fivethirtyeight--2020-01-31--Election Update: Is Klobuchar Having A Last-Minute Surge In Iowa?

To quote Buffalo Springfield , “ there ’ s something happening here , but what it is ain ’ t exactly clear.
” What is clear , though , is that Sen. Amy Klobuchar ’ s poll numbers are on the rise in Iowa — she ’ s now at 10 percent in our Iowa polling average , and her chances of winning the most votes in Iowa have ticked up to 3 percent in our primary forecast .
That ’ s quite the last-minute surge , considering she was polling at 6 percent just a little over a week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still several points behind Sen. Bernie Sanders , former Vice President Joe Biden , former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg , and Sen. Elizabeth Warren , so don ’ t read too much into this yet .
That said , the Iowa caucuses are known for last minute surprises , and our forecast reflects this uncertainty : Not a single candidate has more than a 37 percent chance of winning the most votes in Iowa ( Sanders ) .
And Klobuchar has picked up some really good polls in Iowa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seven of the nine polls we ’ ve gotten since Sunday .
Two of those polls dropped today and held especially good news for Klobuchar : • First , Park Street Strategies , a liberal public relations firm , found a four-way crunch at the top , with Biden at 20 percent , Sanders at 18 percent and both Buttigieg and Warren at 17 percent .
But not far behind was Klobuchar , who scored 12 percent in the poll , which is also roughly where Emerson College and Morningside College put her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also was tied for second with Biden in that poll as the top second-choice option for caucusgoers with 16 percent , behind Warren ’ s 21 percent .
This could benefit Klobuchar during realignment if voters ’ first choices fall short of the viability threshold — usually 15 percent — at their respective caucus site and they have to switch to a new candidate .
• American Research Group also offered its first take on Iowa this cycle and found Klobuchar in third place with 16 percent .
This put her behind Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s 17 percent , but ahead of Warren ’ s 15 percent and Buttigieg ’ s 9 percent .
But don ’ t read too much into this one survey .
Primary polling is inherently tricky , and ARG , in particular , has faced some criticism in the past .
But taken together with other Iowa polls that have dropped this week , we can ’ t dismiss the possibility that Klobuchar is having a last-minute rise that could put her in contention to finish better than fifth , where she ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while now .
And a higher-placed finish could have long-term ramifications if it keeps Klobuchar in the race well beyond Iowa and hurts someone else ’ s standing in the process .
A late surge for a candidate in Iowa wouldn ’ t be unprecedented either .
Some notable past shifts include the 2004 Democratic race , in which John Kerry and John Edwards ended up capturing 38 and 32 percent of the vote , respectively , after polling at 24 and 19 percent going into the caucuses .
And then , of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contest , when Rick Santorum made a remarkably late push and actually won the caucuses with around 25 percent support despite polling at 13 percent going into caucus night .
( It took a couple of weeks for the voting count disputes to settle . )
So we ’ ll be very interested to see whether the final survey from Selzer & Co. on behalf of CNN , the Des Moines Register and Mediacom also shows a notable improvement for Klobuchar tomorrow .
( She was at 6 percent in their last survey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polls , too , could show more Klob-mentum — or tamp it down .
But for the moment , it does look like there ’ s something to Klobuchar ’ s upswing in the polls , and it ’ s a reminder that Iowa still is pretty wide open .

To quote Buffalo Springfield, “there’s something happening here, but what it is ain’t exactly clear.” What is clear, though, is that Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s poll numbers are on the rise in Iowa — she’s now at 10 percent in our Iowa polling average, and her chances of winning the most votes in Iowa have ticked up to 3 percent in our primary forecast.
[Our Latest Forecast: Who will win the Iowa caucuses?]
That’s quite the last-minute surge, considering she was polling at 6 percent just a little over a week ago, but she’s also still several points behind Sen. Bernie Sanders, former Vice President Joe Biden, former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, so don’t read too much into this yet. That said, the Iowa caucuses are known for last minute surprises, and our forecast reflects this uncertainty: Not a single candidate has more than a 37 percent chance of winning the most votes in Iowa (Sanders).
And Klobuchar has picked up some really good polls in Iowa this week, breaking the double-digits in seven of the nine polls we’ve gotten since Sunday. Two of those polls dropped today and held especially good news for Klobuchar:
First, Park Street Strategies, a liberal public relations firm, found a four-way crunch at the top, with Biden at 20 percent, Sanders at 18 percent and both Buttigieg and Warren at 17 percent. But not far behind was Klobuchar, who scored 12 percent in the poll, which is also roughly where Emerson College and Morningside College put her earlier this week. Notably, she also was tied for second with Biden in that poll as the top second-choice option for caucusgoers with 16 percent, behind Warren’s 21 percent. This could benefit Klobuchar during realignment if voters’ first choices fall short of the viability threshold — usually 15 percent — at their respective caucus site and they have to switch to a new candidate.
American Research Group also offered its first take on Iowa this cycle and found Klobuchar in third place with 16 percent. This put her behind Sanders’s 23 percent and Biden’s 17 percent, but ahead of Warren’s 15 percent and Buttigieg’s 9 percent. But don’t read too much into this one survey. Primary polling is inherently tricky, and ARG, in particular, has faced some criticism in the past.
But taken together with other Iowa polls that have dropped this week, we can’t dismiss the possibility that Klobuchar is having a last-minute rise that could put her in contention to finish better than fifth, where she’s been ranked in Iowa for a while now. And a higher-placed finish could have long-term ramifications if it keeps Klobuchar in the race well beyond Iowa and hurts someone else’s standing in the process.
A late surge for a candidate in Iowa wouldn’t be unprecedented either. Some notable past shifts include the 2004 Democratic race, in which John Kerry and John Edwards ended up capturing 38 and 32 percent of the vote, respectively, after polling at 24 and 19 percent going into the caucuses. And then, of course, there is the 2012 GOP contest, when Rick Santorum made a remarkably late push and actually won the caucuses with around 25 percent support despite polling at 13 percent going into caucus night. (It took a couple of weeks for the voting count disputes to settle.)
[Our Latest Forecast: Who Will Win The 2020 Democratic Primary?]
So we’ll be very interested to see whether the final survey from Selzer & Co. on behalf of CNN, the Des Moines Register and Mediacom also shows a notable improvement for Klobuchar tomorrow. (She was at 6 percent in their last survey from earlier this month.) Other polls, too, could show more Klob-mentum — or tamp it down. But for the moment, it does look like there’s something to Klobuchar’s upswing in the polls, and it’s a reminder that Iowa still is pretty wide open.


