@gjohnsit
Amazing what happens when people are watching and being patient.

if you want to dispute that you're free to spew your nonsense. @humphrey

Bernie won on the first choice ballot and on the second choice ballot.

If I read those results correctly Bernie does not reach the 50% + 1 of delegates on the first ballot. Of course if was able to win all those states his momentum could and should change the overall results.

Edited to add:

On second thought creepy Joe will likely drop out and I read that Warren is cutting back on her spending due to lagging donations. I just wonder who she would endorse if she drops out?

@humphrey I think both Warren and Biden will peter out sooner than many think.

Biden has Zero energy and Warren has lost a lot of her credibility in my eyes. (granted that's just my opinion but I know many others share it)

My dream ticket is Bernie/Tulsi for 8 years and then another 8 years with Tulsi and a Progressive to be named later.

Keeping fingers crossed that we can stay ahead of the DNC's skulduggery!

A

If I read those results correctly Bernie does not reach the 50% + 1 of delegates on the first ballot. Of course if was able to win all those states his momentum could and should change the overall results.

Edited to add:

On second thought creepy Joe will likely drop out and I read that Warren is cutting back on her spending due to lagging donations. I just wonder who she would endorse if she drops out?

@Situational Lefty of this very convoluted, Byzantine process is that there was a first round of voting. Then those who supported candidates who didn't reach viability (15%) were given the opportunity to "re-align" with other candidates. That is the second, and final, round of voting.

The "third round" you refer to is how the state party then allocates those voting numbers and translates them into state delegates and then national delegates to the July national convention. This third-step process is probably complicated, and you can research it on your own. It doesn't matter much to me as Iowa accounts for only a very small pct of national delegates and as Bernie and Boot are very close in the voting standings, the final national delegate count being equal is not completely out of line.

Bigger fish to fry on the issue of whether these Iowa results should be nullified by the DNC as being from an incompetently run election that appears to have been biased. This is Michael Tracey's view and I share it.

and he won the second vote, according to the data we've got so far.

For whatever reason, Mayor Pete! is winning the third vote. I don't get why that is, maybe someone can explain it to me.

@Situational Lefty There was not really a third vote. Buttigieg is slightly ahead in "state delegate equivalents" which is not really a vote. The Iowa process is odd. Votes at the precincts determine how many delegates each candidate is entitled to from that precinct. There are coin flips sometimes to break ties, and there have to be people actually willing to act as delegates to the state convention. I read about one precinct in which Biden was entitled to 8 delegates but only 4 people were willing to go to the convention and act as delegates for him. The real story is that Bernie won the first round, Bernie won the second round after non-competitive candidates were removed, but with a smaller margin, and the number of delegates to the national convention will be the same for Buttigieg and Sanders. I believe many media outlets are showing the state delegate equivalents only because that is the only measure by which Buttigieg is slightly ahead. This is consistent with obvious media bias against Bernie that we have all seen.

and now all of a sudden he's losing the third vote. Why are we voting three times?

@Situational Lefty

and I told you that in response to your first comment on that. I was quoting a member of this site which I am still waiting response to from you. I posted a link to it if you missed it. And I will defend the guy named "Humphrey" and everyone else if you or anyone else attacks them. The 1st amendment still stands does it not?

DBAD means don't be a dick on the site in case you didn't know what that stood for.

quoting a Final Fantasy game, and defending the guy named "Humphrey" who seems to be also mysteriously right wing.

@Situational Lefty I am sorry you do not see that yet but there it is.

A country that willingly and enthusiastically votes against its own interests on a very regular basis (and it is hardly only the RW who does that, hope and change for the banks and bupkis for real people anyone? Hillary Clinton shouting how M4A will "never, ever happen in this country" with full fury in her voice and an American crowd cheering her on, but hey, she's really on "our side" right?).

A country that tells itself if we just have one more election everything will change for us, when all actual, like, you know, evidence, proves that the farce it is (fully bipartisan support for several coups that I shouldn't even bother to go into here but hey, Honduras? Libya? How about Iraq, where we simply "must" stay to fight an entity we ourselves created? And then there's Venezuela, number one oil reserves in the world but "our" bitch with them is they are "killing their own people," never mind the US sanctions, supported on a fully and proudly bipartisan basis).

A country that allows its representatives to basically shit in our faces repeatedly but votes FOR them anyway. How's that whole Impeachment sham going? Any real change there? Nope? Oh well, time to go shopping I guess, do our part to support the economy and yay Amazon Prime! Free shipping doncha know! Time to elect Bloomberg, he'll fix everything, a business man, what's not to love? And THIS one will be on "our side" too! He'll fix everything! If not him how about Mayor Pete, CIA and heavy corporate cost cutting ties, oh well, he's pretty and speaks well so he too MUST be on our side, whatever fucking side that is.

