouth University[96] Apr 4–9, 2019 351 ± 5.2% 27% 3% 9% 7% 4% 6% 16% 7% 7%[ch] 12%
David Binder Research[97] Mar 21–24, 2019 500 ± 4.4% 25% 7% 6% 9% 6% 6% 17% 8% 9%[ci] 7%
Emerson College[98] Mar 21–24, 2019 249 ± 6.2% 25% 6% 11% 10% 2% 5% 24% 9% 8%[cj] –
Public Policy Polling (D)[99][ck] Mar 14–15, 2019 678 – 29% 4% – 5% 6% 7% 15% 8% 4% 22%
Mar 14, 2019 O'Rourke announces his candidacy
Selzer/CNN/Des Moines Register[100] Mar 3–6, 2019 401 ± 4.9% 27% 3% 1% 7% 3% 5% 25% 9% 5%[cl] 10%
Feb 19, 2019 Sanders announces his candidacy
Feb 10, 2019 Klobuchar announces her candidacy
Feb 9, 2019 Warren announces her candidacy
Firehouse Strategies/Øptimus[101] Jan 31 – Feb 2, 2019 558 ± 3.6% 25% 4% – 17% 5% 4% 10% 11% 1%[cm] 25%
Emerson College[102] Jan 30 – Feb 2, 2019 260 ± 6.0% 29% 4% 0% 18% 3% 6% 15% 11% 15%[cn] –
Feb 1, 2019 Booker announces his candidacy
Jan 21, 2019 Harris announces her candidacy
Jan 11, 2019 Gabbard announces her candidacy
Change Research[103] Dec 13–17, 2018 1,291 (LV) – 20% 4% – 7% 5% 19% 20% 7% 18%[co] –
Selzer/CNN/Des Moines Register[104] Dec 10–13, 2018 455 ± 4.6% 32% 4% – 5% 3% 11% 19% 8% 7%[cp] 6%
David Binder Research[105] Dec 10–11, 2018 500 ± 4.4% 30% 6% – 7% 10% 11% 13% 9% 8%[cq] 6%
David Binder Research[106] Sep 20–23, 2018 500 ± 4.4% 37% 8% – 10% – – 12% 16% 6%[cr] 9%
Nov 6, 2017 Yang announces his candidacy
Public Policy Polling (D)[107][cs] Mar 3–6, 2017 1,062 – – 17% – 3% 11% – – – 34%[ct] 32%

Results

edit
 
Final alignment popular vote share by county
  Buttigieg—<30%
  Buttigieg—30–40%
  Buttigieg—40–50%
  Sanders—<30%
  Sanders—30–40%
  Sanders—50–60%
  Warren—<30%
  Warren—30–40%
  Biden—<30%
  Biden—30–40%
  Klobuchar—<30%
  Klobuchar—30–40%
 
Final alignment popular vote share by congressional district
  Buttigieg—<30%
  Sanders—<30%
 
Candidate vote shares

Neither the final statewide total of "initial alignment votes" nor "final alignment votes" were used to determine the statewide number of "state delegate equivalents" (SDEs) won. Instead, a number of SDEs can be won in each of the 1,678 precinct caucuses and 87 satellite caucuses based upon the final alignment votes in each specific precinct. The number of "pledged national convention delegates" was determined proportionally to the candidate's total number of SDEs won statewide and in each of the state's four congressional districts, but only for those candidates who won more than a 15.0% share of the SDEs statewide or in the specific district.[27]

On the evening of February 6, after a three-day delay for all precinct votes to be reported, the first preliminary count for statewide results was published by the Iowa Democratic Party, which found that Pete Buttigieg had narrowly won the state delegate equivalent (SDE) count over Bernie Sanders, while Sanders won the popular vote on both the first and final caucus alignments (after supporters of non-viable candidates below the 15% threshold redistributed their support to viable ones). Due to various journalists identifying a number of potential errors in the reported vote total and calculated state delegate equivalents, and due to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) suggesting a recanvass of the results would be needed,[108][109][110] some major news organizations refused to declare a winner until completion of a possible recanvass or recount.[111][112]

On the evening of February 9, the Iowa Democratic Party (IDP) had (through their own conducted initial audit of the first preliminary count of statewide results) found the need to correct some incorrectly reported results from 3.1% (55) of the precincts. The corrected result was published as the first final official result before certification (meaning before conducting a formal potential recanvass/recount). The IDP also calculated the number of won pledged national convention delegates on the same basis.[10][11] The deadline for campaigns to request a recanvass or recount of the results was extended from February 7 to February 10, giving campaigns three additional days to review the results and decide whether they want to challenge them,[113] which both the Sanders campaign and the Buttigieg campaign did for 8.1% (143) of the precincts/satellite sites.[12]

The IDP accepted both partial recanvass requests on February 12, and carried out the recanvass from February 16–18 after the campaigns agreed to bear the costs. The recanvass was an audit to check if the initial reporting of figures concurred with the figures displayed on the math worksheet of the voting site. In order to correct the observed mathematical errors on several math worksheets, which were initially signed by all caucus group captains at the respective local voting sites, a subsequent recount process also needed to be called after the conclusion of the recanvass process.[13][14]

On February 18, the post-recanvass SDE count was released, with Buttigieg leading Sanders by 0.08 SDEs.[15] The following day, the Buttigieg and Sanders campaigns requested a final recount for 63 of the recanvassed precincts (3.6% of all results).[16][17] On February 21, the IDP announced that it had accepted recount requests for 23 precincts (1.3% of all results). It announced it would recount all 10 precincts requested by the Sanders campaign and 14 of the 54 precincts requested by the Buttigieg campaign, stating it rejected the Buttigieg request to recount the remaining 40 precincts because the campaign had failed to demonstrate that a potential recount of those precincts could result in a different SDE result.[18] The recount began on February 25 and was completed over the following two days.[114] On February 27, the IDP concluded the official recount, resulting in Buttigieg maintaining a slight edge over Sanders in SDEs.[19] Sanders challenged the results of the Iowa caucuses; as of February 29, 2020, that challenge was pending before the Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws Committee, but there were no media reports about how the matter was dealt with or about any following decisions.[22]

2020 Iowa Democratic presidential caucuses[115][3][22]
Candidate Initial
alignment 		Final
alignment[cu] 		State delegate
equivalents[cv] 		Pledged
national
convention
delegates[116][cw]
Votes % Votes % Number %
Pete Buttigieg 37,572 21.31 43,209 25.08 562.95 26.17 [b]14
Bernie Sanders 43,581 24.71 45,652 26.50 562.02 26.13 [c]12
Elizabeth Warren 32,589 18.48 34,909 20.26 388.44 18.06 [d]8
Joe Biden 26,291 14.91 23,605 13.70 340.32 15.82 [e]6
Amy Klobuchar 22,454 12.73 21,100 12.25 263.87 12.27 1
Andrew Yang 8,914 5.05 1,758 1.02 21.86 1.02
Tom Steyer 3,061 1.74 413 0.24 6.62 0.31
Michael Bloomberg (did not run yet)[cx] 212 0.12 16 0.01 0.21 0.01
Tulsi Gabbard 341 0.19 16 0.01 0.11 0.01
Michael Bennet 164 0.09 4 0.00 0.00 0.00
Deval Patrick 9 0.01 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
John Delaney (withdrawn) 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other 155 0.09 198 0.11 0.69 0.03
Uncommitted 1,009 0.57 1,420 0.82 3.73 0.17
Total[cy] 176,352 100% 172,300 100% 2,150.83 100% 41

Participation in the 2020 caucuses (176,352 initial alignment votes in the official count) was slightly higher than the 171,517 people who participated in the 2016 caucuses,[119] but still 26% lower compared to the over 239,000 people who participated in the 2008 caucuses.[120]

Sanders won the popular vote on both the initial and the final alignments.[121] Former Vice President Joe Biden had a particularly disappointing performance and called it a "gut punch" after winning significantly fewer votes than either Buttigieg or Sanders.[122] Following the caucuses, Buttigieg became the first openly LGBT candidate to win any pledged national convention delegates towards a major party's presidential nomination.[123]