fivethirtyeight--2020-01-31--The Senate Votes Against Witnesses In Trump’s Impeachment Trial

The U.S. Senate on Friday evening voted down consideration of additional witnesses in President Trump ’ s impeachment trial .
The chamber is now very likely to vote to acquit Trump , although it ’ s not clear if that vote will happen in the next 24-48 hours or sometime next week .
The vote , 51-49 against witnesses , was mostly along party lines .
Just two Republican senators , Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah and Sen. Susan Collins of Maine , joined the 47 Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents in favor of hearing from witnesses .
The other 51 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s long been assumed that the Senate will vote to acquit Trump .
But it wasn ’ t clear whether Republicans could hold an impeachment trial that both ended relatively quickly and didn ’ t do much damage to Trump electorally .
Witnesses would both lengthen the trial and increase the possibility of compelling details being unearthed that might make the president and his aides look bad .
It therefore looked from the start of the trial like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Republicans would work to avoid including witness testimony .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Sunday night that former national security adviser John Bolton described in his upcoming book that Trump personally told him of the strategy to delay military aid to Ukraine unless the Ukrainians investigated the Bidens .
In light of that news , it seemed for at least a couple of days this week more plausible that four or more Republicans might back witnesses .
By Friday , though , Republicans had largely unified against witnesses , with Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee saying that Bolton ’ s testimony was unneeded .
Alexander argued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had tied military aid to Ukraine investigating one of his political rivals .
But the Tennessee senator said that he didn ’ t view such conduct as justifying Trump ’ s removal from office .
Now , the only real question is when Trump will be officially acquitted — late on Friday night , Saturday or next week .
Republicans appear to have wrapped up the Senate part of the impeachment process in less than three weeks — without giving a public forum to Bolton or anyone else who might be critical of @ @ @

Perry Bacon Jr. (perry.bacon@fivethirtyeight.com)

The U.S. Senate on Friday evening voted down consideration of additional witnesses in President Trump’s impeachment trial. The chamber is now very likely to vote to acquit Trump, although it’s not clear if that vote will happen in the next 24-48 hours or sometime next week.
The vote, 51-49 against witnesses, was mostly along party lines. Just two Republican senators, Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah and Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, joined the 47 Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents in favor of hearing from witnesses. The other 51 Republicans opposed the motion.
It’s long been assumed that the Senate will vote to acquit Trump. But it wasn’t clear whether Republicans could hold an impeachment trial that both ended relatively quickly and didn’t do much damage to Trump electorally. Witnesses would both lengthen the trial and increase the possibility of compelling details being unearthed that might make the president and his aides look bad.
It therefore looked from the start of the trial like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Republicans would work to avoid including witness testimony. But then The New York Times reported on Sunday night that former national security adviser John Bolton described in his upcoming book that Trump personally told him of the strategy to delay military aid to Ukraine unless the Ukrainians investigated the Bidens. In light of that news, it seemed for at least a couple of days this week more plausible that four or more Republicans might back witnesses. By Friday, though, Republicans had largely unified against witnesses, with Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee saying that Bolton’s testimony was unneeded. Alexander argued there was already clear evidence that Trump had tied military aid to Ukraine investigating one of his political rivals. But the Tennessee senator said that he didn’t view such conduct as justifying Trump’s removal from office.
Now, the only real question is when Trump will be officially acquitted — late on Friday night, Saturday or next week. Republicans appear to have wrapped up the Senate part of the impeachment process in less than three weeks — without giving a public forum to Bolton or anyone else who might be critical of President Trump.


fivethirtyeight--2020-01-31--John Delaney Is 2020’s Latest Also-Ran

John Delaney Is 2020’s Latest Also-Ran

On Friday , despite being just days away from the Iowa caucuses , John Delaney announced that he ’ s calling it quits .
The timing of his dropout is somewhat curious , too — not because he had a serious chance of winning Iowa ( far from it ) — but because he had made visiting Iowa ( all 99 counties , in fact ) a cornerstone of his long shot , quixotic bid that he first launched way , way back in July 2017 .
( No , that ’ s not a typo . )
In his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his decision rested on “ internal analyses ” that suggested he would not meet the viability threshold — typically 15 percent — at most caucus sites , but that he might get just enough support to keep other more moderate Democrats from reaching that mark .
That last point is debatable , because it ’ s not clear how many Iowans would have backed Delaney in the first round of voting , but it doesn ’ t take much digging to see he was coming up short in Iowa — our Iowa polling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent yesterday — and as you can see in the chart below , that ’ s where he languished for much of his presidential run .
In fact , most Democratic voters didn ’ t even know who Delaney was .
In a recent average of national polls that asked Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters whether they had a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the candidates , less than 40 percent of Democrats knew enough about Delaney to have an opinion of him .
( This was also true of other long shot candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gov .
Deval Patrick . )
Delaney did have millions at his disposal to self-fund his bid , which probably helped him stay in the race longer than some other also-rans , but unlike billionaire former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and billionaire activist Tom Steyer , his ample cash reserves didn ’ t help him make headway in the race .
But like Bloomberg , he was running as a moderate candidate .
In fact , Delaney ’ s attempt to contrast himself with the progressives in the field during the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him his one big “ moment ” in the race .
It ultimately didn ’ t help his poll numbers , but in that debate he got a lot of airtime attacking the Medicare-for-all health care plans of Sens .
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren , illustrating a major division between the moderate and progressive “ lanes ” of the Democratic Party .
Delaney ’ s campaign arguably never had much of a shot , but his candidacy does reflect the wide-open , “ why not me ” view that has defined much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ large field .
But at just 56 years old , this probably isn ’ t the end of Delaney ’ s political career .
Even before he decided to run for president he was mentioned as a possible candidate for the 2018 Maryland gubernatorial race , and reports suggest that he ’ s now eyeing a 2022 run there .