A country that refuses to see it is not the "leader of the free world" when most of its citizens are not only not free but many are not much better off than actual slaves working for a pittance (Economic recovery? For whom?) while cheering on the rich and shrieking about how we cannot afford to use OUR TAX money to better the lives of our very own people. M4A, how we gonna pay for that? Free shit? Wars? What wars? You mean America is at war? Huh, who knew? Did Obama know?

A country that thinks NOTHING of bombing other nations back to the stone age when that country won't toe the neo liberal, profit-motive above all, capitalist line for American interests and then asks itself "why do they hate us?" Again, hardly limited to the RW only but the spin on that sure works to make us all think it's only the RW who is worried about "American interests" abroad. Russiagate? Arming actual Nazi's in Ukraine? And just who was it again that actually defeated those Nazis while American businesses armed and supported them? I know, I am a really, really bad American for even touching on the fact that "we might all be speaking German" without the SOVIET UNION... For shame. Well, if we don't like actual history lets just change it, USA, USA, USA!!!

There is more than enough proof that America is a pathetic nation and my barely coherent rant just barely scratches the surface.

quoting a Final Fantasy game, and defending the guy named "Humphrey" who seems to be also mysteriously right wing.

@tle take with the usual amount of salt your diet allows.

At this point, I assume anything coming from 538 is automatically snark, but I don't see that indicated anywhere.

Given 538's history, is this good news for Sanders, or bad?

@earthling1
Going from a position where the country is focused on the opinions of any common resident to being "just another small state" with few national delegates is going to be tough.

to be the first to hold primaries, this debacle will forever taint them.
Their relevance will drop to zero as a state corrupted and unable to count votes and no one will pay any attention to them.
Exactly the opposite of what they yearn for.
IMHO

@UntimelyRippd

I wonder if it was accidental or because they assumed Biden would be 2nd?

First, I'm going to note that I've removed myself as a commenter on this board, as of several months ago, because, to be blunt, I found I could no longer treat certain opinions with even a modicum of respect or courtesy.

However, I'm breaking this self-embargo because I think I'm the first and currently only person in the country who has noticed a small bug/error in the IDP's reported results, and it's a bug/error that favors Sanders very slightly over Buttigieg.

The deal is this: In the precinct numbers reported by the IDP here, there is a consistent pattern across the 23 precincts where exactly two candidates APPEAR (there are some other issues) to have tied for first place in the second alignment vote AND they did not receive equal #s of "fractional SDEs" (presumably because there was an odd "precinct delegate" or "county delegate" to be allocated amongst all viable candidates in that precinct). The pattern is this: The candidate whose name comes later in the alphabet ALWAYS received the extra SDE allotment.

I'm going to include exactly one example, WHITE BREAST precinct in Warren County.
Here are the Round 2 vote totals and SDEs reported by the IDP
Biden 6 0
Sanders 6 0.2333
Buttigieg 4 0
Klobuchar 4 0
Warren 4 0
A few notes:
All 5 of the above candidates are theoretically viable, since each has at least 16.7% of the votes.
Only one candidate received SDEs. I assume this tiny precinct was entitled to only a single "county delegate", which translated to a (surprisingly large) 0.2333 fraction of an SDE. Only one candidate could receive that single county delegate.
At the caucus, I believe this would have been resolved by a coin-flip between the two top vote-getters, Biden and Sanders. HOWEVER: I infer that this information is missing from the IDP's reported "canvass" of the results. I drew that inference because, as I said, in every single case I identified, the extra SDEs reported by IDP went to the person whose name is later in the alphabet.
There were 7 such precincts in which Buttigieg and Sanders tied, and the total benefit to Sanders vs Buttigieg was +1.0161 (when on average, we'd expect it be 0.0 , since we'd expect B and S to split the coin-tosses equally, so they should each get +0.508 vs everyone else) -- and that's only the advantage from direct ties between the two.
So here's what I'm saying: Regardless of whatever inane efforts the malfeasants at the IDP might be making to delay or even avoid reporting a Sanders victory, in the case of this particular type of special case, their overall incompetence has favored Sanders over everyone but Warren and Yang. Mind you, it also favors Butti over Biden, to the tune of 0.611 SDEs that on average should have been 0.3055. Or some such.
My guess, BTW, is that nobody in charge of the count imagined the results were going to come down to a difference of literally 2 or 3 SDEs (in a category that only arbitrarily represents a "victory" of any kind at all -- or, as others have noted, not so arbitrarily, being as it's the only one Butti can hope to claim over Sanders, since they'll almost certainly tie for national delegates and Sanders beat him in the popular vote -- indeed, stomped him in the first round vote). Thus, they didn't really care whether they got these special cases right, and they told the programmer who is processing the data to just "do whatever is easy".