fbpx
Wikipedia

2020 Iowa Democratic presidential caucuses

January 01, 1970

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 conception 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 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 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 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.[37][38] 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%.[39]

  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 Jan 30 – Feb 2, 2020 853 (LV) ± 3.3% 21% 15% 1% 11% 28% 4% 14% 5% 2% –
Data for Progress [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 (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 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 Jan 27–30, 2020 400 (LV) ± 4.0% 17% 9% 2% 16% 23% 3% 15% 5% 4%[y] 6%
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 April 21, 2021, at the Wayback Machine Jan 24–28, 2020 600 (LV) ± 3.0% 20% 17% 1% 12% 18% 4% 17% 5% <1%[ac] 6%
Monmouth University 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 Jan 23–27, 2020 655 (LV) ± 4.8% 15% 17% 2% 11% 24% 4% 19% 5% 2%[ai] 3%[aj]
Emerson College Jan 23–26, 2020 450 (LV) ± 4.6% 21% 10% 5% 13% 30% 5% 11% 5% 2%[ak] –
Suffolk University/USA Today 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 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 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 Jan 17–23, 2020 253 (LV) ± 6.2% 19% 18% 3% 12% 15% 6% 15% 4% 2%[ar] 4%
YouGov/CBS News Jan 16–23, 2020 1401 (RV) ± 3.9% 25% 22% 0% 7% 26% 1% 15% 1% 2%[as] 1%
Civiqs/Data for Progress[permanent dead link] 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 Jan 15–18, 2020 500 (LV) ± 4.4% 24% 16% 1% 11% 14% 4% 18% 3% 2%[au] –
Neighbourhood Research and Media/Breitbart 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 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 January 2–8, 2020 701 (LV) ± 3.7% 15% 16% 2% 6% 20% 2% 17% 5% 2%[ba] 11%
YouGov/CBS News Dec 27, 2019 – Jan 3, 2020 953 (RV) ± 3.8% 23% 23% 1% 7% 23% 2% 16% 2% 2%[bb] 1%
KG Polling Dec 19–23, 2019 750 (LV) ± 3.8% 24% 12% – 5% 31% – 13% 10% – 5%[bc]
Civiqs/Iowa State University Dec 12–16, 2019 632 (LV) ± 4.9% 15% 24% 3% 4% 21% 2% 18% 3% 4%[bd] 4%
Emerson College 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 Nov 15–19, 2019 614 (LV) ± 4.9% 12% 26% 2% 2% 5% 18% 2% 19% 4% 6%[bf] 3%
Des Moines Register/CNN Nov 8–13, 2019 500 (LV) ± 4.4% 15% 25% 3% 3% 6% 15% 3% 16% 3% 6%[bg] 5%
YouGov/CBS News Nov 6–13, 2019 856 (RV) ± 4.1% 22% 21% 0% 5% 5% 22% 2% 18% 1% 4%[bh] –
Monmouth University Nov 7–11, 2019 451 (LV) ± 4.6% 19% 22% 2% 3% 5% 13% 3% 18% 3% 6%[bi] 8%
University of Iowa Oct 28 – Nov 10, 2019 465 (LV) ± 4.6% 15% 16% 3% 2% 1% 18% 3% 23% 3% 2%[bj] 13%
Public Policy Polling Nov 5–6, 2019 715 (LV) – 13% 20% – 3% 9% 14% 6% 21% 3% – 10%
Quinnipiac University 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 Oct 25–30, 2019 439 (LV) ± 4.7% 17% 2% 18% 3% 4% 1% 19% 22% 8%[bl] 6%
Civiqs/Iowa State University Oct 18–22, 2019 598 (LV) ± 5% 12% 1% 20% 3% 4% 1% 18% 28% 8%[bn] 4%
Suffolk University/USA Today Oct 16–18, 2019 500 (LV) ± 4.4% 18% 1% 13% 3% 3% 1% 9% 17% 7%[bo] 29%
Emerson College Oct 13–16, 2019 317 (LV) ± 5.5% 23% 3% 16% 2% 1% 0% 13% 23% 15%[bp] –
Firehouse Strategies/Øptimus Oct 8–10, 2019 548 (LV) ± 3.6% 22% 2% 17% 3% –[bq] 1% 5% 25% 26%[br] –[bq]
YouGov/CBS News Oct 3–11, 2019 729 (RV) ± 4.6% 22% 2% 14% 5% 2% 2% 21% 22% 7%[bs] –
Selzer/CNN/Des Moines Register [2] Sep 14–18, 2019 602 (LV) ± 4.0% 20% 3% 9% 6% 3% 2% 11% 22% 11%[bt] 14%
David Binder Research Sep 14–17, 2019 500 (LV) ± 4.4% 25% 2% 12% 5% 8% 1% 9% 23% 9%[bu] 6%
Civiqs/Iowa State University Sep 13–17, 2019 572 (LV) ± 5.2% 16% 2% 13% 5% 3% 2% 16% 24% 11%[bv] 8%
YouGov/CBS News Aug 28 – Sep 4, 2019 835 ± 4.3% 29% 2% 7% 6% 2% 2% 26% 17% 9%[bw] –
Change Research Aug 9–11, 2019 621 (LV) ± 3.9% 17% 3% 13% 8% 2% 3% 17% 28% 9%[bx] –
Monmouth University Aug 1–4, 2019 401 (LV) ± 4.9% 28% 1% 8% 11% 3% <1% 9% 19% 11%[by] 10%
Firehouse Strategies/Øptimus Jul 23–25, 2019 630 ± 3.3% 23% 2% 7% 12% – 2% 11% 23% 4% 16%
YouGov/CBS News 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 Jun 29 – Jul 4, 2019 420 (LV) – 16% 1% 25% 16% 1% 2% 16% 18% 5%[ca] –
David Binder Research Jun 29 – Jul 1, 2019 600 ± 4.0% 17% 2% 10% 18% 4% 1% 12% 20% 9%[cb] 9%
Suffolk University/USA Today Jun 28 – Jul 1, 2019 500 ± 4.4% 24% 2% 6% 16% 2% 1% 9% 13% 6%[cc] 21%
Change Research Jun 17–20, 2019 308 (LV) – 27% 5% 17% 4% 2% 1% 18% 20% 7%[cd] –
Selzer/CNN/Des Moines Register Jun 2–5, 2019 600 ± 4.0% 24% 1% 14% 7% 2% 2% 16% 15% 6%[ce] 6%
Change Research May 15–19, 2019 615 (LV) ± 3.9% 24% 1% 14% 10% 2% 5% 24% 12% 9%[cf] –
Firehouse Strategies/Øptimus May 6, 2019, at the Wayback Machine 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 April 22, 2019, at the Wayback Machine 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 Apr 4–9, 2019 351 ± 5.2% 27% 3% 9% 7% 4% 6% 16% 7% 7%[ch] 12%
David Binder Research Mar 21–24, 2019 500 ± 4.4% 25% 7% 6% 9% 6% 6% 17% 8% 9%[ci] 7%
Emerson College May 20, 2020, at the Wayback Machine Mar 21–24, 2019 249 ± 6.2% 25% 6% 11% 10% 2% 5% 24% 9% 8%[cj] –
Public Policy Polling (D)[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 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 Jan 31 – Feb 2, 2019 558 ± 3.6% 25% 4% – 17% 5% 4% 10% 11% 1%[cm] 25%
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 Dec 13–17, 2018 1,291 (LV) – 20% 4% – 7% 5% 19% 20% 7% 18%[co] –
Selzer/CNN/Des Moines Register Dec 10–13, 2018 455 ± 4.6% 32% 4% – 5% 3% 11% 19% 8% 7%[cp] 6%
David Binder Research Dec 10–11, 2018 500 ± 4.4% 30% 6% – 7% 10% 11% 13% 9% 8%[cq] 6%
David Binder Research 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)[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,[40][41][42] some major news organizations refused to declare a winner until completion of a possible recanvass or recount.[43][44]