Results by County

edit
2020 Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus (By County)[124]
County Bernie Sanders Pete Buttigieg Elizabeth Warren Joe Biden Amy Klobuchar Andrew Yang All Other Candidates[cz] Total
# % # % # % # % # % # % # %
Adair 53 23.45% 41 18.14% 18 7.96% 22 9.73% 56 24.78% 29 12.83% 7 3.10% 226
Adams 19 17.76% 18 16.82% 15 14.02% 31 28.97% 24 22.43% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 107
Allamakee 83 16.73% 173 34.88% 46 9.27% 59 11.90% 97 19.56% 23 4.64% 15 3.02% 496
Appanoose 59 16.43% 143 39.83% 7 1.95% 102 28.41% 24 6.69% 4 1.11% 20 5.57% 359
Audubon 35 17.24% 31 15.27% 21 10.34% 61 30.05% 55 27.09% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 203
Benton 179 22.29% 228 28.39% 65 8.09% 245 30.51% 82 10.21% 0 0.00% 4 0.49% 803
Black Hawk 2,168 31.27% 1,636 23.59% 1,255 18.10% 1,005 14.49% 768 11.08% 43 0.62% 59 0.85% 6,934
Boone 339 25.09% 436 32.27% 257 19.02% 107 7.92% 172 12.73% 14 1.04% 26 1.92% 1,351
Bremer 170 13.19% 412 31.96% 288 22.34% 195 15.13% 195 15.13% 1 0.08% 28 2.28% 1,289
Buchanan 88 11.80% 188 25.20% 49 6.57% 226 30.29% 121 16.22% 30 4.02% 44 5.90% 746
Buena Vista 128 24.38% 98 18.67% 84 16.00% 113 21.52% 59 11.24% 34 6.48% 9 1.71% 525
Butler 109 25.47% 83 19.39% 68 15.89% 86 20.09% 67 15.65% 10 2.43% 5 1.17% 428
Calhoun 37 14.57% 101 39.76% 34 13.39% 51 20.08% 28 11.02% 0 0.00% 3 1.18% 254
Carroll 79 12.85% 198 32.20% 51 8.29% 158 25.69% 120 19.51% 7 1.14% 2 0.32% 615
Cass 62 16.62% 99 26.54% 75 20.11% 83 22.25% 52 13.94% 0 0.00% 2 0.54% 373
Cedar 211 25.64% 205 24.91% 155 18.83% 96 11.66% 156 18.96% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 823
Cerro Gordo 389 21.54% 530 29.35% 111 6.15% 323 17.88% 425 23.53% 16 0.89% 12 0.67% 1,806
Cherokee 68 26.15% 56 21.54% 12 4.62% 78 30.00% 30 11.54% 11 4.23% 5 1.92% 260
Chickasaw 25 6.46% 126 32.56% 67 17.31% 89 23.00% 57 14.73% 0 0.00% 23 5.94% 387
Clarke 58 22.83% 63 24.80% 16 6.30% 31 12.20% 60 23.62% 26 10.24% 0 0.00% 254
Clay 101 20.00% 118 23.37% 52 10.30% 133 26.34% 94 18.61% 6 1.19% 1 0.20% 505
Clayton 117 18.54% 232 36.77% 18 2.85% 104 16.48% 141 22.35% 0 0.00% 19 3.01% 631
Clinton 421 24.91% 468 27.69% 170 10.06% 406 24.02% 177 10.47% 18 1.07% 30 1.78% 1,690
Crawford 83 25.30% 53 16.16% 17 5.18% 120 36.59% 34 10.37% 21 6.40% 0 0.00% 328
Dallas 840 14.66% 1,926 33.62% 1,159 20.23% 1,085 18.94% 655 11.44% 48 0.84% 15 0.26% 5,728
Davis 22 11.40% 58 30.05% 29 15.03% 56 29.02% 26 13.47% 1 0.52% 1 0.52% 193
Decatur 76 23.90% 81 25.47% 75 23.58% 18 5.66% 65 20.44% 0 0.00% 3 0.94% 318
Delaware 19 4.48% 110 25.94% 90 21.23% 90 21.23% 100 23.58% 0 0.00% 14 3.54% 423
Des Moines 398 22.15% 631 35.11% 284 15.80% 294 16.36% 136 7.57% 40 2.23% 14 0.78% 1,797
Dickinson 118 17.85% 199 30.11% 57 8.62% 158 23.90% 118 17.85% 7 1.06% 4 0.61% 661
Dubuque 1,128 22.12% 1,451 28.45% 807 15.82% 1,187 23.27% 466 9.14% 27 0.53% 34 0.67% 5,100
Emmet 60 23.72% 68 26.88% 28 11.07% 33 13.04% 39 15.42% 0 0.00% 25 9.88% 253
Fayette 103 13.57% 286 37.68% 89 11.73% 172 22.66% 82 10.80% 7 0.92% 20 2.63% 759
Floyd 81 13.73% 139 23.56% 100 16.95% 123 20.85% 141 23.90% 0 0.00% 6 1.02% 590
Franklin 72 29.27% 65 26.42% 19 7.72% 45 18.29% 39 15.85% 3 1.22% 3 1.22% 246
Fremont 44 24.18% 51 28.02% 4 2.20% 44 24.18% 39 21.43% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 182
Greene 94 26.26% 112 31.28% 16 4.47% 53 14.80% 76 21.23% 2 0.56% 5 1.40% 358
Grundy 90 24.93% 99 27.42% 23 6.37% 74 20.50% 65 18.01% 6 1.66% 4 1.11% 361
Guthrie 30 8.60% 82 23.50% 71 20.34% 40 11.46% 96 27.51% 29 8.31% 1 0.29% 349
Hamilton 95 17.56% 162 29.94% 101 18.67% 107 19.78% 74 13.68% 0 0.00% 2 0.37% 541
Hancock 46 17.49% 85 32.32% 20 7.60% 41 15.59% 70 26.62% 0 0.00% 1 0.38% 263
Hardin 89 15.98% 164 29.44% 104 18.67% 96 17.24% 102 18.31% 0 0.00% 2 0.36% 557
Harrison 106 26.24% 108 26.73% 53 13.12% 76 18.81% 60 14.85% 0 0.00% 1 0.25% 404
Henry 151 22.57% 186 27.80% 86 12.86% 117 17.49% 51 7.62% 78 11.66% 0 0.00% 669
Howard 49 18.85% 86 33.08% 21 8.08% 37 14.23% 39 15.00% 24 9.23% 4 1.54% 260
Humboldt 24 10.13% 66 27.85% 21 8.86% 73 30.80% 52 21.94% 1 0.42% 0 0.00% 237
Ida 12 8.28% 58 40.00% 1 0.69% 48 33.10% 25 17.24% 0 0.00% 1 0.69% 145
Iowa 173 25.26% 171 24.96% 170 24.82% 131 19.12% 38 5.55% 0 0.00% 2 0.30% 685
Jackson 85 11.07% 256 33.33% 111 14.45% 194 25.26% 90 11.72% 14 1.82% 18 2.34% 768
Jasper 342 21.98% 517 33.23% 228 14.65% 288 18.51% 113 7.26% 45 2.89% 23 1.48% 1,556
Jefferson 835 50.64% 179 10.86% 463 28.08% 79 4.79% 86 5.22% 0 0.00% 7 0.42% 1,649
Johnson 6,521 32.68% 3,760 18.84% 6,721 33.68% 607 3.04% 2,114 10.59% 22 0.11% 210 1.06% 19,955
Jones 133 21.84% 173 28.41% 66 10.84% 133 21.84% 100 16.42% 0 0.00% 4 0.66% 609
Keokuk 52 20.23% 84 32.68% 35 13.62% 31 12.06% 39 15.18% 7 2.72% 9 3.51% 257
Kossuth 37 8.20% 158 35.03% 27 5.99% 127 28.16% 94 20.84% 0 0.00% 8 1.77% 451
Lee 253 20.84% 413 34.02% 140 11.53% 286 23.56% 65 5.35% 40 3.29% 17 1.40% 1,214
Linn 4,031 27.18% 3,508 23.65% 3,182 21.46% 2,247 15.15% 1,678 11.31% 29 0.20% 155 1.06% 14,830
Louisa 71 23.20% 49 16.01% 59 19.28% 60 19.61% 22 7.19% 42 13.73% 3 0.98% 306
Lucas 56 25.00% 34 15.18% 27 12.05% 66 29.46% 28 12.50% 6 2.68% 7 3.13% 224
Lyon 35 18.92% 32 17.30% 35 18.92% 25 13.51% 56 30.27% 0 0.00% 2 1.08% 185
Madison 102 13.78% 235 31.76% 139 18.78% 137 18.51% 109 14.73% 0 0.00% 18 2.43% 740
Mahaska 164 26.89% 153 25.08% 99 16.23% 74 12.13% 58 9.51% 57 9.34% 5 0.82% 610
Marion 256 19.47% 502 38.17% 154 11.71% 173 13.16% 184 13.99% 46 3.50% 0 0.00% 1,315
Marshall 489 34.10% 426 29.71% 147 10.25% 266 18.55% 59 4.11% 1 0.07% 46 3.21% 1,434
Mills 107 25.78% 139 33.49% 50 12.05% 79 19.04% 40 9.64% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 415
Mitchell 35 10.26% 73 21.41% 39 11.44% 66 19.35% 116 34.02% 12 3.52% 0 0.00% 341
Monona 32 14.81% 55 25.46% 47 21.76% 42 19.44% 27 12.50% 0 0.00% 13 6.02% 216
Monroe 30 18.52% 49 30.25% 18 11.11% 35 21.60% 25 15.43% 0 0.00% 5 3.09% 162
Montgomery 50 19.53% 91 35.55% 27 10.55% 45 17.58% 36 14.06% 0 0.00% 7 2.73% 256
Muscatine 550 32.56% 459 27.18% 259 15.23% 274 16.22% 120 7.10% 16 0.95% 11 0.65% 1,689
O'Brien 39 15.79% 50 20.24% 31 12.55% 51 20.65% 54 21.86% 3 1.21% 19 7.68% 247
Osceola 8 11.43% 23 32.86% 14 20.00% 11 15.71% 14 20.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 70
Page 108 26.73% 120 29.70% 34 8.42% 57 14.11% 78 19.31% 7 1.73% 0 0.00% 404
Palo Alto 43 16.60% 73 28.19% 23 8.88% 83 32.05% 34 13.13% 0 0.00% 3 1.16% 259
Plymouth 138 23.23% 168 28.28% 37 12.63% 150 25.25% 75 6.23% 13 2.19% 13 2.19% 594
Pocahontas 23 12.78% 56 31.11% 14 7.78% 38 21.11% 40 22.22% 7 3.89% 2 1.11% 180
Polk 9,899 26.49% 10,034 26.85% 8,305 22.22% 4,810 12.87% 3,999 10.70% 25 0.07% 199 0.80% 37,271
Pottawattamie 770 25.68% 763 25.45% 528 17.61% 393 13.11% 374 12.47% 123 4.10% 47 1.56% 2,998
Poweshiek 686 39.09% 142 8.09% 590 33.62% 27 1.54% 170 9.69% 0 0.00% 130 7.98% 1,745
Ringgold 11 7.59% 32 22.07% 22 15.17% 46 31.72% 30 20.69% 0 0.00% 4 2.76% 145
Sac 53 23.77% 69 30.94% 28 12.56% 29 13.00% 40 17.94% 3 1.35% 1 0.45% 223
Scott 2,205 25.52% 2,353 27.24% 1,513 17.51% 1,240 14.35% 1,175 13.60% 112 1.30% 41 0.48% 8,639
Shelby 42 15.79% 84 31.58% 40 15.04% 41 15.41% 55 20.68% 1 0.38% 3 1.13% 266
Sioux 110 16.54% 110 16.54% 174 26.17% 60 9.02% 152 22.86% 56 8.42% 3 0.45% 665
Story 3,193 33.48% 1,485 15.57% 2,409 25.26% 383 4.02% 1,611 16.89% 252 2.64% 203 2.13% 9,536
Tama 171 30.16% 155 27.34% 62 10.93% 121 21.34% 29 5.11% 14 2.47% 15 2.65% 567
Taylor 14 14.58% 30 31.25% 11 11.46% 22 22.92% 12 12.50% 6 6.25% 1 1.04% 96
Union 103 30.38% 92 27.14% 48 14.16% 44 12.98% 41 12.09% 7 2.06% 4 1.18% 339
Van Buren 36 25.00% 56 38.89% 22 15.28% 27 18.75% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 2.08% 144
Wapello 308 28.65% 335 31.16% 169 15.72% 244 22.70% 0 0.00% 14 1.30% 5 0.46% 1,075
Warren 459 15.65% 1,049 35.77% 576 19.64% 392 13.37% 411 14.01% 3 0.10% 43 1.46% 2,933
Washington 266 27.62% 175 18.17% 216 22.43% 123 12.77% 178 18.48% 0 0.00% 5 0.51% 963
Wayne 25 18.52% 26 19.26% 26 19.26% 16 11.85% 41 30.37% 0 0.00% 1 0.74% 135
Webster 234 19.52% 482 40.20% 98 8.17% 277 23.10% 86 7.17% 4 0.33% 18 1.50% 1,199
Winnebago 50 12.76% 121 30.87% 82 20.92% 38 9.69% 66 16.84% 29 7.40% 6 1.53% 392
Winneshiek 407 22.04% 545 29.51% 352 19.06% 34 1.84% 457 24.74% 49 2.65% 3 0.16% 1,847
Woodbury 1,031 32.15% 663 20.67% 462 14.41% 747 23.29% 211 6.58% 40 1.25% 53 1.64% 3,207
Worth 46 16.67% 55 19.93% 35 12.68% 39 14.13% 77 27.90% 23 8.33% 1 0.36% 276
Wright 74 21.89% 116 34.32% 14 4.14% 55 16.27% 74 21.89% 0 0.00% 5 1.48% 338
Totals 45,831 26.55% 43,273 25.06% 34,932 20.23% 23,631 13.69% 21,120 12.23% 1,759 1.02% 2,109 1.22% 172,655