On Friday, despite being just days away from the Iowa caucuses, John Delaney announced that he’s calling it quits. The timing of his dropout is somewhat curious, too — not because he had a serious chance of winning Iowa (far from it) — but because he had made visiting Iowa (all 99 counties, in fact) a cornerstone of his long shot, quixotic bid that he first launched way, way back in July 2017. (No, that’s not a typo.)
In his announcement to withdraw, Delaney said that his decision rested on “internal analyses” that suggested he would not meet the viability threshold — typically 15 percent — at most caucus sites, but that he might get just enough support to keep other more moderate Democrats from reaching that mark.
That last point is debatable, because it’s not clear how many Iowans would have backed Delaney in the first round of voting, but it doesn’t take much digging to see he was coming up short in Iowa — our Iowa polling average put him at less than 1 percent yesterday — and as you can see in the chart below, that’s where he languished for much of his presidential run.
In fact, most Democratic voters didn’t even know who Delaney was. In a recent average of national polls that asked Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters whether they had a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the candidates, less than 40 percent of Democrats knew enough about Delaney to have an opinion of him. (This was also true of other long shot candidates like Sen. Michael Bennet and former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick.)
Delaney did have millions at his disposal to self-fund his bid, which probably helped him stay in the race longer than some other also-rans, but unlike billionaire former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and billionaire activist Tom Steyer, his ample cash reserves didn’t help him make headway in the race. But like Bloomberg, he was running as a moderate candidate. In fact, Delaney’s attempt to contrast himself with the progressives in the field during the second Democratic debate in July maybe gave him his one big “moment” in the race. It ultimately didn’t help his poll numbers, but in that debate he got a lot of airtime attacking the Medicare-for-all health care plans of Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, illustrating a major division between the moderate and progressive “lanes” of the Democratic Party.
[Our Latest Forecast: Who Will Win The 2020 Democratic Primary?]
Delaney’s campaign arguably never had much of a shot, but his candidacy does reflect the wide-open, “why not me” view that has defined much of the 2020 campaign with its historically large field. But at just 56 years old, this probably isn’t the end of Delaney’s political career. Even before he decided to run for president he was mentioned as a possible candidate for the 2018 Maryland gubernatorial race, and reports suggest that he’s now eyeing a 2022 run there.
Which Democratic candidate had the biggest surge in popularity?


fivethirtyeight--2020-01-31--Why New Mexico Elects More Women Of Color Than The Rest Of The Country