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,[45] 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.[46] 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[47][3][22]
Candidate Initial
alignment 		Final
alignment[cu] 		State delegate
equivalents[cv] 		Pledged
national
convention
delegates[48][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,[51] but still 26% lower compared to the over 239,000 people who participated in the 2008 caucuses.[52]

Sanders won the popular vote on both the initial and the final alignments.[53] 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.[54] Following the caucuses, Buttigieg became the first openly LGBT candidate to win any pledged national convention delegates towards a major party's presidential nomination.[55]

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".[56] 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.[57] 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".[58] 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.[59]

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,[60] 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.[61][62][63] 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.[64][65][66][67] Additionally, the reported data had to be entered manually, which took longer than expected.[68]

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.[69] 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.[70]

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.[71]

IowaRecorder app edit

The app, named IowaRecorder,[72] was developed by Shadow Inc., a majority-owned subsidiary of Acronym.[73][74] The company received money from the Biden, Buttigieg, and Kirsten Gillibrand campaigns for services distinct from the app;[75][76] 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.[75]

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.[77] 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.[78][79][80][81]

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).[82]

The app was also criticized for its lack of user-friendliness and openness to potential hacks and data intercepts,[83] 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."[84]

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.[85] 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.[71][86]

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.[87] 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,[88][89] 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.[90]

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.[91][92]

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.[93] 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).[94]

Contrary to media belief in Biden's strength among non-white voters,[95] 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.[96] Some counties carried by Buttigieg, such as Clinton County, had swung from Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016 by double digits.[94]

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.[97]

Buttigieg declared victory before any official results were released.[98] 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.[99]

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.[100]

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.[48][49]
  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.[48][49]
  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.[48][49]
  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.[48][49]
  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.[50]
  103. ^ Per the Iowa Democratic Party official report.[3]