Delay in final results

edit

Up until February 4 at 4:00 pm local time, the Iowa Democratic Party (IDP) had not reported any final results due to what a party spokesperson described as "quality checks".[125] According to The New York Times, a new app-based reporting system may have been responsible for the delay, with Sean Bagniewski, the Polk County Democratic Party chairman, reporting that only "20% of his 177 precinct chairs" could access the app.[126] In a statement released on February 3 at 10:30 pm local time, IDP communications director Mandy McClure said "inconsistencies" had been found in the three sets of results. However, McClure also assured that the delay was not the result of a "hack or intrusion" and that the overall results are "sound".[127] During the delay in the release of final results, the campaigns of Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders both released incomplete results taken by their respective precinct captains, respectively showing the two candidates as having won the caucus. Also during the delay, Amy Klobuchar's campaign manager, Justin Buoen, claimed that Klobuchar either exceeded or equaled the number of votes that Joe Biden received.[128]

Problems encountered included usage and interface failures of an app designed to report final vote tallies for Iowa precinct captains; a backlog of phone calls to the state vote-reporting hotline,[129] including at least one case of a precinct captain being placed on an hour-long hold, only to have the hotline attendant immediately hang up on him when finally answering; confusion about coin flips to decide delegates; the need to use backup paper ballots to verify the results; and discrepancies between backup paper ballots and tallies by precinct captains.[130][131][132] Reporters found that the Internet message board 4chan had encouraged its members to flood the phone lines of the DNC in Des Moines, which further complicated the process of reporting results.[133][134][135][136] Additionally, the reported data had to be entered manually, which took longer than expected.[137]

The morning after the caucus, Iowa Democratic Party Chair Troy Price issued a clarifying statement, reiterating that he did not believe there was a "cyber security intrusion", and that "data collected via the app was sound". Rather, due to a "coding issue in the reporting system", the app was reporting out only "partial data" from what had been recorded. This flaw was verified by comparison to the paper vote records and examination of the underlying data recorded by the app.[138] The Iowa Democratic Party said in a statement that it planned to release partial results at 4:00 pm local time on Tuesday, nearly a full day after caucuses began.[139]

Moreover, several precinct captains reportedly released their results to the Iowa Democratic Party over 24 hours before numbers were reported, with some criticizing the length of time taken for the party to release results as well as the process's lack of transparency.[140]

IowaRecorder app

edit

The app, named IowaRecorder,[141] was developed by Shadow Inc., a majority-owned subsidiary of Acronym.[142][143] The company received money from the Biden, Buttigieg, and Kirsten Gillibrand campaigns for services distinct from the app;[144][145] Biden's campaign paid the firm $1,225 for text messaging, Buttigieg's campaign paid $42,500 for software service, and Gillibrand's campaign paid $37,400 for software, text, and fundraising services.[144]

Social media posts claimed shortly after the election that the Buttigieg campaign had influence over the creation of the app, a theory which was supported by the Associated Press.[146] The app makers were criticized for having conflicts of interest due to the company behind the app selling separate services to campaigns associated with Biden, Buttigieg, and Gillibrand; as well as a PAC founded by Tom Steyer and connections to former staffers for Hillary Clinton, among others.[147][148][149][150]

