Another way to understand why Hillary Clinton won last night in Iowa is to appreciate the operating dynamic of the Democratic nomination process. So consider the delegate math and you’ll see why the Clinton advantage is impossible to ignore.
Of the total 4,349 delegates (3,636 pledged and 713 super delegates) to the Democratic Convention to be held in Philadelphia July 25 -28 a majority of 2175 are needed to win the nomination. Clinton has already secured super delegates pledges of 344 as compared to 12 for Sanders. 354 remain unpledged and 3 were for O’Malley who has since dropped out.
The Iowa results ( 52 delegates) give Clinton 29 (including 7 supers) bringing her total to date 373. Sanders won 21 for a total to date of 33. Two Iowa delegates are still pending.
There are 33 delegates at stake in New Hampshire on February 9 where Bernie is the heavy favorite followed by the Nevada caucus on 2/20 and the South Carolina primary on 2/27 where Hillary is favored with her strong advantage among Latino and African-American voters.
There are 12 contests on March 1 Super Tuesday including Massachusetts (121 delegates). These will be followed by 12 more races starting with Ohio (121 delegates) on 3/15 and ending with New Jersey (126 delegates) on 6/7.
John Adams said : ” Facts are stubborn things.” In the final analysis, I believe the math favors Clinton but Bernie is not going to make it easy for her and it’s going to be a long, drawn-out brawl to the finish line. Fasten your seatbelts, friends. We’re all in for a long, bumpy ride.
And as a student of history I would just note that history was made last night in Iowa. Hillary Clinton was the first woman to win the Iowa Caucus.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Still, a .03% victory is hardly what she was looking to get. Had Bernie won those coin tosses or gotten just a more caucus goers he’d have had a bigger night. They walk away from this the way they came in, still a two person race. We will have to look at the fundraising and see if any superdelegates start going Bernie’s way.
No one on the news networks could explain to viewers the Iowa Democrat caucus rules. Why they’re not counting caucus member votes directly, for viable candidates or not, it’s a mystery.
They haven’t decided to release them.
Given that this race was so close, and that all precincts — whether they had strong turnout or weak turnout or something in between — gets as many precincts, it’s absolutely possible that Bernie won the popular vote, and maybe by more than some would think.
So… don’t expect the IA Democratic Party to release the raw vote totals.
at some point this rubbish will start to hurt our party. Sanders campaign needs to put the tin foil hats away.
Some may want to show that Sanders won the raw total and can thus critique the process for not being an absolute democracy.
the caucus process is confusing. Don’t think Iowa will change their process and lose their 1st caucus marquee, while NH is the 1st primary state. Both campaigns were there when recording results and could have questioned any result. It’s over.
I have read some complaining that relates to the integrity of the Iowa Democratic Party, also Weaver falsely claiming that Clinton had out of state persons participating in the caucus. This is the stuff that needs to stop. If there is a flaw with Sanders is this conspiracy baloney.
Save the goofy complaining to Trump and his supporters who are saying that IBM stole his votes and gave them to Rubio because IBM donated to his campaign.
Quite honestly, this is a major thing I dislike about Hilary Clinton. Yes, I realize that politics is politics, but it is extremely undemocratic of her to have “lined up” all those superdelegates before the first primary even occurred. Just as it is undemocratic for her campaign to be portraying her as the “heir apparent” for the position.
The people of Iowa showed that they were equal in their support for Clinton versus Sanders. As a Sanders supporter, this is exactly into the reason why I support him – because he is not the candidate for the elite, connected, wealthy, and privileged. He is not the candidate looking to rig the game.
I don’t like superdelgate system either, but it’s not really fair to take it out on Clinton- Sanders is going after them too, and touting when he gets them….he’s just not getting as many.
It would be silly for Sanders not to go after super-delegates, given that these are the rules at hand.
But clearly the super-delegate system advantages the candidate with the name recognition, before regular voters get to actually recognize their preference through an election.
I think the complaint about the super-delegate system stands. What one may respond, however, is that super-delegates have no obligation to stick to a promise made to support a candidate – and often will switch their support depending on the preference of actual votes taken in primary elections.