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 . 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). . 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. ^ Shepard, Steven; Schneider, Elena (February 1, 2020). "Des Moines Register poll scrapped after apparent mishap". Politico. from the original on February 2, 2020. Retrieved February 1, 2020.
  38. ^ Lerer, Lisa; Martin, Jonathan; Grynbaum, Michael M. (February 1, 2020). "Des Moines Register Poll of Iowa Caucusgoers Abruptly Shelved". The New York Times. from the original on February 2, 2020. Retrieved February 2, 2020.
  39. ^ 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.
  40. ^ Bowden, Ebony (February 6, 2020). "Iowa Democratic Party chair ignores DNC calls for recount of caucus". New York Post. Retrieved February 7, 2020.
  41. ^ Blitzer, Ronn (February 6, 2020). "DNC chairman calls for recanvass of Iowa caucuses". Fox News. Retrieved February 7, 2020.
  42. ^ Helsel, Phil (February 7, 2020). "DNC chair calls for Iowa to recanvass caucus vote, says 'enough is enough'". NBC News. Retrieved February 7, 2020.
  43. ^ "Iowa caucus results: Buttigieg, Sanders in a near tie, with 100% of results published". USA TODAY. February 6, 2020. Retrieved February 7, 2020.
  44. ^ 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.
  45. ^ 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.
  46. ^ Sides, Sam (February 25, 2020). "Iowa Democratic Party begins recount". WOI-DT. Retrieved February 26, 2020.
  47. ^ 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.
  48. ^ a b c d e "2020 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses, and Conventions: Iowa Democrat". The Green Papers. Retrieved July 4, 2020.
  49. ^ a b c d "Iowa Democratic Party Announces Delegation to National Convention". iowademocrats.org. June 13, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2020.
  50. ^ Gonyea, Don (February 14, 2020). "Mike Bloomberg Storms Super Tuesday States, Pledging To 'Get It Done'". NPR. Retrieved December 12, 2021.
  51. ^ . February 6, 2016. Archived from the original on February 6, 2016. Retrieved February 21, 2021.
  52. ^ Martelle, Scott (January 4, 2008). "Hunger for the White House energizes Democrats". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved May 5, 2010.
  53. ^ "Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders are fighting for first place in the protracted Iowa caucus count". Politico. February 6, 2020. Retrieved February 7, 2020.
  54. ^ "Biden vows to press on despite Iowa 'gut punch". BBC. February 6, 2020. Retrieved February 7, 2020.
  55. ^ 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.
  56. ^ "Results in Iowa Caucuses Are Delayed: Live Updates". The New York Times. February 4, 2020. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved February 4, 2020.
  57. ^ 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.
  58. ^ Meg Magner, Amanda Wills (February 3, 2020). "Iowa Democrats say there are "inconsistencies in the reporting" of results". CNN. Retrieved February 4, 2020.
  59. ^ Forgey, Quint (February 4, 2020). "Bernie and Buttigieg elbow each other trying to declare victory in Iowa". Politico. Retrieved February 4, 2020.
  60. ^ Evon, Dan (February 10, 2020). "Did Trolls Try to Clog Phone Lines After Iowa Caucuses?". Snopes. Retrieved February 12, 2020.
  61. ^ 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.
  62. ^ "Confusion and embarrassment in Iowa: What went wrong, and what happens next?". CBS News. February 4, 2020. Retrieved February 9, 2020.
  63. ^ Murphy, Erin (February 4, 2020). "Iowa precinct leaders describe issues reporting caucus results". Sioux City Journal. Retrieved February 9, 2020.
  64. ^ 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.
  65. ^ Relman, Eliza; Frias, Lauren. "Trump supporters intentionally swarmed the Iowa caucus phone lines to delay the results". Business Insider. Retrieved February 9, 2020.
  66. ^ Tyler Pager; Jennifer Epstein (February 7, 2020). "Trump Fans Flooded Iowa Caucus Hotline, Democrats Say". Bloomberg News. Retrieved February 7, 2020.
  67. ^ Raymond, Adam K. (February 6, 2020). "Iowa Dems: Pro-Trump Trolls Clogged Phones Lines, Worsening Caucus Debacle". Intelligencer. Retrieved February 9, 2020.
  68. ^ Quinn Scanlan; Kendall Karson; Meg Cunningham. "Iowa caucus: What we know and what went wrong". ABC News. Retrieved February 4, 2020.
  69. ^ "READ: Iowa Democratic Party statement on caucus reporting". CNN. February 4, 2020. Retrieved February 4, 2020.
  70. ^ "Iowa Democratic Party Says 'Coding Issue' Delayed Results: Live Updates". The New York Times. February 4, 2020. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved February 4, 2020.
  71. ^ 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.
  72. ^ Nick Statt (February 5, 2020). "Motherboard just published the terrible app that caused chaos at the Iowa caucuses". The Verge. Retrieved February 6, 2020.
  73. ^ 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)
  74. ^ . February 4, 2020. Archived from the original on February 4, 2020. Retrieved May 14, 2020.
  75. ^ 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.
  76. ^ Matt Stieb (February 4, 2020). "Iowa Results 2020: Live Updates". New York. Retrieved February 4, 2020.
  77. ^ Michael Biesecker and Brian Slodysko (February 5, 2020). "Maker of glitchy Iowa caucus app has Democratic Party ties". Associated Press. Retrieved February 7, 2020.
  78. ^ 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.
  79. ^ 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.
  80. ^ Marantz, Andrew (February 6, 2020). "Inside Acronym, the Tech Consultancy Behind the Disastrous Iowa-Caucus App". The New Yorker. Retrieved February 6, 2020.
  81. ^ Garrison, Joey. "Bernie Sanders declares 'decisive victory' in Iowa caucuses, rips results reporting 'screw-up'". USA Today. Retrieved February 6, 2020.
  82. ^ 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.
  83. ^ Jack Gillum, Jessica Huseman (February 5, 2020). "The Iowa Caucuses App Had Another Problem: It Could Have Been Hacked". ProPublica. Retrieved February 5, 2020.
  84. ^ Rushing, Ty (February 4, 2020). "Trump triumphs in Sheldon, Dems up in air". The N'West Iowa REVIEW. Retrieved April 28, 2022.
  85. ^ 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.
  86. ^ 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.
  87. ^ Seitz, Amanda; Klepper, David (February 5, 2020). "Online conspiracy theories flourish after Iowa caucus fiasco". The Associated Press. Retrieved February 6, 2020.
  88. ^ Stanley-Becker, Issac (February 6, 2020). "DNC chair calls for recanvass in Iowa". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 6, 2020.
  89. ^ 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.
  90. ^ 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.
  91. ^ Johnson, Jake. "'Beyond Absurd': DNC Chair Tom Perez Demands 'Recanvass' of Iowa Caucus Before Results Fully Reported". Common Dreams. Retrieved February 7, 2020.
  92. ^ 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.
  93. ^ Gabriel, Trip (February 9, 2020). "Iowa Democrats won't correct errors on caucus tally sheets, emails show". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved February 28, 2020.
  94. ^ a b "Iowa Caucuses Results 2020". CNN. February 7, 2020. Retrieved February 8, 2020.
  95. ^ 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.
  96. ^ "Iowa Caucus: Who Different Groups Supported". The New York Times. February 3, 2020. Retrieved February 17, 2020.
  97. ^ Bernal, Rafael (February 7, 2020). "Analysis: Sanders ran the table with Latinos in Iowa". The Hill. Retrieved February 8, 2020.
  98. ^ Stracqualursi, Veronica; Cole, Devan (February 4, 2020). "Pete Buttigieg claimed victory in Iowa before any results were reported". CNN. Retrieved February 3, 2021.
  99. ^ Rakich, Nathaniel (February 7, 2020). "Election Update: Buttigieg Is Rising In New Hampshire". FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved February 8, 2020.
  100. ^ 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.

External links edit

  • The Green Papers delegate allocation summary
  • Iowa Democratic Party draft delegate selection plan January 11, 2020, at the Wayback Machine
  • FiveThirtyEight Iowa caucus poll tracker
  • Des Moines Register Iowa candidate tracker
  • Iowa's caucus app was a disaster waiting to happen