App-development expert Kasra Rahjerdi said "the app was clearly done by someone following a tutorial. It's similar to projects I do with my mentees who are learning how to code." A team of researchers at Stanford University, including former Facebook chief security officer Alex Stamos, said that while analyzing the app they found potentially concerning code within it, including hard-coded API keys. The faulty app coding was found to have caused some incorrect and incomplete result calculation, creating a discrepancy between its data input and data output, which made the app useless for the report of results from all the precinct caucuses (meaning that all data reporting instead had to be phoned/mailed and manually typed into a calculating work sheet).[151]

The app was also criticized for its lack of user-friendliness and openness to potential hacks and data intercepts,[152] though factors such as age of operators may have impacted usability. The youngest-staffed precinct in the state, Sheldon Ward 2, was headed by 20-year-old Caleb Schreurs who was quoted in The N'west Iowa Review saying: “I had zero problem, [the IDP] were very, very secure with it."[153]

Inconsistencies in votes

edit

During the initial release of the results, it was noted that some of the data being reported were inconsistent, flawed, or entirely impossible. According to The New York Times, more than 100 precincts reported incorrect results. Most common errors included wrong number of delegates being allotted to candidates and disparities in numbers released by the Iowa Democratic Party (IDP) and those reported by precincts.[154] One such example is in Black Hawk County, where the county supervisor independently released results of his county via Facebook that varied from the later-released results provided by the Iowa Democratic Party—which incorrectly gave Elizabeth Warren delegates to Tom Steyer and Bernie Sanders delegates to Deval Patrick, despite the latter reportedly receiving zero votes in the county. Although corrections were later made, these results still varied from those given by the county supervisor.[140][155]

This quickly gave rise to a number of conspiracy theories online that were accusing the Democratic Party of corruption and cheating in favor of Buttigieg and other candidates at the expense of Sanders.[156] On February 6, three days after the caucus, and with three percent of the results still unreported, the Democratic Party chairman Tom Perez requested a recanvass of the results,[157][158] saying:

Enough is enough. In light of the problems that have emerged in the implementation of the delegate selection plan and in order to assure public confidence in the results, I am calling on the Iowa Democratic Party to immediately begin a recanvass.[159]

Because Perez specified satellite caucuses in his request for a recanvass, an area where Sanders support was strong, Sanders supporters on social media accused the Democratic National Committee of rigging the caucus against him.[160][161]

According to the IDP, errors on the handwritten caucus math worksheets could not be corrected because they are unalterable legal records."The incorrect math on the Caucus Math Worksheets must not be changed to ensure the integrity of the process" wrote the party lawyer, Shayla McCormally, according to an email sent by IDP chair Troy Price.[162] Photographs of caucus math worksheets taken by caucus "captains" showed errors in adding up votes for candidates and in calculating "state delegate equivalents".[10] IDP chair Troy Price said that a recount of votes would be required to correct the miscalculations on the handwritten tally sheets from precincts.[12]

Analysis

edit

According to entrance polls by CNN, the close result was due to splits among key demographic groups: gender, educational attainment and age. Buttigieg won women with 24%, while Sanders won men with 26%. Buttigieg won voters with a college degree with 23%, while Sanders won among voters with a high school education or less with 30%. Sanders continued the trend of 2016 in which he won young voters, winning 44% in the 18–29 demographic and 41% with voters under 45 overall, while Buttigieg won older voters (40–64).[163]

Contrary to media belief in Biden's strength among non-white voters,[164] Sanders won that demographic in Iowa with 46% support, with Buttigieg placing second with 15% and Biden placing third with only 13% support. According to CNN reported entrance polls, Buttigieg won white voters with 23%. However, The New York Times indicates a statistical tie at 23%, with a slight advantage to Sanders.[165] Some counties carried by Buttigieg, such as Clinton County, had swung from Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016 by double digits.[163]

Although Latinos constitute a relatively small portion of Iowa's electorate, Sanders performed exceptionally well with Latino voters, winning all 32 Latino-majority and plurality precincts in the state with 52.6% of the vote, well ahead of Buttigieg (14%) and Biden (13.5%). He also won all four Spanish-language satellite caucus sites by overwhelming margins. Matt A. Barreto noted that Sanders's strength among the Latino demographic alone provided him with an 18.6 SDE advantage over Buttigieg, making up lost ground in other demographics where Buttigieg performed better. Sanders's success with Latino voters could be credited to the "Latino strategy" his campaign is pursuing by focusing on Latino voter outreach.[166]

Buttigieg declared victory before any official results were released.[167] Bernie Sanders' campaign also declared victory as he earned the most votes. Buttigieg's declaration of victory in Iowa provided him with a boost in polls going into New Hampshire, a state where Sanders had been polling consistently well.[168]

In addition to technical glitches, the meltdown of the caucuses were also fueled by argument over whether Iowa should be first to vote, as many point out the state's overwhelming white population, which doesn't reflect the Democratic Party and the country as a whole. In April 2022, a DNC panel voted to strip Iowa of its "first-in-the-nation" status.[169]