When Angelica Rubio was a little girl growing up near the border between New Mexico and Mexico , she had a dream that was both grand and circumscribed : She wanted to be governor of her state .
“ I grew up thinking about political power and what it meant — every year my family would watch the president ’ s State of the Union address and I would translate it for my parents , ” Rubio said .
“ Most kids were probably dreaming about being president but for some reason , being governor of New Mexico seemed like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Rubio , who identifies as Chicanx , hasn ’ t made it to the governor ’ s mansion — yet .
She was elected to the state legislature in 2016 , and said she ’ ll be running for a third term this year .
But Rubio ’ s childhood goal , as lofty as it seems , might be more achievable for a woman of color from New Mexico than any other state in the union .
According to Rutgers University ’ s Center for American Women and Politics , two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have ever been elected governor are from New Mexico , including the current governor , Michelle Lujan Grisham .
( You can hear more about Lujan Grisham ’ s thoughts about what it ’ s like to run for office as a woman in FiveThirtyEight ’ s “ When Women Run ” project . )
Likewise , nearly one-third of the women of color who have served in any statewide executive office — a category that includes lieutenant governor , secretary of state and other posts that frequently serve as stepping stones to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It also has a relatively high percentage of women of color in the state legislature , compared to other states : 16 percent of statehouse seats are held by non-white women , a share topped by only five other states .
These disparities might seem like a fluke — a strange political accident that made New Mexico into an especially friendly place for women of color who want to run the state .
But experts and New Mexico politicians alike told me that there ’ s no secret recipe .
Instead , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on each other to help boost the electoral prospects of women of color : • A long history of women of color serving in lower-level statewide offices ; • Large shares of Latinos and Native Americans in the state electorate ; • Shifting political winds that have turned the state bluer ; • A recent concerted effort to get more women of color to run for office .
There are 20 states — including some of the nation ’ s biggest , like California and New York — that have never been led @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , meanwhile , have never had a woman of color serve in any statewide office , and New Mexico is one of only 11 states in which women of color have held multiple statewide offices .
But when it comes to political leadership by women of color , New Mexico has pretty much always been a pioneer .
Women of color have been serving in elected office in New Mexico for almost as long as the state has existed , starting with Soledad Chávez Chacón , who was elected secretary of state in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mexico was admitted as the country ’ s 47th state .
Before Chacon ’ s election , New Mexico had been among the more politically conservative states in the West when it came to women ’ s suffrage , refusing to extend women the right to vote until after the passage of the 19th Amendment .
But after Chacón was elected , New Mexican women — including women of color — continued to ascend into political leadership .
The position of secretary of state was held by a Latina throughout the 1930s , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state legislature between 1922 and 1934 .
That kind of long history can help women in several different ways : It provides political role models for women thinking about running for office , and makes the idea of women holding positions that are traditionally associated with masculine characteristics feel more normal .
Studies have shown that voters more readily elect women to serve in roles that are inherently collaborative , like legislator , perhaps because it fits more neatly with gendered stereotypes about women ’ s strengths and weaknesses .
The traits that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ roles like governor — like assertiveness or decisiveness — run directly counter to gendered expectations about women , which can make it even harder for women to be taken seriously as candidates when they run for those positions .
“ It ’ s powerful if you can just get voters used to seeing women ’ s names on the ballot for statewide leadership roles , ” said Jason Windett , a political science professor at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte who studies gender and state politics .
For many years , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only to one statewide role in New Mexico — secretary of state .
That didn ’ t change until more than 70 years after Chacón was elected .
Christine Sierra , a professor emeritus at the University of New Mexico who studies gender , race and politics , doesn ’ t think it ’ s an accident that for decades the de facto position for female leaders was a role that includes the word “ secretary ” in the title .
“ We might have had women in leadership for a long time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that was clearly acceptable for them , ” she said .
But in recent years there has been a breakthrough , Sierra and others told me , fueled by the fact that New Mexico is a state dominated by racial minorities — in particular , Latinos and Native Americans .
According to the Census Bureau , nearly half of New Mexico ’ s population is Latino or Hispanic and an additional 11 percent is American Indian or Alaska Native , making it one of the few states in which a majority of its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in particular has grown over the past few decades , meaning a Chicanx or Latina candidate like Rubio or Stephanie Garcia Richard , who was elected as the first female state land commissioner in 2018 , share a similar ethnic background as a decent chunk of the state .
In her 2018 campaign , Garcia Richard said , she deliberately emphasized her family history as a way of showing her connections to different local communities .
“ I ’ m half Hispanic , half Anglo , from a ranching family with ties to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” she said .
“ I wanted voters to understand all of the ways my candidacy reflects New Mexico as a place.
” New Mexico politics has also become increasingly dominated by Democrats , which may have helped some women of color , as women of color are disproportionately likely to run — and win — on the Democratic side of the ticket .
But recruiting women of color has also become a higher priority for groups that aim to propel more women into elected office , like Emerge , a national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Mexico in 2005 .
Ashley Sanderson , Emerge New Mexico ’ s executive director , says that over the past 14 years , 350 women — including Rubio and Garcia Richard — have gone through their six-month training program .
Of those , over half have run for office .
And according to Sanderson , over half of the program members are also women of color .
And according to research by Sierra and others , simply getting women of color to throw their hat in the ring is a crucial step @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they win at higher rates than either white women or minority men .
“ It was something of a surprising finding because women and people of color are both at the margins in politics , ” she said .
“ So you might expect women of color to have two strikes against them .
Instead , we found that in many cases , that dual identity is actually an advantage.
” Windett said that he wouldn ’ t be surprised if the trend toward electing more women of color in New Mexico accelerates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that two Latina women have served back-to-back as governor .
“ Unlike a member of Congress , the governor is an extremely visible and powerful figure who is also in the state seven days a week , ” Windett said .
“ That means if the governor is a woman who wants to encourage more women to participate , she can have an outsize influence on candidate recruitment , fundraising , building networks of women in politics.
” None of this means that New Mexico is a political utopia for women of color @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my gender every time I walk past a wall of pictures of people who have held my office , because it ’ s just one long row of men , ” Garcia Richard said .
When she started her job last year , Garcia Richard said that she took pains to fill her leadership team with women , but added , “ Our expertise is constantly questioned — mine and theirs.
” But she thinks that despite these challenges , voters in her state and others want more leaders like her — which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continue to elect more women of color , but also eventually cease to be an outlier .
“ Voters really want to see people who look like them , who share their experiences , in positions of power , ” she said .
“ We may be ahead of the curve here in New Mexico , but we don ’ t have a monopoly on that hunger.
” Want more coverage of women in politics ?
Explore our oral history project , “ When Women Run .
”