January 01, 1970
2020, iowa, democratic, presidential, caucuses, main, article, 2020, democratic, party, presidential, primaries, first, nominating, contest, democratic, party, primaries, 2020, presidential, election, took, place, february, 2020, pete, buttigieg, received, mos. 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 ConventionThe 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 First alignment vote results by countyFinal alignment vote results by countyFinal alignment vote results by congressional districtState delegate equivalents winner by county 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 conception of the caucuses in 1972 Contents 1 Procedure 1 1 Precinct caucus procedures 1 2 Satellite caucus procedures 1 3 County district state convention and national convention delegates 1 4 Key changes from previous caucuses 2 Polling 3 Results 4 Delay in final results 4 1 IowaRecorder app 5 Inconsistencies in votes 6 Analysis 7 See also 8 Footnotes 9 References 10 External linksProcedure editFurther 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 County convention delegates and SDEs 25 County CD Precincts CCD SDE SDE CCD ratio Adair CD3 5 51 4 0 078 Adams CD3 5 35 3 0 086 Allamakee CD1 11 90 7 0 078 Appanoose CD2 12 75 6 0 080 Audubon CD4 2 30 3 0 100 Benton CD1 19 200 15 0 075 Black Hawk CD1 62 500 101 0 202 Boone CD4 15 100 19 0 190 Bremer CD1 13 75 17 0 227 Buchanan CD1 15 95 13 0 137 Buena Vista CD4 10 45 9 0 200 Butler CD4 8 60 7 0 117 Calhoun CD4 10 60 5 0 083 Carroll CD4 13 100 11 0 110 Cass CD3 12 50 6 0 120 Cedar CD2 12 70 12 0 171 Cerro Gordo CD4 26 175 31 0 177 Cherokee CD4 7 55 6 0 109 Chickasaw CD4 13 100 7 0 070 Clarke CD2 7 50 4 0 080 Clay CD4 12 85 8 0 094 Clayton CD1 14 60 10 0 167 Clinton CD2 26 140 31 0 221 Crawford CD4 8 40 6 0 150 Dallas CD3 34 140 58 0 414 Davis CD2 8 100 3 0 030 Decatur CD2 7 85 4 0 047 Delaware CD1 12 120 9 0 075 Des Moines CD2 16 75 27 0 360 Dickinson CD4 15 80 10 0 125 Dubuque CD1 35 270 72 0 267 Emmet CD4 11 35 4 0 114 Fayette CD1 25 100 12 0 120 Floyd CD4 8 90 10 0 111 Franklin CD4 12 90 5 0 056 Fremont CD3 5 40 3 0 075 Greene CD4 7 50 6 0 120 Grundy CD4 7 60 6 0 100 Guthrie CD3 8 70 6 0 086 Hamilton CD4 8 90 9 0 100 Hancock CD4 10 50 5 0 100 Hardin CD4 8 125 9 0 072 Harrison CD4 13 75 7 0 093 Henry CD2 9 150 10 0 067 Howard CD1 9 35 5 0 143 Humboldt CD4 9 45 4 0 089 Ida CD4 7 20 3 0 150 Iowa CD1 11 100 10 0 100 Jackson CD1 16 70 12 0 171 Jasper CD2 20 200 23 0 115 Jefferson CD2 12 55 12 0 218 Johnson CD2 57 400 162 0 405 Jones CD1 14 75 12 0 160 Keokuk CD2 15 35 4 0 114 Kossuth CD4 20 90 8 0 089 Lee CD2 22 150 21 0 140 Linn CD1 86 430 189 0 440 Louisa CD2 5 50 5 0 100 Lucas CD2 7 55 4 0 073 Lyon CD4 8 30 3 0 100 Madison CD3 9 75 9 0 120 Mahaska CD2 11 50 8 0 160 Marion CD2 17 100 18 0 180 Marshall CD1 19 150 24 0 160 Mills CD3 11 45 7 0 156 Mitchell CD1 12 80 6 0 075 Monona CD4 11 80 4 0 050 Monroe CD2 7 65 3 0 046 Montgomery CD3 7 50 4 0 080 Muscatine CD2 23 150 25 0 167 O Brien CD4 9 55 4 0 073 Osceola CD4 8 30 3 0 100 Page CD3 8 75 6 0 080 Palo Alto CD4 6 60 5 0 083 Plymouth CD4 13 40 9 0 225 Pocahontas CD4 7 50 3 0 060 Polk CD3 177 1 401 392 0 280 Pottawattamie CD3 46 400 48 0 120 Poweshiek CD1 9 100 14 0 140 Ringgold CD3 7 80 3 0 038 Sac CD4 9 60 4 0 067 Scott CD2 63 300 124 0 413 Shelby CD4 9 100 5 0 050 Sioux CD4 16 80 7 0 088 Story CD4 43 200 83 0 415 Tama CD1 15 85 11 0 129 Taylor CD3 7 30 3 0 100 Union CD3 8 80 6 0 075 Van Buren CD2 8 30 3 0 100 Wapello CD2 22 200 18 0 090 Warren CD3 31 150 35 0 233 Washington CD2 10 70 13 0 186 Wayne CD2 4 40 3 0 075 Webster CD4 28 240 20 0 083 Winnebago CD4 10 40 6 0 150 Winneshiek CD1 11 125 16 0 128 Woodbury CD4 44 240 51 0 213 Worth CD1 7 75 5 0 067 Wright CD4 10 45 6 0 133 Total 99 counties 4 1678 11 402 2 107 0 185 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 nationalconvention 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 nbsp nbsp nbsp nbsp Sanders Buttigieg Warren and Biden campaigning in Iowa throughout the lead up to the caucus Polling aggregation Source of poll aggregation Dateupdated Datespolled BernieSanders JoeBiden PeteButtigieg ElizabethWarren AmyKlobuchar AndrewYang TomSteyer Other Un decided m 270 to Win 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 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 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 37 38 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 39 Debate qualifying poll as designated by the Democratic National Committee Polling from December 1 2019 to February 3 2020 Poll source Date s administered Samplesize s Marginof error JoeBiden PeteButtigieg TulsiGabbard AmyKlobuchar BernieSanders TomSteyer ElizabethWarren AndrewYang Other Undecided Emerson College Jan 30 Feb 2 2020 853 LV 3 3 21 15 1 11 28 4 14 5 2 Data for Progress 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 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 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 Jan 27 30 2020 400 LV 4 0 17 9 2 16 23 3 15 5 4 y 6 Civiqs Data for Progress 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 Archived April 21 2021 at the Wayback Machine Jan 24 28 2020 600 LV 3 0 20 17 1 12 18 4 17 5 lt 1 ac 6 Monmouth University Jan 23 27 2020 544 LV 4 2 29 ad 20 25 19 1 ae 6 22 af 17 12 22 16 5 lt 1 ag 6 23 16 1 10 21 4 15 3 1 ah 5 Civiqs Iowa State University Jan 23 27 2020 655 LV 4 8 15 17 2 11 24 4 19 5 2 ai 3 aj Emerson College Jan 23 26 2020 450 LV 4 6 21 10 5 13 30 5 11 5 2 ak Suffolk University USA Today 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 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 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 Jan 17 23 2020 253 LV 6 2 19 18 3 12 15 6 15 4 2 ar 4 YouGov CBS News Jan 16 23 2020 1401 RV 3 9 25 22 0 7 26 1 15 1 2 as 1 Civiqs Data for Progress permanent dead link 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 Jan 15 18 2020 500 LV 4 4 24 16 1 11 14 4 18 3 2 au Neighbourhood Research and Media Breitbart 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 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 January 2 8 2020 701 LV 3 7 15 16 2 6 20 2 17 5 2 ba 11 YouGov CBS News Dec 27 2019 Jan 3 2020 953 RV 3 8 23 23 1 7 23 2 16 2 2 bb 1 KG Polling Dec 19 23 2019 750 LV 3 8 24 12 5 31 13 10 5 bc Civiqs Iowa State University Dec 12 16 2019 632 LV 4 9 15 24 3 4 21 2 18 3 4 bd 4 Emerson College 