See also

edit

Footnotes

edit
  1. ^ The number of pledged national convention delegates is calculated through the number of SDEs won, however, a candidate must get both at least 15% of the total vote to get statewide delegates and at least 15% of the vote in a congressional district to get district delegates from that district. Each precinct has a certain number of SDEs and allocates them based on how many caucus goers there are for each candidate at that precinct.
    Although calculated delegates were immediately locked to their respective candidate for the first time in the caucus's history, that allocation was only the first step and still needed to be confirmed on district and state conventions, with only candidates still running at the time of the state convention considered for statewide delegates, which made a redistribution of these delegates necessary. District delegates were not allowed to be altered. Differing from this, Buttigieg and Sanders actually retained at least a few of their statewide delegates.
  2. ^ a b Due to his withdrawal in March, 2 of the 5 statewide delegates mathematically won by Buttigieg were reallocated to Biden at the state convention on June 13.[116][117]
  3. ^ a b Due to his withdrawal in April, 3 of the 4 statewide delegates mathematically won by Sanders were reallocated to Biden at the state convention on June 13.[116][117]
  4. ^ a b Due to her withdrawal in March, all of the 3 statewide delegates mathematically won by Warren were reallocated to Biden at the state convention on June 13.[116][117]
  5. ^ a b 8 of the 12 statewide delegates initially awarded to Buttigieg (2), Sanders (3) and Warren (3), who had withdrawn in the meantime, were reallocated to Biden as the sole remaining viable contender and were added to his own 2 statewide delegates at the state convention on June 13.[116][117]
  6. ^ To avoid the repeating fraction, the procedure involves dividing the total number of caucusgoers by 6.
  7. ^ Each 1st congressional district (CD1)-elected national convention delegate is pledged to support a specific presidential candidate as determined per the total qualified SDE result of the caucuses held only in CD1 on February 3, but the exact name of the CD1 elected national convention delegate will only be selected among the participating "district and state delegates" at the Iowa CD1 District Convention on April 25.
  8. ^ Each 2nd congressional district (CD2)-elected national convention delegate is pledged to support a specific presidential candidate as determined per the total qualified SDE result of the caucuses held only in CD2 on February 3, but the exact name of the CD2 elected national convention delegate will only be selected among the participating "district and state delegates" at the Iowa CD2 District Convention on April 25.
  9. ^ Each 3rd congressional district (CD3)-elected national convention delegate is pledged to support a specific presidential candidate as determined per the total qualified SDE result of the caucuses held only in CD3 on February 3, but the exact name of the CD3 elected national convention delegate will only be selected among the participating "district and state delegates" at the Iowa CD3 District Convention on April 25.
  10. ^ Each 4th congressional district (CD4)-elected national convention delegate is pledged to support a specific presidential candidate as determined per the total qualified SDE result of the caucuses held only in CD4 on February 3, but the exact name of the CD4 elected national convention delegate will only be selected among the participating "district and state delegates" at the Iowa CD4 District Convention on April 25.
  11. ^ Each PLEO delegate is pledged to support a specific presidential candidate as determined per the statewide qualified SDE result of the caucuses held on February 3, but the exact name of the PLEO delegate will only be elected among the participating PLEO delegates at the Iowa State Democratic Convention on June 13.
  12. ^ Each at-large delegate is pledged to support a specific presidential candidate as determined per the statewide qualified SDE result of the caucuses held on February 3, but the exact name of the at-large delegate will only be elected among the participating delegates at the Iowa State Democratic Convention on June 13.
  13. ^ Calculated by taking the difference of 100% and all other candidates combined
  14. ^ Gabbard with 1.8%; Bloomberg with 1.3%; Bennet with 0.5%; Patrick not reported
  15. ^ Gabbard with 1.5%; Bloomberg with 1.0%; Bennet and Patrick not reported
  16. ^ FiveThirtyEight aggregates polls with a trendline regression of polls rather than a strict average of recent polls.
  17. ^ Gabbard and Bloomberg with 1.2%; Bennet with 0.4%; Patrick with 0.1%
  18. ^ Gabbard with 1.5%; Bloomberg with 1.2%; Bennet with 0.3%; Patrick with 0.0%
  19. ^ a b c Key:
    A – all adults
    RV – registered voters
    LV – likely voters
    V – unclear
  20. ^ After reallocation of delegates from candidates estimated to not clear the viability threshold in each precinct
  21. ^ Bloomberg with 2%
  22. ^ a b c d e Data not yet released, but all other candidates each have <5%
  23. ^ If the contest came down to Biden and Sanders
  24. ^ Bloomberg and Delaney with 1%; Bennet and Patrick with 0%
  25. ^ Bloomberg with 2%; Bennet and Patrick with 0%; others with 2%
  26. ^ Re-allocating support to second choice for candidates receiving <15% of first choice votes
  27. ^ Bennet with 1%; Delaney with 0%
  28. ^ Bennet and Delaney with 0%
  29. ^ Bloomberg with <1%
  30. ^ If only the four candidates listed were viable in the voters' caucus sites
  31. ^ "None of these/won't caucus" with 1%
  32. ^ If only the six candidates listed were viable in the voters' caucus sites
  33. ^ "None of these/won't caucus" with <1%
  34. ^ Bennet with 1%; Delaney and Patrick with 0%; other with <1%; "no one" with 0%
  35. ^ Bloomberg and Delaney with 1%; Bennet and Patrick with 0%
  36. ^ Reported as "Unsure"
  37. ^ Delaney with 1%; Bennet and Patrick with 0%; Someone Else with 1%
  38. ^ Patrick with 0.2%; Bennet and Delaney with 0.0%; "Other/Please Specify" with 0.4%; "Don't Know/Refused" with 13%
  39. ^ If voters could choose only one of Biden, Buttigieg, Sanders or Warren
  40. ^ Delaney and Patrick with 1%; Bennet with 0%
  41. ^ If the field is narrowed to these top four candidates
  42. ^ Listed as "don't know/refused"
  43. ^ Bloomberg with 1%; Bennet, Delaney, and Patrick with 0%
  44. ^ Bennet, Bloomberg and Delaney with 1%; Patrick with 0%
  45. ^ Delaney with 1%; Bennet and Patrick with 0%; someone else with 1%
  46. ^ Bennet and Delaney with 0%
  47. ^ Bennet and Bloomberg with 1%; Delaney and Patrick with 0%
  48. ^ Not listed separately from "others"
  49. ^ Trump with 5%; "others" with 2%
  50. ^ If the only viable candidates to caucus for were the four listed in this poll
  51. ^ "None of these/wouldn't vote" with 2%
  52. ^ Booker with 4%, Bennet and Delaney with <1%, Patrick with 0%, Other with <1%
  53. ^ Booker with 3%; Bloomberg with 1%; Bennet, Castro, Delaney, Patrick and Williamson with 0%; someone else with 1%
  54. ^ Booker with 2%; Bennet, Castro, Delaney, Patrick and Williamson with 0%; someone else with 1%