When Angelica Rubio was a little girl growing up near the border between New Mexico and Mexico, she had a dream that was both grand and circumscribed: She wanted to be governor of her state. “I grew up thinking about political power and what it meant — every year my family would watch the president’s State of the Union address and I would translate it for my parents,” Rubio said. “Most kids were probably dreaming about being president but for some reason, being governor of New Mexico seemed like the right amount of power for me.”
Rubio, who identifies as Chicanx, hasn’t made it to the governor’s mansion — yet. She was elected to the state legislature in 2016, and said she’ll be running for a third term this year. But Rubio’s childhood goal, as lofty as it seems, might be more achievable for a woman of color from New Mexico than any other state in the union. According to Rutgers University’s Center for American Women and Politics, two of the three women of color who have ever been elected governor are from New Mexico, including the current governor, Michelle Lujan Grisham. (You can hear more about Lujan Grisham’s thoughts about what it’s like to run for office as a woman in FiveThirtyEight’s “When Women Run” project.)
Likewise, nearly one-third of the women of color who have served in any statewide executive office — a category that includes lieutenant governor, secretary of state and other posts that frequently serve as stepping stones to the governorship — are from New Mexico. It also has a relatively high percentage of women of color in the state legislature, compared to other states: 16 percent of statehouse seats are held by non-white women, a share topped by only five other states.
These disparities might seem like a fluke — a strange political accident that made New Mexico into an especially friendly place for women of color who want to run the state. But experts and New Mexico politicians alike told me that there’s no secret recipe. Instead, there are four main factors that built on each other to help boost the electoral prospects of women of color:
A long history of women of color serving in lower-level statewide offices; Large shares of Latinos and Native Americans in the state electorate; Shifting political winds that have turned the state bluer; A recent concerted effort to get more women of color to run for office.
There are 20 states — including some of the nation’s biggest, like California and New York — that have never been led by a female governor. Twenty-seven states, meanwhile, have never had a woman of color serve in any statewide office, and New Mexico is one of only 11 states in which women of color have held multiple statewide offices.
But when it comes to political leadership by women of color, New Mexico has pretty much always been a pioneer. Women of color have been serving in elected office in New Mexico for almost as long as the state has existed, starting with Soledad Chávez Chacón, who was elected secretary of state in 1922 — only a decade after New Mexico was admitted as the country’s 47th state. Before Chacon’s election, New Mexico had been among the more politically conservative states in the West when it came to women’s suffrage, refusing to extend women the right to vote until after the passage of the 19th Amendment. But after Chacón was elected, New Mexican women — including women of color — continued to ascend into political leadership. The position of secretary of state was held by a Latina throughout the 1930s, and 17 women were elected to the state legislature between 1922 and 1934.
That kind of long history can help women in several different ways: It provides political role models for women thinking about running for office, and makes the idea of women holding positions that are traditionally associated with masculine characteristics feel more normal. Studies have shown that voters more readily elect women to serve in roles that are inherently collaborative, like legislator, perhaps because it fits more neatly with gendered stereotypes about women’s strengths and weaknesses. The traits that tend to be prized in executive leadership roles like governor — like assertiveness or decisiveness — run directly counter to gendered expectations about women, which can make it even harder for women to be taken seriously as candidates when they run for those positions. “It’s powerful if you can just get voters used to seeing women’s names on the ballot for statewide leadership roles,” said Jason Windett, a political science professor at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte who studies gender and state politics.
For many years, though, women of color were elected only to one statewide role in New Mexico — secretary of state. That didn’t change until more than 70 years after Chacón was elected. Christine Sierra, a professor emeritus at the University of New Mexico who studies gender, race and politics, doesn’t think it’s an accident that for decades the de facto position for female leaders was a role that includes the word “secretary” in the title. “We might have had women in leadership for a long time, but there was one specific place that was clearly acceptable for them,” she said.
But in recent years there has been a breakthrough, Sierra and others told me, fueled by the fact that New Mexico is a state dominated by racial minorities — in particular, Latinos and Native Americans. According to the Census Bureau, nearly half of New Mexico’s population is Latino or Hispanic and an additional 11 percent is American Indian or Alaska Native, making it one of the few states in which a majority of its residents are non-white. The Latino population in particular has grown over the past few decades, meaning a Chicanx or Latina candidate like Rubio or Stephanie Garcia Richard, who was elected as the first female state land commissioner in 2018, share a similar ethnic background as a decent chunk of the state. In her 2018 campaign, Garcia Richard said, she deliberately emphasized her family history as a way of showing her connections to different local communities. “I’m half Hispanic, half Anglo, from a ranching family with ties to southwestern and eastern parts of the state,” she said. “I wanted voters to understand all of the ways my candidacy reflects New Mexico as a place.”
New Mexico politics has also become increasingly dominated by Democrats, which may have helped some women of color, as women of color are disproportionately likely to run — and win — on the Democratic side of the ticket. But recruiting women of color has also become a higher priority for groups that aim to propel more women into elected office, like Emerge, a national Democratic organization that opened an office in New Mexico in 2005. Ashley Sanderson, Emerge New Mexico’s executive director, says that over the past 14 years, 350 women — including Rubio and Garcia Richard — have gone through their six-month training program. Of those, over half have run for office. And according to Sanderson, over half of the program members are also women of color.
And according to research by Sierra and others, simply getting women of color to throw their hat in the ring is a crucial step, because when they do run, they win at higher rates than either white women or minority men. “It was something of a surprising finding because women and people of color are both at the margins in politics,” she said. “So you might expect women of color to have two strikes against them. Instead, we found that in many cases, that dual identity is actually an advantage.”
Windett said that he wouldn’t be surprised if the trend toward electing more women of color in New Mexico accelerates in 2020 and beyond — particularly now that two Latina women have served back-to-back as governor. “Unlike a member of Congress, the governor is an extremely visible and powerful figure who is also in the state seven days a week,” Windett said. “That means if the governor is a woman who wants to encourage more women to participate, she can have an outsize influence on candidate recruitment, fundraising, building networks of women in politics.”
None of this means that New Mexico is a political utopia for women of color. “I’m reminded of my gender every time I walk past a wall of pictures of people who have held my office, because it’s just one long row of men,” Garcia Richard said. When she started her job last year, Garcia Richard said that she took pains to fill her leadership team with women, but added, “Our expertise is constantly questioned — mine and theirs.”
But she thinks that despite these challenges, voters in her state and others want more leaders like her — which means she hopes that New Mexico will continue to elect more women of color, but also eventually cease to be an outlier. “Voters really want to see people who look like them, who share their experiences, in positions of power,” she said. “We may be ahead of the curve here in New Mexico, but we don’t have a monopoly on that hunger.”
Want more coverage of women in politics? Explore our oral history project, “When Women Run.”


fivethirtyeight--2020-01-31--What You Should Know About Primaries And Caucuses

Both primaries and caucuses are ways to choose a party ’ s presidential nominee .
But in practice , they @ @ @ @ @ host Galen Druke explains how each method works .
For a deep dive into our @ @ @ @ @ The Primaries Project on the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast .

What You Should Know About Primaries And Caucuses
CORRECTION (Feb. 3, 4:13 p.m.): An earlier version of this video inaccurately depicted the way votes are realigned at the Iowa caucuses. While we work to correct the error, we’ve taken the video down.
Both primaries and caucuses are ways to choose a party’s presidential nominee. But in practice, they operate quite differently. Podcast host Galen Druke explains how each method works.
For a deep dive into our primary system, listen to The Primaries Project on the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast.