I do not think that name recognition, per se, is the issue. Sanders has been in Congress for 26 years and is pretty well know as the socialist who caucus with the democrats. More of the issue may be that he has never been registered as a Democrat or really been involved in party politics outside of the Senate – whereas the Clinton’s have been involved in Democratic politics for years – including out stumping for many of these superdelegates over the years. People will be drawn to the person who came to their party dinners, supported them, etc.
A more interesting contrast is the fact that in 11/15 Sanders had 8 superdelgates when at a similar time in 2007, Obama had 63. He had been in Congress for a much shorter period of time than than Sanders now – but more involvement with the Democratic Party. So again, it may be party involvement that is the issue. (Clinton had many more than Obama at that time – but in the long run that did not make the deference).
Superdelegtes may be problematic (I think they are) – but to say it is undemocratic of Clinton to go out and request their support is a bit of a stretch.
No, it’s not undemocratic to request super-delegate support.
The super-delegates just don’t see Sanders as President, I guess. But that represents a perception problem that can change once primaries move forward with their votes.
where he locked up the super delegates early and brought his organizational A game to Iowa.
Hillary learned her lesson the hard way and was determined not to be caught flat-footed again.
At the end of the day, after all the naysaying and handwringing is done, the simple truth is this : Hillary Clinton won Iowa and Bernie Sanders lost.
Now that it is official the right thing to do would be for Bernie to concede
and congratulate her the same way Trump did last night to Cruz.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
I don’t think Sanders has to concede for Iowa, more than to say that he’s accepting the delegate count coming out of the caucuses. Even if the delegate total was won by a number of coin tosses.
I think Sanders is accepting the fact that Hillary got more delegates than him; and he already congratulated her and O’Malley on their campaign in Iowa.
None of the state delegates were determined by coin tosses. The six coin tosses were at the precinct level. That difference may or may not have propagated to the level of state delegates.
Hillary locked more of the super delegates early in 2008, but they broke towards Obama as he started winning states.
This is political party trying to determine who its nominee is to be, not a general election. Yes, they include their rank and file registered voters as a large part of the process, but still only a part. Superdelegates are elected directly or indirectly as well. They are either elected officials who presumably either genuinely reflect the state’s will or are at least forced to pretend for their own political considerations, or members of the DNC chosen by the DSCs who are in turn chosen by Democratic voters. I have always found it VERY appropriate to include BOTH regular voters and PLEOs in the process.
But it’s better than all the other ones. The back rooms pre-McGovern commission were not reflective of where the party and its voters were. The post-reform arguably created a situation where a left wing Goldwater could get nominated and lose many, many states. The current system of delegate allocation also requires minority, women, youth, and disabled participation in a way that is far more representative of our people than most purely elected bodies, including Congress. I support Sanders and feel he did great in Iowa, I won’t underplay is success but I wholeheartedly reject post-election process arguments and complaints. This is the system every candidate knew we had going on.
that you aren’t such a hot fan of democracy, and would like to have the Kings and Queens of England back, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Most of us disagree with your unique perspective on these matters.
rye, that was a bit harsh, but the royal blast from the past was surely worth an upvote.
I wonder if there’s a German word in use for “deserves both a high five and a kick in the pants” or somesuch.
I can take a ribbing regarding my interests, though I could point out that there have been no Kings or Queens of England since the Act of Union ~300 years ago:)
…to speak on behalf of others in this instance. Sort of suggests your affinity for democracy exists only as it suits your moods.
I think the super-delegate numbers are probably somewhat less meaningful than it appears, because they are free to switch at any time. If Sanders actually had a significant lead among Democratic primary voters once we get later in the schedule, I don’t see the super-delegates overturning a clear mandate on the part of party voters. That said, I agree that the math will favor Hillary after New Hampshire, and especially throughout March.
One scheduling note: Nevada is actually the one on 2/20 (for Democrats) and South Carolina the following week. That could make a difference if either candidate comes out of New Hampshire with momentum, since Nevada will likely be closer than South Carolina.
on the dates of the Nevada caucus and South Carolina primary.
I have made the change in the original post.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Given WHERE he did well, and the byzantine rules of the caucus system, Sanders likely got more actual votes than Clinton. She only “won” in the way that Republicans won Congress in 2012, by having their voters in the right places to get the majority of districts despite losing the popular vote.
As her supporters are fond of saying, she got more votes during the 2008 primaries than President Obama did.
But he’s President.