  55. ^ Includes "refused"
  56. ^ Booker with 3%; Castro with 1%; Delaney, Bloomberg, Bennet, Williamson with 0%
  57. ^ Booker with 4%; Bloomberg with 2%; Bennet, Castro, Delaney, Patrick and Williamson with 0%; someone else with 2%
  58. ^ Bennet, Bloomberg, Booker, Bullock, Castro and Williamson with 1%; Delaney, Messam, Patrick and Sestak with 0%
  59. ^ Booker with 3%; Bloomberg with 2%; Bennet with 1%; Bullock, Castro, Delaney, Sestak and Williamson with 0%; none with 2%
  60. ^ Booker, Bullock, and Castro with 1%, Messam, Delaney, Bennet, Williamson, and Sestak with 0%, "Someone else" with 1%
  61. ^ Booker with 2%; Bullock and Castro with 1%; Bennet, Bloomberg, Delaney, and Williamson with <1%; Sestak with 0%
  62. ^ Castro with 1%; Bennet, Booker, Bullock, Delaney, O'Rourke and Ryan with 0%
  63. ^ Bennett, Booker, Bullock and Castro with 1%; Delaney, Messam, Sestak and Williamson with 0%
  64. ^ Yang with 3%; Gabbard and Steyer with 2%; Delaney with 1%; Bennet, Bullock, Castro, Messam, Sestak and Williamson with 0%
  65. ^ As evidenced by Sestak being listed in second choices but not first preferences and the lack of an 'other' column in the first preferences topline
  66. ^ Steyer with 3%; Gabbard and Yang with 2%; Bennet with 1%; Bullock, Castro, Delaney, Ryan and Williamson with 0%; Messam and Sestak with no voters[bm]
  67. ^ Gabbard and Steyer with 3%; Yang with 1%; Delaney, Ryan and Williamson with 0%; Bennet, Bullock, Castro, Messam and Sestak with no voters; refused with 0%
  68. ^ Yang with 5%; Bullock with 4%; Gabbard and Steyer with 2%; Bennet and Williamson with 1%; Castro with 0%; Delaney, Messam, Ryan and Sestak with no voters; everyone else with 4%
  69. ^ a b The poll did not announce this result separately; it is listed as part of 'Other'.
  70. ^ Yang with 1%; a different Democratic candidate, don't know, or refused with 25%
  71. ^ Steyer with 3%; Bennet, Gabbard, Williamson, and Ryan with 1%, Bullock, Castro, Delaney, Messam, Sestak, and Yang with 0%; "someone else" with 0%
  72. ^ Gabbard, Steyer, and Yang with 2%, Bullock, Castro, and Delaney with 1%, Bennet, de Blasio, Ryan, Sestak, and Williamson with 0%; "none of these" with 2%
  73. ^ Steyer with 3%; Yang with 2%; Bullock, Castro, Delaney and Gabbard with 1%; Bennet, de Blasio, Messam, Ryan, Sestak and Williamson with 0%
  74. ^ Gabbard with 4%; Yang with 3%; Steyer with 2%; Ryan and Williamson with 1%; Bennet, de Blasio, Bullock, Castro and Delaney with 0%
  75. ^ Steyer with 2%; Castro, de Blasio, Delaney, Gabbard and Yang with 1%; Bennet, Bullock, Messam, Ryan, Sestak and Williamson with 0%; someone else with 2%
  76. ^ Bullock, Gabbard, and Steyer with 2%; Bennet, Castro, and Yang with 1%; Delaney, Gillibrand, Hickenlooper, Messam, and Williamson with 0%
  77. ^ Steyer with 3%; Gillibrand and Yang with 2%; Bullock, Delaney, Gabbard, and Hickenlooper with 1%; Bennet, Castro, Inslee, O'Rourke, and Williamson with <1%; de Blasio, Messam, Moulton, Ryan, and Sestak with 0%
  78. ^ Castro and Steyer with 2%; Delaney, Gillibrand, Hickenlooper, and Sestak with 1%; Bennet, Bullock, de Blasio, Gabbard, Gravel, Inslee, Messam, Moulton, Ryan, Williamson, and Yang with 0%
  79. ^ Castro, Delaney, Gabbard, Gillibrand, Inslee, Swalwell, and Yang with 1%; Bennet, Bullock, Gravel, Hickenlooper, Moulton, Ryan, and Williamson with 0%
  80. ^ Bennet, Bullock, Castro, de Blasio, Delaney, Gabbard, Gillibrand, Williamson, and Yang with 1%; Hickenlooper, Inslee, Ryan, and Swalwell with <1%; Messam and Moulton with 0%; others with <1%
  81. ^ Bennet, Castro, Delaney, Gabbard, and Yang with 1%; Bullock, de Blasio, Gillibrand, Gravel, Hickenlooper, Inslee, Messam, Moulton, Ryan, Sestak, Swalwell, and Williamson with 0%; others with 1%
  82. ^ Delaney with 2%; Castro, Gabbard, Gravel, Moulton, and Yang with 1%; Bullock, de Blasio, Gillibrand, Hickenlooper, Inslee, Messam, Ryan, Swalwell, and Williamson with 0%
  83. ^ Bennet, Castro, Delaney, Gabbard, Inslee, and Yang with 1%; Bullock, Gillibrand, Hickenlooper, Moulton, Ryan, Swalwell, and Williamson with <1%; de Blasio and Messam with 0%
  84. ^ Yang with 2%; Abrams, Delaney, Gabbard, Gillibrand, Hickenlooper, Inslee, and Swalwell with 1%; Bennet, Bullock, Castro, Ryan, and Williamson with 0%
  85. ^ Delaney with 2%; Gabbard, Gillibrand, Gravel, Hickenlooper, and Yang with 1%; Castro and Inslee with 0%
  86. ^ Castro with 2%; Delaney, Gillibrand, Ryan, Swalwell, and Yang with 1%; Bullock, de Blasio, Gabbard, and Inslee with <1%; Bennet, Hickenlooper, McAuliffe, Messam, Moulton, and Williamson with 0%
  87. ^ Delaney with 3%; Castro, Gabbard, Gillibrand, Inslee, Swalwell, and Yang with 1%; Bullock, Hickenlooper, and Williamson with <1%; Bennet and McAuliffe with 0%; others with <1%
  88. ^ Castro, Gabbard, Hickenlooper, and Inslee with 1%; Gillibrand and Yang with 0%; others with 4%
  89. ^ Poll sponsored by End Citizens United
  90. ^ Bennet, Bullock, Castro, Delaney, and Inslee with 1%; Bloomberg, de Blasio, Gabbard, Gillibrand, Hickenlooper, Holder, Swalwell, Williamson, and Yang with <1%
  91. ^ Gillibrand with 1%
  92. ^ Brown with 4%; Castro with 2%; Delaney and Gillibrand with 1%; Gabbard and Yang with 0%; others with 8%
  93. ^ Kennedy with 5%; Clinton with 4%; Brown with 2%; Bloomberg, Castro, Cuomo, Delaney, Gillibrand, Kerry, and Swalwell with 1%; Holder, McAuliffe, Schultz, and Steyer with 0%
  94. ^ Bloomberg with 3%; Brown, Castro, Delaney, and Hickenlooper with 1%; Bullock, Garcetti, Gillibrand, Holder, Inslee, Steyer, Swalwell, and Yang with <1%
  95. ^ Brown with 3%; Bloomberg and Kerry with 2%; Delaney with 1%; Garcetti with 0%; others with <1%
  96. ^ Gillibrand and Holder with 2%; Avenatti and Delaney with 1%; Bullock, Garcetti, Landrieu, and Patrick with <1%; others with 1%
  97. ^ Poll sponsored by O'Say Can You See PAC, the PAC that supported O'Malley in 2016
  98. ^ O'Malley with 18%; Cuomo with 8%; Castro and Sandberg with 4%; Gillibrand with 3%; Schultz with 1%
  99. ^ Final vote after votes for candidates below the 15% viability threshold in each precinct are reallocated to other viable candidates.
  100. ^ The official results included four decimal digits.
  101. ^ In Iowa, the presidential caucuses only are the first determining step for the delegate distribution, the final step are the decisions on the district conventions and the much later state convention. According to the provisions set by the Iowa Democratic Party's "Delegate Selection Plan", statewide delegates preliminarily awarded to other candidates had to be reallocated at the state convention on June 13, as their pledged candidates had dropped out, while the already early decided district delegates remain fixed.
  102. ^ Michael Bloomberg officially announced his candidacy for the Democratic nomination on November 24, 2019, but chose not to contest the first four nominating contests of the primary season, including the Iowa caucuses.[118]
  103. ^ Per the Iowa Democratic Party official report.[3]
  104. ^ Consists of the vote totals for Tom Steyer, Mike Bloomberg, Tulsi Gabbard, Michael Bennet, Deval L. Patrick, John K. Delaney, "Others," and "Uncommitted."