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 Samplesize s Marginof error JoeBiden PeteButtigieg TulsiGabbard KamalaHarris AmyKlobuchar BernieSanders TomSteyer ElizabethWarren AndrewYang Other Undecided Civiqs Iowa State University Nov 15 19 2019 614 LV 4 9 12 26 2 2 5 18 2 19 4 6 bf 3 Des Moines Register CNN Nov 8 13 2019 500 LV 4 4 15 25 3 3 6 15 3 16 3 6 bg 5 YouGov CBS News Nov 6 13 2019 856 RV 4 1 22 21 0 5 5 22 2 18 1 4 bh Monmouth University Nov 7 11 2019 451 LV 4 6 19 22 2 3 5 13 3 18 3 6 bi 8 University of Iowa Oct 28 Nov 10 2019 465 LV 4 6 15 16 3 2 1 18 3 23 3 2 bj 13 Public Policy Polling Nov 5 6 2019 715 LV 13 20 3 9 14 6 21 3 10 Quinnipiac University 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 Samplesize s Marginof error JoeBiden CoryBooker PeteButtigieg KamalaHarris AmyKlobuchar BetoO Rourke BernieSanders ElizabethWarren Other Undecided Siena College New York Times Oct 25 30 2019 439 LV 4 7 17 2 18 3 4 1 19 22 8 bl 6 Civiqs Iowa State University Oct 18 22 2019 598 LV 5 12 1 20 3 4 1 18 28 8 bn 4 Suffolk University USA Today Oct 16 18 2019 500 LV 4 4 18 1 13 3 3 1 9 17 7 bo 29 Emerson College Oct 13 16 2019 317 LV 5 5 23 3 16 2 1 0 13 23 15 bp Firehouse Strategies Optimus Oct 8 10 2019 548 LV 3 6 22 2 17 3 bq 1 5 25 26 br bq YouGov CBS News Oct 3 11 2019 729 RV 4 6 22 2 14 5 2 2 21 22 7 bs Selzer CNN Des Moines Register 2 Sep 14 18 2019 602 LV 4 0 20 3 9 6 3 2 11 22 11 bt 14 David Binder Research Sep 14 17 2019 500 LV 4 4 25 2 12 5 8 1 9 23 9 bu 6 Civiqs Iowa State University Sep 13 17 2019 572 LV 5 2 16 2 13 5 3 2 16 24 11 bv 8 YouGov CBS News Aug 28 Sep 4 2019 835 4 3 29 2 7 6 2 2 26 17 9 bw Change Research Aug 9 11 2019 621 LV 3 9 17 3 13 8 2 3 17 28 9 bx Monmouth University Aug 1 4 2019 401 LV 4 9 28 1 8 11 3 lt 1 9 19 11 by 10 Firehouse Strategies Optimus Jul 23 25 2019 630 3 3 23 2 7 12 2 11 23 4 16 YouGov CBS News 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 Jun 29 Jul 4 2019 420 LV 16 1 25 16 1 2 16 18 5 ca David Binder Research Jun 29 Jul 1 2019 600 4 0 17 2 10 18 4 1 12 20 9 cb 9 Suffolk University USA Today Jun 28 Jul 1 2019 500 4 4 24 2 6 16 2 1 9 13 6 cc 21 Change Research Jun 17 20 2019 308 LV 27 5 17 4 2 1 18 20 7 cd Selzer CNN Des Moines Register Jun 2 5 2019 600 4 0 24 1 14 7 2 2 16 15 6 ce 6 Change Research May 15 19 2019 615 LV 3 9 24 1 14 10 2 5 24 12 9 cf Firehouse Strategies Optimus Archived May 6 2019 at the Wayback Machine 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 Archived April 22 2019 at the Wayback Machine 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 Apr 4 9 2019 351 5 2 27 3 9 7 4 6 16 7 7 ch 12 David Binder Research Mar 21 24 2019 500 4 4 25 7 6 9 6 6 17 8 9 ci 7 Emerson College Archived May 20 2020 at the Wayback Machine Mar 21 24 2019 249 6 2 25 6 11 10 2 5 24 9 8 cj Public Policy Polling D 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 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 Optimus Jan 31 Feb 2 2019 558 3 6 25 4 17 5 4 10 11 1 cm 25 Emerson College 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 Dec 13 17 2018 1 291 LV 20 4 7 5 19 20 7 18 co Selzer CNN Des Moines Register Dec 10 13 2018 455 4 6 32 4 5 3 11 19 8 7 cp 6 David Binder Research Dec 10 11 2018 500 4 4 30 6 7 10 11 13 9 8 cq 6 David Binder Research 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 cs Mar 3 6 2017 1 062 17 3 11 34 ct 32 Results edit nbsp Final alignment popular vote share by county Buttigieg lt 30 Buttigieg 30 40 Buttigieg 40 50 Sanders lt 30 Sanders 30 40 Sanders 50 60 Warren lt 30 Warren 30 40 Biden lt 30 Biden 30 40 Klobuchar lt 30 Klobuchar 30 40 nbsp Final alignment popular vote share by congressional district Buttigieg lt 30 Sanders lt 30 nbsp Candidate vote shares This section needs to be updated Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information November 2020 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 40 41 42 some major news organizations refused to declare a winner until completion of a possible recanvass or recount 43 44 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 45 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 46 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 47 3 22 Candidate Initialalignment Finalalignment cu State delegateequivalents cv Pledgednationalconventiondelegates 48 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 51 but still 26 lower compared to the over 239 000 people who participated in the 2008 caucuses 52 Sanders won the popular vote on both the initial and the final alignments 53 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 54 Following the caucuses Buttigieg became the first openly LGBT candidate to win any pledged national convention delegates towards a major party s presidential nomination 55 Delay in final results editUp 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 56 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 57 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 58 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 59 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 60 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 61 62 63 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 64 65 66 67 Additionally the reported data had to be entered manually which took longer than expected 68 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 69 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 70 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 71 IowaRecorder app edit The app named IowaRecorder 72 was developed by Shadow Inc a majority owned subsidiary of Acronym 73 74 The company received money from the Biden Buttigieg and Kirsten Gillibrand campaigns for services distinct from the app 75 76 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 75 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 77 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 78 79 80 81 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 82 The app was also criticized for its lack of user friendliness and openness to potential hacks and data intercepts 83 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 84 Inconsistencies in votes editDuring 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 85 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 71 86 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 87 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 88 89 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 90 