By the way the rules of a caucus are logical and easily understood by everyone who participates.
This is an example of unclear caucus rules that may have tipped the election one way or another – about a precinct in Ames:
“A total of 484 eligible caucus attendees were initially recorded at the site. But when each candidate’s preference group was counted, Clinton had 240 supporters, Sanders had 179 and Martin O’Malley had five (causing him to be declared non-viable).
“Those figures add up to just 424 participants, leaving 60 apparently missing. When those numbers were plugged into the formula that determines delegate allocations, Clinton received four delegates and Sanders received three — leaving one delegate unassigned.
“Unable to account for that numerical discrepancy and the orphan delegate it produced, the Sanders campaign challenged the results and precinct leaders called a Democratic Party hot line set up to advise on such situations.
“Party officials recommended they settle the dispute with a coin toss.
“A Clinton supporter correctly called “heads” on a quarter flipped in the air, and Clinton received a fifth delegate.
“Similar situations were reported elsewhere, including at a precinct in Des Moines, at another precinct in Des Moines, in Newton, in West Branch and in Davenport. In all five situations, Clinton won the toss.”
The point about having supporters balanced across caucus precincts is great. We don’t know which of the two was more effective at that game.
I don’t think we’ll know who got more actual votes, because people came and went in those caucuses, and there were several rounds of votes. You might be able to get a total for different points in time at each precinct – but not a total at a given time in all precincts.
Such are the wonders of caucus vote counting.
The final precinct results — the ones that ‘counted’ — are recorded. That would give us a raw, popular vote… if the Iowa Democratic Party chose to release that data.
…which means she in all likelihood had more actual votes. Since it is precinct by precinct and proportional rather than winner-take-all, it would be mathematically difficult I think for one to win the popular vote, but not the elected delegate count. I’d rather have hard numbers than speculation on that point, but hey, don’t let facts stand in the way of your obvious hatred of Clinton.
The way the Iowa Democratic Party counts it, a precinct with 10% turnout awards as many delegates as a precinct with 25% turnout.
In Iowa, the low turnout precinct counts just as much as the high precinct. That is diametrically opposed to the concept of a popular vote.
Unless the Iowa Democratic Party releases the raw votes, it’s impossible to know who won the popular vote — but there is good reason to think Bernie probably did, since so many young voters were at college for this vote instead of at their homes, and those young voters overwhelmingly voted for Bernie. (And shame on the Iowa Democratic Party for scheduling it that way — because normally the caucus happens while Iowa’s colleges are on break).
Delegates are awarded by Democratic performance in previous election cycles. The number of (county convention) delegates on offer in any given precinct has nothing to do with the number of the caucus goers who turned out.
See I.A.7.a (p.2)
sorry if I didn’t make it clear.
Delegate-equivalents could be very different than the popular vote.
…from The Democratic Strategist:
The reason Sanders started running was precisely to talk about the issues. So far, both candidates have done a remarkable job on that account.
…I think Clinton and Sanders supporters can agree our nomination race is something to be proud of, whereas the other side’s is embarrassing.
http://goo.gl/yLRTY
But I guess a win is a win. However Bernie’s performance outpaced pundits, and brought totals to a near draw in the face of no support from Democratic officials, and offering a bold agenda that many thought was out of mainstream thinking. Apparently it is not.
Secretary Clinton’s most noteworthy constituency was the over 65, higher income, women to some degree, and minorities.
Bernie will have to explain his program is not directed at a single grouping, but believes all Americans benefit from his proposals.
So bring on NH and the rest. Working hard for your candidate is a grueling effort, but as Thomas Paine noted: “…; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value.”
http://goo.gl/yLRTYn
http://goo.gl/bTRGQw
…has 116 delegates and 8 alternates. See the diary I just posted for details.
Looks like she received a couple more delegates than Sen. Sanders, and she seems to have a commanding lead with super-delegates (although, that’s really counting your chickens before they hatch). I’m much more interested in what the caucus says about her abilities as a candidate than in whether she won, and whether Sanders should “concede.” I’m concerned that she doesn’t seem to be able to come up with a compelling, progressive vision for why she will be a great president. She seems to try a message, then abandon it, and then try another one. I hope that she develops and adheres to a consistent, compelling, clear vision for what a progressive HRC presidency will look like. If she cannot do that it, the general election will be difficult.