References

edit
  1. ^ a b Astor, Maggie; Stevens, Matt (February 1, 2020). "How Will the Winner of the Iowa Caucuses Be Chosen? Here's What You Should Know". The New York Times. Retrieved February 8, 2020.
  2. ^ Susan Milligan, Seth Cline (January 27, 2020). "The Battleground States: Iowa Caucuses". U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved February 11, 2020.
  3. ^ a b c "Iowa democratic Caucus Results". Des Moines Register. Retrieved July 15, 2021.
  4. ^ "Iowa Democratic Party chair resigns after caucus fiasco". NBC News. February 12, 2020. Retrieved February 13, 2020.
  5. ^ "AP Explains: Why isn't there a winner of Iowa's Dem caucuses". AP. February 10, 2020.
  6. ^ Cohn, Nate; Katz, Josh; Lu, Denise; Smart, Charlie; Smithgall, Ben; Fischer, Andrew (February 6, 2020). "Iowa Caucus Results Riddled With Errors and Inconsistencies". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved February 7, 2020.
  7. ^ "NBC News review of Iowa caucus vote finds potential errors, inconsistencies". NBC News. February 7, 2020.
  8. ^ Agiesta, Jennifer; Merica, Dan (February 7, 2020). "CNN analysis shows errors in Iowa results count". CNN.
  9. ^ Opsahl, Robin; Akin, Katie (February 6, 2020). "Des Moines Register, others find inconsistencies, errors in Iowa Democratic Party caucus data". Des Moines Register.
  10. ^ a b c Trip Gabriel (February 9, 2020). "Iowa Democrats Give Buttigieg the Most Delegates as Sanders Team Seeks Recanvass". The New York Times. Retrieved February 10, 2020.
  11. ^ a b "IDP Caucus 2020 (100% reporting: 1765 of 1765 precincts)". Iowa Democratic Party. Archived from the original on February 28, 2020. Retrieved February 9, 2020.
  12. ^ a b c Montellaro, Zach (February 10, 2020). "Sanders, Buttigieg formally request Iowa recanvass". Politico. Retrieved February 10, 2020.
  13. ^ a b Brooke Singman (February 12, 2020). "Iowa Democratic Party agrees to partial recanvass of caucuses". Fox News. Retrieved February 13, 2020.
  14. ^ a b Alexandra Jaffe (February 12, 2020). "Iowa Democratic Party Chairman Resigns After Caucus Chaos". Time. Archived from the original on February 13, 2020. Retrieved February 13, 2020.
  15. ^ a b Zach Montellaro (February 18, 2020). "Buttigieg, Sanders separated by thousandths of a point after Iowa recanvass". Politico. Retrieved February 19, 2020.
  16. ^ a b Zach Montellaro (February 20, 2020). "Sanders, Buttigieg request targeted recount in Iowa". Politico. Retrieved February 19, 2020.
  17. ^ a b Dan Merica; Adam Levy (February 19, 2020). "Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders call for recounts in certain Iowa precincts". CNN. Retrieved February 20, 2020.
  18. ^ a b Montellaro, Zach (February 21, 2020). "Iowa Democrats will recount more than 20 caucus precincts". Politico. Retrieved February 21, 2020.
  19. ^ a b Oates, Trevor (February 27, 2020). "Iowa Democratic Party announces results of caucus recount". KWWL. Retrieved February 28, 2020.
  20. ^ Rynard, Pat (February 27, 2020). "Final Iowa Caucus Results: Pete Buttigieg Wins". Iowa Starting Line. Retrieved February 28, 2020.
  21. ^ a b "AP Explains: Why there isn't a winner of Iowa's Dem caucuses". Associated Press. February 29, 2020. Retrieved August 30, 2022.
  22. ^ a b c Levy, Adam; Merica, Dan (March 1, 2020). "Iowa Democratic Party certifies Buttigieg's Iowa lead amid Sanders challenge". CNN. Retrieved March 1, 2020.
  23. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Iowa Delegate Selection Plan for the 2020 Democratic National Convention, Iowa Democratic Party, April 6, 2019
  24. ^ a b c d e f "2020 Iowa Democratic Party Caucus: Caucus 101". Iowa Democratic Party. Retrieved January 31, 2020.
  25. ^ a b Eva Mitchell (January 3, 2020). "Delegate Apportionment (2020 Iowa Democratic Caucuses)". Iowa Democratic Party. Retrieved February 21, 2020.
  26. ^ a b c d e f g h i "2020 Iowa Democratic Party Caucus: Satellite caucuses". Iowa Democratic Party. Retrieved February 16, 2020.
  27. ^ a b c d e "Iowa Democratic Delegation 2020". The Green Papers. February 6, 2020. Retrieved February 6, 2020.
  28. ^ Detrow, Scott (June 27, 2018). "DNC Officials Vote To Scale Back Role Of 'Superdelegates' In Presidential Nomination". NPR. Retrieved May 26, 2019.
  29. ^ Putnam, Josh (May 15, 2019). "Magic Number? Determining the Winning Number of Democratic Delegates Will Be Tougher in 2020". Frontloading HQ. Retrieved May 22, 2019.
  30. ^ Domenico Montanaro (January 30, 2020). "How The Iowa Caucuses Work—And Why They're Important". NPR. Retrieved January 30, 2020.
  31. ^ a b Iowa Caucuses: Key changes, Iowa Democratic Party, January 8, 2020
  32. ^ Pfannenstiel, Brianne (February 11, 2019). "How Democrats hope to let Iowans participate in the caucuses without showing up in person". The Des Moines Register. Retrieved April 12, 2019.
  33. ^ Natasha Korecki (August 30, 2019). "DNC throws Iowa, Nevada caucuses into confusion". Politico. Retrieved January 21, 2020.
  34. ^ Natasha Korecki (September 20, 2019). "Iowa Dems pitch out-of-state caucuses". Politico. Retrieved January 21, 2020.
  35. ^ Suzanne Gamboa (January 30, 2020). "In a nod to Spanish-speaking Latino voters, Iowa caucus will feature bilingual sites". NBC News.
  36. ^ Natasha Korecki; Steven Shepard (January 16, 2020). "The caucus change that has Iowa bracing for a hot mess". Politico. Retrieved January 21, 2020.
  37. ^ 270 to Win
  38. ^ RealClear Politics
  39. ^ FiveThirtyEight
  40. ^ Shepard, Steven; Schneider, Elena (February 1, 2020). "Des Moines Register poll scrapped after apparent mishap". Politico. Archived from the original on February 2, 2020. Retrieved February 1, 2020.
  41. ^ Lerer, Lisa; Martin, Jonathan; Grynbaum, Michael M. (February 1, 2020). "Des Moines Register Poll of Iowa Caucusgoers Abruptly Shelved". The New York Times. Archived from the original on February 2, 2020. Retrieved February 2, 2020.
  42. ^ Clare Malone [@ClareMalone] (February 4, 2020). "We can confirm the final results of the unreleased Iowa Poll: Sanders 22% Warren 18% Buttigieg 16% Biden 13%" (Tweet) – via Twitter.
  43. ^ Emerson College
  44. ^ Data for Progress
  45. ^ YouGov/CBS News
  46. ^ David Binder Research/Focus on Rural America
  47. ^ American Research Group
  48. ^ Civiqs/Data for Progress
  49. ^ Park Street Strategies Archived April 21, 2021, at the Wayback Machine
  50. ^ Monmouth University
  51. ^ Civiqs/Iowa State University
  52. ^ Emerson College
  53. ^ Suffolk University/USA Today
  54. ^ Change Research/Crooked Media
  55. ^ Siena College/New York Times
  56. ^ "Morningside College" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on January 29, 2020. Retrieved January 29, 2020.
  57. ^ YouGov/CBS News
  58. ^ Civiqs/Data for Progress[permanent dead link‍]
  59. ^ David Binder Research/Focus on Rural America
  60. ^ Neighbourhood Research and Media/Breitbart
  61. ^ Monmouth University
  62. ^ Selzer/CNN/Des Moines Register
  63. ^ YouGov/CBS News
  64. ^ KG Polling
  65. ^ Civiqs/Iowa State University
  66. ^ Emerson College
  67. ^ Civiqs/Iowa State University
  68. ^ Des Moines Register/CNN
  69. ^ YouGov/CBS News
  70. ^ Monmouth University
  71. ^ University of Iowa
  72. ^ Public Policy Polling
  73. ^ Quinnipiac University
  74. ^ Siena College/New York Times
  75. ^ Civiqs/Iowa State University
  76. ^ Suffolk University/USA Today
  77. ^ Emerson College
  78. ^ Firehouse Strategies/Øptimus
  79. ^ YouGov/CBS News
  80. ^ Selzer/CNN/Des Moines Register
  81. ^ David Binder Research
  82. ^ Civiqs/Iowa State University
  83. ^ YouGov/CBS News
  84. ^ Change Research
  85. ^ Monmouth University
  86. ^ Firehouse Strategies/Øptimus
  87. ^ YouGov/CBS News
  88. ^ Change Research
  89. ^ David Binder Research
  90. ^ Suffolk University/USA Today
  91. ^ Change Research
  92. ^ Selzer/CNN/Des Moines Register
  93. ^ Change Research
  94. ^ Firehouse Strategies/Øptimus Archived May 6, 2019, at the Wayback Machine
  95. ^ Gravis Marketing Archived April 22, 2019, at the Wayback Machine
  96. ^ Monmouth University
  97. ^ David Binder Research
  98. ^ Emerson College Archived May 20, 2020, at the Wayback Machine
  99. ^ Public Policy Polling (D)
  100. ^ Selzer/CNN/Des Moines Register
  101. ^ Firehouse Strategies/Øptimus
  102. ^ Emerson College
  103. ^ Change Research
  104. ^ Selzer/CNN/Des Moines Register
  105. ^ David Binder Research
  106. ^ David Binder Research
  107. ^ Public Policy Polling (D)
  108. ^ Bowden, Ebony (February 6, 2020). "Iowa Democratic Party chair ignores DNC calls for recount of caucus". New York Post. Retrieved February 7, 2020.
  109. ^ Blitzer, Ronn (February 6, 2020). "DNC chairman calls for recanvass of Iowa caucuses". Fox News. Retrieved February 7, 2020.
  110. ^ Helsel, Phil (February 7, 2020). "DNC chair calls for Iowa to recanvass caucus vote, says 'enough is enough'". NBC News. Retrieved February 7, 2020.
  111. ^ "Iowa caucus results: Buttigieg, Sanders in a near tie, with 100% of results published". USA TODAY. February 6, 2020. Retrieved February 7, 2020.
  112. ^ Dan Merica; Jeff Zeleny; Adam Levy (February 7, 2020). "Pete Buttigieg keeps narrow lead in Iowa caucus with 100% of precincts reporting". CNN. Retrieved February 7, 2020.
  113. ^ Adam Levy; Dan Merica (February 7, 2020). "Iowa Democratic Party extends deadline for campaigns to ask for recanvass or recount". CNN. Retrieved February 7, 2020.
  114. ^ Sides, Sam (February 25, 2020). "Iowa Democratic Party begins recount". WOI-DT. Retrieved February 26, 2020.