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 91 92 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 93 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 editAccording 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 94 Contrary to media belief in Biden s strength among non white voters 95 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 96 Some counties carried by Buttigieg such as Clinton County had swung from Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016 by double digits 94 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 97 Buttigieg declared victory before any official results were released 98 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 99 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 100 See also edit2020 Iowa Republican presidential caucusesFootnotes edit 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 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 48 49 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 48 49 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 48 49 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 48 49 To avoid the repeating fraction the procedure involves dividing the total number of caucusgoers by 6 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 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 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 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 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 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 Calculated by taking the difference of 100 and all other candidates combined Gabbard with 1 8 Bloomberg with 1 3 Bennet with 0 5 Patrick not reported Gabbard with 1 5 Bloomberg with 1 0 Bennet and Patrick not reported FiveThirtyEight aggregates polls with a trendline regression of polls rather than a strict average of recent polls Gabbard and Bloomberg with 1 2 Bennet with 0 4 Patrick with 0 1 Gabbard with 1 5 Bloomberg with 1 2 Bennet with 0 3 Patrick with 0 0 a b c Key A all adultsRV registered votersLV likely votersV unclear After reallocation of delegates from candidates estimated to not clear the viability threshold in each precinct Bloomberg with 2 a b c d e Data not yet released but all other candidates each have lt 5 If the contest came down to Biden and Sanders Bloomberg and Delaney with 1 Bennet and Patrick with 0 Bloomberg with 2 Bennet and Patrick with 0 others with 2 Re allocating support to second choice for candidates receiving lt 15 of first choice votes Bennet with 1 Delaney with 0 Bennet and Delaney with 0 Bloomberg with lt 1 If only the four candidates listed were viable in the voters caucus sites None of these won t caucus with 1 If only the six candidates listed were viable in the voters caucus sites None of these won t caucus with lt 1 Bennet with 1 Delaney and Patrick with 0 other with lt 1 no one with 0 Bloomberg and Delaney with 1 Bennet and Patrick with 0 Reported as Unsure Delaney with 1 Bennet and Patrick with 0 Someone Else with 1 Patrick with 0 2 Bennet and Delaney with 0 0 Other Please Specify with 0 4 Don t Know Refused with 13 If voters could choose only one of Biden Buttigieg Sanders or Warren Delaney and Patrick with 1 Bennet with 0 If the field is narrowed to these top four candidates Listed as don t know refused Bloomberg with 1 Bennet Delaney and Patrick with 0 Bennet Bloomberg and Delaney with 1 Patrick with 0 Delaney with 1 Bennet and Patrick with 0 someone else with 1 Bennet and Delaney with 0 Bennet and Bloomberg with 1 Delaney and Patrick with 0 Not listed separately from others Trump with 5 others with 2 If the only viable candidates to caucus for were the four listed in this poll None of these wouldn t vote with 2 Booker with 4 Bennet and Delaney with lt 1 Patrick with 0 Other with lt 1 Booker with 3 Bloomberg with 1 Bennet Castro Delaney Patrick and Williamson with 0 someone else with 1 Booker with 2 Bennet Castro Delaney Patrick and Williamson with 0 someone else with 1 Includes refused Booker with 3 Castro with 1 Delaney Bloomberg Bennet Williamson with 0 Booker with 4 Bloomberg with 2 Bennet Castro Delaney Patrick and Williamson with 0 someone else with 2 Bennet Bloomberg Booker Bullock Castro and Williamson with 1 Delaney Messam Patrick and Sestak with 0 Booker with 3 Bloomberg with 2 Bennet with 1 Bullock Castro Delaney Sestak and Williamson with 0 none with 2 Booker Bullock and Castro with 1 Messam Delaney Bennet Williamson and Sestak with 0 Someone else with 1 Booker with 2 Bullock and Castro with 1 Bennet Bloomberg Delaney and Williamson with lt 1 Sestak with 0 Castro with 1 Bennet Booker Bullock Delaney O Rourke and Ryan with 0 Bennett Booker Bullock and Castro with 1 Delaney Messam Sestak and Williamson with 0 Yang with 3 Gabbard and Steyer with 2 Delaney with 1 Bennet Bullock Castro Messam Sestak and Williamson with 0 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 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 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 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 a b The poll did not announce this result separately it is listed as part of Other Yang with 1 a different Democratic candidate don t know or refused with 25 Steyer with 3 Bennet Gabbard Williamson and Ryan with 1 Bullock Castro Delaney Messam Sestak and Yang with 0 someone else with 0 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 Steyer with 3 Yang with 2 Bullock Castro Delaney and Gabbard with 1 Bennet de Blasio Messam Ryan Sestak and Williamson with 0 Gabbard with 4 Yang with 3 Steyer with 2 Ryan and Williamson with 1 Bennet de Blasio Bullock Castro and Delaney with 0 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 Bullock Gabbard and Steyer with 2 Bennet Castro and Yang with 1 Delaney Gillibrand Hickenlooper Messam and Williamson with 0 Steyer with 3 Gillibrand and Yang with 2 Bullock Delaney Gabbard and Hickenlooper with 1 Bennet Castro Inslee O Rourke and Williamson with lt 1 de Blasio Messam Moulton Ryan and Sestak with 0 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 Castro Delaney Gabbard Gillibrand Inslee Swalwell and Yang with 1 Bennet Bullock Gravel Hickenlooper Moulton Ryan and Williamson with 0 Bennet Bullock Castro de Blasio Delaney Gabbard Gillibrand Williamson and Yang with 1 Hickenlooper Inslee Ryan and Swalwell with lt 1 Messam and Moulton with 0 others with lt 1 