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-04--Iowa Caucuses 2020: Live Updates And Analysis

Search
No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-03--89 Different Scenarios For What Things Could Look Like After Iowa

Maybe you ’ ve seen articles elsewhere detailing the three or four most likely post-Iowa scenarios , full of elegantly-constructed narratives about how the race might unfold .
This article … is not going to be like that .
Rather , it ’ s just going to be a bunch of rather detailed tables generated by our forecast model , outlining what the Democratic nomination race could look like given the order candidates finish in Iowa and the margins of victory .
We hope they ’ re useful for detail-oriented readers over the course of the evening .
First up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the post-Iowa odds a candidate has of winning a national delegate majority given who won Iowa and his or her margin of victory .
Specifically , we ’ re defining a “ narrow ” win as anything less than 4 percentage points over the second-place candidate , a “ medium ” win as 4 to 12 percentage points , and a “ large ” win as more than 12 percentage points .
We haven ’ t listed scenarios if they occurred less than 0.5 percent of the time ( at least 50 out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ model run .
Keep in mind that there is some noise in these numbers ; we ’ ll run a full set of simulations late Monday night or Tuesday morning once we have the caucus results .
The most definitive outcome of the night — albeit a somewhat unlikely one — would be a Joe Biden landslide , which would put his majority chances at 84 percent .
Even a narrow Biden win would leave his opponents in fairly bad shape , though .
For a Bernie Sanders win , the margin matters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win could boost his chances of winning the delegate majority to above 50 percent .
A narrow win might leave him as the front-runner , but would keep things more competitive .
Wins by candidates other than Biden or Sanders — meaning , Elizbeth Warren , Pete Buttigieg or Amy Klobuchar — would scramble the picture , significantly increasing the chance of no one winning a delegate majority , possibly meaning a contested convention .
Of course , any of these candidates winning Iowa would also massively improve their own chances overall .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in other states that they ’ d still have some work to do .
For instance , a medium-sized Warren win would give her about a 1-in-3 chance of winning the majority , with Biden also at 1-in-3 and Sanders ’ s chances significantly diminished but not hopeless .
To add a layer of complication , here ’ s what you get if you specify the margin of victory and also who the second-place candidate is : You can see that Sanders and Biden generally wouldn ’ t mind if Buttigieg or Klobuchar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are the furthest behind in national polls .
Another fun scenario from the table is what happens if the polls are exactly right , resulting in a narrow Sanders victory with Biden in second place .
That would make Sanders the front-runner overall , but not by much , with a 44 percent chance versus 37 percent for Biden .
Buttigieg and Warren finishing first and second in some order would produce the most chaotic outcomes , with at least four candidates still having a plausible shot at the nomination and the “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possible .
Finally , here is a chart showing post-Iowa outcomes based on the order of finish of the top three candidates .
I ’ m going to drop the margin of victory criteria for this one since that produces too many scenarios to keep track of .
This isn ’ t uncovering too much that you couldn ’ t have gleaned from the other charts , but note that Biden ’ s chances could fall to as low as 13 percent in some scenarios if he finishes outside the top 3 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Klobuchar really need a win outright , as they remain far behind the front-runners in national polls .
Finishing a solid second in Iowa might leave open some possibility of their winning the nomination after a long slog , perhaps at a contested convention .
But it would make winning via the majority route hard .
Warren is slightly more viable with second-place finishes , however , especially if Buttigieg is the winner .