  115. ^ Lee, Jasmine C.; Lieberman, Rebecca; Aufrichtig, Aliza; Bloch, Matthew (February 4, 2020). "Live: Iowa Caucus Results 2020". The New York Times. Retrieved February 27, 2020.
  116. ^ a b c d e "2020 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses, and Conventions: Iowa Democrat". The Green Papers. Retrieved July 4, 2020.
  117. ^ a b c d "Iowa Democratic Party Announces Delegation to National Convention". iowademocrats.org. June 13, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2020.
  118. ^ Gonyea, Don (February 14, 2020). "Mike Bloomberg Storms Super Tuesday States, Pledging To 'Get It Done'". NPR. Retrieved December 12, 2021.
  119. ^ "Statement from IDP Chair on Tonight's Historically Close Caucus Results - Iowa Democratic Party". February 6, 2016. Archived from the original on February 6, 2016. Retrieved February 21, 2021.
  120. ^ Martelle, Scott (January 4, 2008). "Hunger for the White House energizes Democrats". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved May 5, 2010.
  121. ^ "Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders are fighting for first place in the protracted Iowa caucus count". Politico. February 6, 2020. Retrieved February 7, 2020.
  122. ^ "Biden vows to press on despite Iowa 'gut punch". BBC. February 6, 2020. Retrieved February 7, 2020.
  123. ^ Rodriguez, Barbara (February 5, 2020). "Pete Buttigieg made history in the Iowa caucuses whatever the final results show". Des Moines Register. Retrieved February 10, 2020.
  124. ^ "Our Campaigns - IA US President - D Caucus Race - Feb 03, 2020". www.ourcampaigns.com. Retrieved October 5, 2024.
  125. ^ "Results in Iowa Caucuses Are Delayed: Live Updates". The New York Times. February 4, 2020. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved February 4, 2020.
  126. ^ Corasaniti, Nick; Frenkel, Sheera (February 3, 2020). "User-Error Problems With Mobile App for Iowa Caucuses Prompt Online Confusion". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved February 4, 2020.
  127. ^ Meg Magner, Amanda Wills (February 3, 2020). "Iowa Democrats say there are "inconsistencies in the reporting" of results". CNN. Retrieved February 4, 2020.
  128. ^ Forgey, Quint (February 4, 2020). "Bernie and Buttigieg elbow each other trying to declare victory in Iowa". Politico. Retrieved February 4, 2020.
  129. ^ Evon, Dan (February 10, 2020). "Did Trolls Try to Clog Phone Lines After Iowa Caucuses?". Snopes. Retrieved February 12, 2020.
  130. ^ Raffa, Greg A. (February 4, 2020). "Iowa caucus vote totals delayed amid 'inconsistencies'; campaigns lash out at 'crazy' state party". Fox News. Retrieved February 4, 2020.
  131. ^ "Confusion and embarrassment in Iowa: What went wrong, and what happens next?". CBS News. February 4, 2020. Retrieved February 9, 2020.
  132. ^ Murphy, Erin (February 4, 2020). "Iowa precinct leaders describe issues reporting caucus results". Sioux City Journal. Retrieved February 9, 2020.
  133. ^ Ben Collins; Maura Barrett; Vaughn Hillyard (February 6, 2020). "'Clog the lines': Internet trolls deliberately disrupted the Iowa caucuses hotline for reporting results". NBC News.
  134. ^ Relman, Eliza; Frias, Lauren. "Trump supporters intentionally swarmed the Iowa caucus phone lines to delay the results". Business Insider. Retrieved February 9, 2020.
  135. ^ Tyler Pager; Jennifer Epstein (February 7, 2020). "Trump Fans Flooded Iowa Caucus Hotline, Democrats Say". Bloomberg News. Retrieved February 7, 2020.
  136. ^ Raymond, Adam K. (February 6, 2020). "Iowa Dems: Pro-Trump Trolls Clogged Phones Lines, Worsening Caucus Debacle". Intelligencer. Retrieved February 9, 2020.
  137. ^ Quinn Scanlan; Kendall Karson; Meg Cunningham. "Iowa caucus: What we know and what went wrong". ABC News. Retrieved February 4, 2020.
  138. ^ "READ: Iowa Democratic Party statement on caucus reporting". CNN. February 4, 2020. Retrieved February 4, 2020.
  139. ^ "Iowa Democratic Party Says 'Coding Issue' Delayed Results: Live Updates". The New York Times. February 4, 2020. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved February 4, 2020.
  140. ^ a b Brody Wooddell (February 5, 2020). "Voters say the Iowa caucus numbers don't add up and Twitter is freaking out". WQAD. Retrieved February 7, 2020.
  141. ^ Nick Statt (February 5, 2020). "Motherboard just published the terrible app that caused chaos at the Iowa caucuses". The Verge. Retrieved February 6, 2020.
  142. ^ Eric Newcomer, Joshua Green, Joshua Brustein, and William Turton (February 4, 2020). "Startup Behind Faulty Iowa Election App Linked to Top Democrats". Bloomberg News. Retrieved May 14, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  143. ^ "About ACRONYM". February 4, 2020. Archived from the original on February 4, 2020. Retrieved May 14, 2020.
  144. ^ a b Ye Hee Lee, Michelle (February 4, 2020). "Shadow Inc., which built the Iowa caucus app, received money from Buttigieg and Biden campaigns". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 4, 2020.
  145. ^ Matt Stieb (February 4, 2020). "Iowa Results 2020: Live Updates". New York. Retrieved February 4, 2020.
  146. ^ Michael Biesecker and Brian Slodysko (February 5, 2020). "Maker of glitchy Iowa caucus app has Democratic Party ties". Associated Press. Retrieved February 7, 2020.
  147. ^ Jeff Bercovici, Suhuana Hussain (February 4, 2020). "App made by Clinton campaign veterans' firm is behind Iowa caucuses debacle". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved February 5, 2020.
  148. ^ Glazer, Emily; Seetharaman, Deepa; Corse, Alexa (February 6, 2020). "The Shoestring App Developer Behind the Iowa Caucus Debacle". The Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved February 6, 2020.
  149. ^ Marantz, Andrew (February 6, 2020). "Inside Acronym, the Tech Consultancy Behind the Disastrous Iowa-Caucus App". The New Yorker. Retrieved February 6, 2020.
  150. ^ Garrison, Joey. "Bernie Sanders declares 'decisive victory' in Iowa caucuses, rips results reporting 'screw-up'". USA Today. Retrieved February 6, 2020.
  151. ^ Jason Koebler; Joseph Cox; Emanuel Maiberg (February 5, 2020). "An 'Off-the-Shelf, Skeleton Project': Experts Analyze the App That Broke Iowa". Motherboard. Retrieved February 6, 2020.
  152. ^ Jack Gillum, Jessica Huseman (February 5, 2020). "The Iowa Caucuses App Had Another Problem: It Could Have Been Hacked". ProPublica. Retrieved February 5, 2020.
  153. ^ Rushing, Ty (February 4, 2020). "Trump triumphs in Sheldon, Dems up in air". The N'West Iowa REVIEW. Retrieved April 28, 2022.
  154. ^ Cohn, Nate; Katz, Josh; Lu, Denise; Smart, Charles; Smithgall, Ben; Fischer, Andrew (February 6, 2020). "Iowa Caucus Results Riddled With Errors and Inconsistencies". The New York Times. Retrieved February 6, 2020.
  155. ^ Brianne Pfannenstiel; Tim Webber; Barbara Rodriguez (February 5, 2020). "Iowa Democratic Party releases 85% of caucus results but an error forces correction". Des Moines Register. Retrieved February 7, 2020.
  156. ^ Seitz, Amanda; Klepper, David (February 5, 2020). "Online conspiracy theories flourish after Iowa caucus fiasco". The Associated Press. Retrieved February 6, 2020.
  157. ^ Stanley-Becker, Issac (February 6, 2020). "DNC chair calls for recanvass in Iowa". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 6, 2020.
  158. ^ Merica, Dan; Zeleny, Jeff; Levy, Adam (February 6, 2020). "DNC chair calls for a recanvass in Iowa as chaos ensues". CNN. Retrieved February 6, 2020.
  159. ^ Epstein, Reid J.; Corasaniti, Nick (February 6, 2020). "Tom Perez, D.N.C. chair, calls for 'recanvass' in Iowa". The New York Times. Retrieved February 6, 2020.
  160. ^ Johnson, Jake. "'Beyond Absurd': DNC Chair Tom Perez Demands 'Recanvass' of Iowa Caucus Before Results Fully Reported". Common Dreams. Retrieved February 7, 2020.
  161. ^ Ecarma, Caleb (February 7, 2020). "The DNC's latest Iowa gambit invites more suspicion it's anti-Sanders—DNC chair Tom Perez called for recanvassing the state—right after Bernie Sanders declared victory". Vanity Fair. Retrieved February 7, 2020.
  162. ^ Gabriel, Trip (February 9, 2020). "Iowa Democrats won't correct errors on caucus tally sheets, emails show". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved February 28, 2020.
  163. ^ a b "Iowa Caucuses Results 2020". CNN. February 7, 2020. Retrieved February 8, 2020.
  164. ^ Bradner, Eric (February 7, 2020). "Joe Biden's new reality: What happens when a candidate who guarantees wins starts by losing?". CNN. Retrieved February 8, 2020.
  165. ^ "Iowa Caucus: Who Different Groups Supported". The New York Times. February 3, 2020. Retrieved February 17, 2020.
  166. ^ Bernal, Rafael (February 7, 2020). "Analysis: Sanders ran the table with Latinos in Iowa". The Hill. Retrieved February 8, 2020.
  167. ^ Stracqualursi, Veronica; Cole, Devan (February 4, 2020). "Pete Buttigieg claimed victory in Iowa before any results were reported". CNN. Retrieved February 3, 2021.
  168. ^ Rakich, Nathaniel (February 7, 2020). "Election Update: Buttigieg Is Rising In New Hampshire". FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved February 8, 2020.
  169. ^ Pfannenstiel, Brianne (April 13, 2022). "DNC panel strips Iowa of guaranteed first vote for president; state party can still apply for coveted spot". Des Moines Register. Retrieved November 25, 2022.
edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_Iowa_Democratic_presidential_caucuses&oldid=1257883156"