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 Delaney with 2 Castro Gabbard Gravel Moulton and Yang with 1 Bullock de Blasio Gillibrand Hickenlooper Inslee Messam Ryan Swalwell and Williamson with 0 Bennet Castro Delaney Gabbard Inslee and Yang with 1 Bullock Gillibrand Hickenlooper Moulton Ryan Swalwell and Williamson with lt 1 de Blasio and Messam with 0 Yang with 2 Abrams Delaney Gabbard Gillibrand Hickenlooper Inslee and Swalwell with 1 Bennet Bullock Castro Ryan and Williamson with 0 Delaney with 2 Gabbard Gillibrand Gravel Hickenlooper and Yang with 1 Castro and Inslee with 0 Castro with 2 Delaney Gillibrand Ryan Swalwell and Yang with 1 Bullock de Blasio Gabbard and Inslee with lt 1 Bennet Hickenlooper McAuliffe Messam Moulton and Williamson with 0 Delaney with 3 Castro Gabbard Gillibrand Inslee Swalwell and Yang with 1 Bullock Hickenlooper and Williamson with lt 1 Bennet and McAuliffe with 0 others with lt 1 Castro Gabbard Hickenlooper and Inslee with 1 Gillibrand and Yang with 0 others with 4 Poll sponsored by End Citizens United Bennet Bullock Castro Delaney and Inslee with 1 Bloomberg de Blasio Gabbard Gillibrand Hickenlooper Holder Swalwell Williamson and Yang with lt 1 Gillibrand with 1 Brown with 4 Castro with 2 Delaney and Gillibrand with 1 Gabbard and Yang with 0 others with 8 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 Bloomberg with 3 Brown Castro Delaney and Hickenlooper with 1 Bullock Garcetti Gillibrand Holder Inslee Steyer Swalwell and Yang with lt 1 Brown with 3 Bloomberg and Kerry with 2 Delaney with 1 Garcetti with 0 others with lt 1 Gillibrand and Holder with 2 Avenatti and Delaney with 1 Bullock Garcetti Landrieu and Patrick with lt 1 others with 1 Poll sponsored by O Say Can You See PAC the PAC that supported O Malley in 2016 O Malley with 18 Cuomo with 8 Castro and Sandberg with 4 Gillibrand with 3 Schultz with 1 Final vote after votes for candidates below the 15 viability threshold in each precinct are reallocated to other viable candidates The official results included four decimal digits 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 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 50 Per the Iowa Democratic Party official report 3 References edit 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 Susan Milligan Seth Cline January 27 2020 The Battleground States Iowa Caucuses U S News amp World Report Retrieved February 11 2020 a b c Iowa democratic Caucus Results Des Moines Register Retrieved July 15 2021 Iowa Democratic Party chair resigns after caucus fiasco NBC News February 12 2020 Retrieved February 13 2020 AP Explains Why isn t there a winner of Iowa s Dem caucuses AP February 10 2020 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 NBC News review of Iowa caucus vote finds potential errors inconsistencies NBC News February 7 2020 Agiesta Jennifer Merica Dan February 7 2020 CNN analysis shows errors in Iowa results count CNN Opsahl Robin Akin Katie February 6 2020 Des Moines Register others find inconsistencies errors in Iowa Democratic Party caucus data Des Moines Register 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 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 a b c Montellaro Zach February 10 2020 Sanders Buttigieg formally request Iowa recanvass Politico Retrieved February 10 2020 a b Brooke Singman February 12 2020 Iowa Democratic Party agrees to partial recanvass of caucuses Fox News Retrieved February 13 2020 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 a b Zach Montellaro February 18 2020 Buttigieg Sanders separated by thousandths of a point after Iowa recanvass Politico Retrieved February 19 2020 a b Zach Montellaro February 20 2020 Sanders Buttigieg request targeted recount in Iowa Politico Retrieved February 19 2020 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 a b Montellaro Zach February 21 2020 Iowa Democrats will recount more than 20 caucus precincts Politico Retrieved February 21 2020 a b Oates Trevor February 27 2020 Iowa Democratic Party announces results of caucus recount KWWL Retrieved February 28 2020 Rynard Pat February 27 2020 Final Iowa Caucus Results Pete Buttigieg Wins Iowa Starting Line Retrieved February 28 2020 a b AP Explains Why there isn t a winner of Iowa s Dem caucuses Associated Press February 29 2020 Retrieved August 30 2022 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 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 a b c d e f 2020 Iowa Democratic Party Caucus Caucus 101 Iowa Democratic Party Retrieved January 31 2020 a b Eva Mitchell January 3 2020 Delegate Apportionment 2020 Iowa Democratic Caucuses Iowa Democratic Party Retrieved February 21 2020 a b c d e f g h i 2020 Iowa Democratic Party Caucus Satellite caucuses Iowa Democratic Party Retrieved February 16 2020 a b c d e Iowa Democratic Delegation 2020 The Green Papers February 6 2020 Retrieved February 6 2020 Detrow Scott June 27 2018 DNC Officials Vote To Scale Back Role Of Superdelegates In Presidential Nomination NPR Retrieved May 26 2019 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 Domenico Montanaro January 30 2020 How The Iowa Caucuses Work And Why They re Important NPR Retrieved January 30 2020 a b Iowa Caucuses Key changes Iowa Democratic Party January 8 2020 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 Natasha Korecki August 30 2019 DNC throws Iowa Nevada caucuses into confusion Politico Retrieved January 21 2020 Natasha Korecki September 20 2019 Iowa Dems pitch out of state caucuses Politico Retrieved January 21 2020 Suzanne Gamboa January 30 2020 In a nod to Spanish speaking Latino voters Iowa caucus will feature bilingual sites NBC News Natasha Korecki Steven Shepard January 16 2020 The caucus change that has Iowa bracing for a hot mess Politico Retrieved January 21 2020 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 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 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 Bowden Ebony February 6 2020 Iowa Democratic Party chair ignores DNC calls for recount of caucus New York Post Retrieved February 7 2020 Blitzer Ronn February 6 2020 DNC chairman calls for recanvass of Iowa caucuses Fox News Retrieved February 7 2020 Helsel Phil February 7 2020 DNC chair calls for Iowa to recanvass caucus vote says enough is enough NBC News Retrieved February 7 2020 Iowa caucus results Buttigieg Sanders in a near tie with 100 of results published USA TODAY February 