89 Different Scenarios For What Things Could Look Like After Iowa
Maybe you’ve seen articles elsewhere detailing the three or four most likely post-Iowa scenarios, full of elegantly-constructed narratives about how the race might unfold.
This article … is not going to be like that. Rather, it’s just going to be a bunch of rather detailed tables generated by our forecast model, outlining what the Democratic nomination race could look like given the order candidates finish in Iowa and the margins of victory. We hope they’re useful for detail-oriented readers over the course of the evening.
First up: Here’s a table showing the post-Iowa odds a candidate has of winning a national delegate majority given who won Iowa and his or her margin of victory. Specifically, we’re defining a “narrow” win as anything less than 4 percentage points over the second-place candidate, a “medium” win as 4 to 12 percentage points, and a “large” win as more than 12 percentage points. We haven’t listed scenarios if they occurred less than 0.5 percent of the time (at least 50 out of 10,000 simulations) in our final model run. Keep in mind that there is some noise in these numbers; we’ll run a full set of simulations late Monday night or Tuesday morning once we have the caucus results.
How Iowa’s results will affect the nomination odds, Part I Based on winner and margin of victory chance of winning the majority of delegates overall Winner ▲ ▼
Margin ▲ ▼
Biden ▲ ▼
Sanders ▲ ▼
Warren ▲ ▼
Buttigieg ▲ ▼
Other ▲ ▼
None ▲ ▼
Biden large 84% 6% 2% 0% 0% 7% Biden medium 75 11 2 1 0 11 Biden narrow 71 13 2 1 0 12 Buttigieg large 25 12 1 34 0 28 Buttigieg medium 33 14 5 20 0 28 Buttigieg narrow 36 20 4 15 0 25 Klobuchar medium 38 21 3 2 11 24 Klobuchar narrow 36 28 7 1 7 21 Sanders large 17 67 2 0 0 14 Sanders medium 25 55 2 0 0 17 Sanders narrow 32 46 2 1 0 18 Warren large 19 9 43 1 0 29 Warren medium 32 9 33 1 0 24 Warren narrow 32 16 24 2 0 26 Specifically, we’re defining a “narrow” win as anything less than 4 percentage points over the second-place candidate, a “medium” win as 4 to 12 percentage points, and a “large” win as more than 12 percentage points. Scenarios are only listed if they had at least an 0.5 percent chance of occurring.
The most definitive outcome of the night — albeit a somewhat unlikely one — would be a Joe Biden landslide, which would put his majority chances at 84 percent. Even a narrow Biden win would leave his opponents in fairly bad shape, though.
For a Bernie Sanders win, the margin matters a bit more. A medium-to-large Sanders win could boost his chances of winning the delegate majority to above 50 percent. A narrow win might leave him as the front-runner, but would keep things more competitive.
Wins by candidates other than Biden or Sanders — meaning, Elizbeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg or Amy Klobuchar — would scramble the picture, significantly increasing the chance of no one winning a delegate majority, possibly meaning a contested convention. Of course, any of these candidates winning Iowa would also massively improve their own chances overall. But they’re far enough behind in other states that they’d still have some work to do. For instance, a medium-sized Warren win would give her about a 1-in-3 chance of winning the majority, with Biden also at 1-in-3 and Sanders’s chances significantly diminished but not hopeless.
To add a layer of complication, here’s what you get if you specify the margin of victory and also who the second-place candidate is:
How Iowa’s results will affect the nomination odds, Part II Based on winner, margin of victory and second-place candidate chance of winning the majority of delegates overall winner ▲ ▼
margin ▲ ▼
2nd ▲ ▼
Biden ▲ ▼
Sanders ▲ ▼
Warren ▲ ▼
Buttigieg ▲ ▼
Other ▲ ▼
None ▲ ▼
Biden large Buttigieg 87% 6% 1% 0% 0% 6% Biden large Klobuchar 80 8 2 0 0 11 Biden large Sanders 84 6 2 1 0 7 Biden large Warren 82 4 5 0 0 8 Biden medium Buttigieg 78 8 2 2 0 11 Biden medium Klobuchar 77 13 3 2 0 5 Biden medium Sanders 75 14 1 0 0 10 Biden medium Warren 74 6 4 0 0 16 Biden narrow Buttigieg 74 8 2 4 0 13 Biden narrow Sanders 72 16 1 0 0 10 Biden narrow Warren 66 8 8 0 0 18 Buttigieg large Biden 34 8 1 30 0 27 Buttigieg large Sanders 17 16 2 34 1 31 Buttigieg large Warren 24 10 0 37 0 29 Buttigieg medium Biden 41 9 4 17 0 28 Buttigieg medium Sanders 30 19 3 19 0 29 Buttigieg medium Warren 30 10 9 26 0 25 Buttigieg narrow Biden 51 13 2 15 0 20 Buttigieg narrow Sanders 27 28 4 15 1 26 Buttigieg narrow Warren 21 16 12 18 0 33 Sanders large Biden 21 64 2 1 0 13 Sanders large Buttigieg 15 71 1 0 0 13 Sanders large Klobuchar 11 69 0 0 1 19 Sanders large Warren 11 69 3 0 0 17 Sanders medium Biden 29 53 2 0 0 14 Sanders medium Buttigieg 20 59 1 1 0 20 Sanders medium Klobuchar 20 59 0 0 0 20 Sanders medium Warren 23 50 5 0 0 22 Sanders narrow Biden 37 44 2 0 0 17 Sanders narrow Buttigieg 26 48 1 3 0 21 Sanders narrow Klobuchar 34 48 0 0 0 17 Sanders narrow Warren 24 51 6 0 0 19 Warren large Biden 25 4 48 1 0 22 Warren large Sanders 12 16 40 0 0 32 Warren medium Biden 40 7 31 1 0 21 Warren medium Buttigieg 15 8 43 4 0 30 Warren medium Sanders 33 10 31 1 0 24 Warren narrow Biden 44 11 21 0 0 24 Warren narrow Buttigieg 30 10 23 8 0 28 Warren narrow Sanders 25 24 24 1 0 26 Specifically, we’re defining a “narrow” win as anything less than 4 percentage points over the second-place candidate, a “medium” win as 4 to 12 percentage points, and a “large” win as more than 12 percentage points. Scenarios are only listed if they had at least an 0.5 percent chance of occurring.
You can see that Sanders and Biden generally wouldn’t mind if Buttigieg or Klobuchar finished in second place, as they are the furthest behind in national polls.
Another fun scenario from the table is what happens if the polls are exactly right, resulting in a narrow Sanders victory with Biden in second place. That would make Sanders the front-runner overall, but not by much, with a 44 percent chance versus 37 percent for Biden.
Buttigieg and Warren finishing first and second in some order would produce the most chaotic outcomes, with at least four candidates still having a plausible shot at the nomination and the “no majority” scenario also still very possible.
Finally, here is a chart showing post-Iowa outcomes based on the order of finish of the top three candidates. I’m going to drop the margin of victory criteria for this one since that produces too many scenarios to keep track of.
How Iowa’s results will affect the nomination odds, Part III Based on winner, second and third place candidate chance of winning the majority of delegates overall winner ▲ ▼
2nd ▲ ▼
3rd ▲ ▼
Biden ▲ ▼
sanders ▲ ▼
warren ▲ ▼
buttigieg ▲ ▼
Other ▲ ▼
None ▲ ▼
Biden Buttigieg Klobuchar 83% 5% 0% 1% 0% 11% Biden Buttigieg Sanders 80 9 1 2 0 9 Biden Buttigieg Warren 79 4 3 2 0 12 Biden Klobuchar Sanders 72 10 3 1 0 14 Biden Sanders Buttigieg 77 13 1 1 0 8 Biden Sanders Klobuchar 73 15 0 0 1 9 Biden Sanders Warren 78 9 2 0 0 10 Biden Warren Buttigieg 77 4 6 1 0 12 Biden Warren Klobuchar 76 4 4 0 0 16 Biden Warren Sanders 73 6 6 0 0 14 Buttigieg Biden Sanders 43 11 2 18 0 26 Buttigieg Biden Warren 42 10 4 19 0 25 Buttigieg Sanders Biden 30 20 2 19 1 28 Buttigieg Sanders Klobuchar 19 19 4 28 0 30 Buttigieg Sanders Warren 17 24 5 26 0 29 Buttigieg Warren Biden 24 7 12 30 0 28 Buttigieg Warren Sanders 28 16 5 21 0 30 Sanders Biden Buttigieg 30 54 1 1 0 14 Sanders Biden Klobuchar 26 56 2 1 1 15 Sanders Biden Warren 27 56 2 0 0 14 Sanders Buttigieg Biden 23 59 1 2 0 16 Sanders Buttigieg Klobuchar 13 67 0 1 0 19 Sanders Buttigieg Warren 16 64 2 0 0 19 Sanders Klobuchar Biden 21 62 0 0 1 17 Sanders Klobuchar Buttigieg 19 66 0 0 0 14 Sanders Klobuchar Warren 16 54 0 0 0 30 Sanders Warren Biden 20 58 4 1 0 17 Sanders Warren Buttigieg 15 57 5 0 0 23 Sanders Warren Klobuchar 17 62 5 0 0 16 Warren Biden Buttigieg 42 5 31 1 0 21 Warren Biden Sanders 37 9 31 0 0 22 Warren Buttigieg Biden 27 9 30 3 0 30 Warren Buttigieg Sanders 14 10 43 5 0 29 Warren Sanders Biden 25 15 32 0 0 28 Warren Sanders Buttigieg 27 19 28 1 0 26 Scenarios are only listed if they had at least an 0.5 percent chance of occurring.
This isn’t uncovering too much that you couldn’t have gleaned from the other charts, but note that Biden’s chances could fall to as low as 13 percent in some scenarios if he finishes outside the top 3.
Also note that the model thinks Buttigieg and Klobuchar really need a win outright, as they remain far behind the front-runners in national polls. Finishing a solid second in Iowa might leave open some possibility of their winning the nomination after a long slog, perhaps at a contested convention. But it would make winning via the majority route hard. Warren is slightly more viable with second-place finishes, however, especially if Buttigieg is the winner.