6 2020 Retrieved February 7 2020 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 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 Sides Sam February 25 2020 Iowa Democratic Party begins recount WOI DT Retrieved February 26 2020 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 a b c d e 2020 Presidential Primaries Caucuses and Conventions Iowa Democrat The Green Papers Retrieved July 4 2020 a b c d Iowa Democratic Party Announces Delegation to National Convention iowademocrats org June 13 2020 Retrieved August 20 2020 Gonyea Don February 14 2020 Mike Bloomberg Storms Super Tuesday States Pledging To Get It Done NPR Retrieved December 12 2021 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 Martelle Scott January 4 2008 Hunger for the White House energizes Democrats Los Angeles Times Retrieved May 5 2010 Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders are fighting for first place in the protracted Iowa caucus count Politico February 6 2020 Retrieved February 7 2020 Biden vows to press on despite Iowa gut punch BBC February 6 2020 Retrieved February 7 2020 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 Results in Iowa Caucuses Are Delayed Live Updates The New York Times February 4 2020 ISSN 0362 4331 Retrieved February 4 2020 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 Meg Magner Amanda Wills February 3 2020 Iowa Democrats say there are inconsistencies in the reporting of results CNN Retrieved February 4 2020 Forgey Quint February 4 2020 Bernie and Buttigieg elbow each other trying to declare victory in Iowa Politico Retrieved February 4 2020 Evon Dan February 10 2020 Did Trolls Try to Clog Phone Lines After Iowa Caucuses Snopes Retrieved February 12 2020 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 Confusion and embarrassment in Iowa What went wrong and what happens next CBS News February 4 2020 Retrieved February 9 2020 Murphy Erin February 4 2020 Iowa precinct leaders describe issues reporting caucus results Sioux City Journal Retrieved February 9 2020 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 Relman Eliza Frias Lauren Trump supporters intentionally swarmed the Iowa caucus phone lines to delay the results Business Insider Retrieved February 9 2020 Tyler Pager Jennifer Epstein February 7 2020 Trump Fans Flooded Iowa Caucus Hotline Democrats Say Bloomberg News Retrieved February 7 2020 Raymond Adam K February 6 2020 Iowa Dems Pro Trump Trolls Clogged Phones Lines Worsening Caucus Debacle Intelligencer Retrieved February 9 2020 Quinn Scanlan Kendall Karson Meg Cunningham Iowa caucus What we know and what went wrong ABC News Retrieved February 4 2020 READ Iowa Democratic Party statement on caucus reporting CNN February 4 2020 Retrieved February 4 2020 Iowa Democratic Party Says Coding Issue Delayed Results Live Updates The New York Times February 4 2020 ISSN 0362 4331 Retrieved February 4 2020 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 Nick Statt February 5 2020 Motherboard just published the terrible app that caused chaos at the Iowa caucuses The Verge Retrieved February 6 2020 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 a href Template Cite web html title Template Cite web cite web a CS1 maint multiple names authors list link About ACRONYM February 4 2020 Archived from the original on February 4 2020 Retrieved May 14 2020 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 Matt Stieb February 4 2020 Iowa Results 2020 Live Updates New York Retrieved February 4 2020 Michael Biesecker and Brian Slodysko February 5 2020 Maker of glitchy Iowa caucus app has Democratic Party ties Associated Press Retrieved February 7 2020 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 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 Marantz Andrew February 6 2020 Inside Acronym the Tech Consultancy Behind the Disastrous Iowa Caucus App The New Yorker Retrieved February 6 2020 Garrison Joey Bernie Sanders declares decisive victory in Iowa caucuses rips results reporting screw up USA Today Retrieved February 6 2020 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 Jack Gillum Jessica Huseman February 5 2020 The Iowa Caucuses App Had Another Problem It Could Have Been Hacked ProPublica Retrieved February 5 2020 Rushing Ty February 4 2020 Trump triumphs in Sheldon Dems up in air The N West Iowa REVIEW Retrieved April 28 2022 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 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 Seitz Amanda Klepper David February 5 2020 Online conspiracy theories flourish after Iowa caucus fiasco The Associated Press Retrieved February 6 2020 Stanley Becker Issac February 6 2020 DNC chair calls for recanvass in Iowa The Washington Post Retrieved February 6 2020 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 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 Johnson Jake Beyond Absurd DNC Chair Tom Perez Demands Recanvass of Iowa Caucus Before Results Fully Reported Common Dreams Retrieved February 7 2020 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 Gabriel Trip February 9 2020 Iowa Democrats won t correct errors on caucus tally sheets emails show Chicago Tribune Retrieved February 28 2020 a b Iowa Caucuses Results 2020 CNN February 7 2020 Retrieved February 8 2020 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 Iowa Caucus Who Different Groups Supported The New York Times February 3 2020 Retrieved February 17 2020 Bernal Rafael February 7 2020 Analysis Sanders ran the table with Latinos in Iowa The Hill Retrieved February 8 2020 Stracqualursi Veronica Cole Devan February 4 2020 Pete Buttigieg claimed victory in Iowa before any results were reported CNN Retrieved February 3 2021 Rakich Nathaniel February 7 2020 Election Update Buttigieg Is Rising In New Hampshire FiveThirtyEight Retrieved February 8 2020 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 External links editThe Green Papers delegate allocation summary Iowa Democratic Party draft delegate selection plan Archived January 11 2020 at the Wayback Machine FiveThirtyEight Iowa caucus poll tracker Des Moines Register Iowa candidate tracker Iowa s caucus app was a disaster waiting to happen Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title 2020 Iowa Democratic presidential caucuses amp oldid 1208334819, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,

article

, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games.