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-03--Our Final Forecast For The Iowa Caucuses

With just a few hours to go before the voting starts in Iowa , it ’ s time for us to freeze the FiveThirtyEight primary forecast model !
So here are our final estimates of each candidate ’ s chance of winning a majority of pledged delegates and their chances of winning Iowa ahead of tonight ’ s vote .
First , our overall forecast continues to view former Vice President Joe Biden as the candidate most likely to capture a majority of pledged delegates , with a roughly 2 in 5 ( 43 percent ) chance overall .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ front-runner ” label , Sen. Bernie Sanders , isn ’ t too far behind .
Sanders currently has a 3 in 10 shot of winning a majority .
No other candidate has better than a 10 percent chance , with Sen. Elizabeth Warren at 5 percent and former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg at 4 percent .
In fact , there is a higher chance that no single candidate wins a delegate majority by the time voting ends on June 6 — the model gives that outcome about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) shot of happening .
But tonight , the focus will be on Iowa , so let ’ s turn to the forecast ’ s outlook for the Hawkeye State and the final batch of Iowa polls that dropped over the weekend .
Coming into the caucuses , uncertainty is the name of the game , so readers should be ready for a wide range of outcomes .
Sanders is a slight favorite , with a 2 in 5 chance ( 41 percent ) of winning the most votes , while Biden has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) shot of winning .
Buttigieg and Warren aren ’ t too far off , though , at 14 percent and 10 percent , respectively , while Sen. Amy Klobuchar also has a 2 percent shot .
Taken together , these figures suggest the race in Iowa is still pretty wide open .
We wish we had more polls going into Iowa — in particular the last big Des Moines Register poll — so we could have a better sense of any last-minute movement in the race .
But looking at the four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s chances have improved from 36 percent Friday to 41 percent as of 3 p.m. Monday .
( Biden ’ s chances ticked down from 36 percent to 32 percent while Buttigieg ’ s and Warren ’ s odds are largely unchanged . )
Here ’ s a quick look at the last four surveys of Iowa released on Sunday and earlier today : • On Sunday , Data for Progress and Civiqs found Sanders leading by 7 percentage points over Warren , 28 percent to 21 percent , with Biden and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has generally found strong numbers for Warren and more negative ones for Biden than many pollsters , so once model adjusts for house effects , this poll counts as just 16 percent for Warren and 18 percent for Biden ( Sanders ’ s figure , on the other hand , didn ’ t really shift ) .
• Meanwhile , David Binder Research ’ s final poll on behalf of Focus on Rural America found Buttigieg leading Sanders by 2 points , 19 percent to 17 percent , with Biden and Warren tied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent .
While it ’ s somewhat surprising Buttigieg was in the lead , as he hasn ’ t led in other recent polls , our model basically had Buttigieg and Sanders tied at 19 percent instead once we adjusted for house effects , as this pollster has tended to give Sanders lower marks than other pollsters .
• Data for Progress also conducted its own survey and found Sanders in first with 22 percent .
But the field as a whole was very clustered , with Warren just behind at 19 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent .
But because Data for Progress ’ s polls have been friendlier to Warren and Buttigieg , the model discounted each of their percentages by about 2 points .
• Lastly , Emerson College ’ s final survey of Iowa found Sanders in the lead with 28 percent , with Biden 7 points behind at 21 percent .
Buttigieg and Warren were at 15 and 14 percent , respectively , while Klobuchar was at 11 percent .
But this poll wasn ’ t actually as good as it sounds for Sanders , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ results for him .
After accounting for house effects , his percentage was closer to 22 percent in our model .
Overall , these last few surveys were fairly good for Sanders , but remember that on average , the polls show a pretty wide-open race .
And there could be a polling surprise flying under the radar , as only two of these new polls included survey interviews from this weekend .
Moreover , because of the rules Iowa Democrats use in their caucuses , there are many moving parts that add @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choices and the realignment process where voters can switch their preferences could come into play .
We ’ ll be tracking all that and more in real-time on our live blog , so be sure to join us as we watch the results come in tonight , starting at 7 p.m .
ET !

With just a few hours to go before the voting starts in Iowa, it’s time for us to freeze the FiveThirtyEight primary forecast model! So here are our final estimates of each candidate’s chance of winning a majority of pledged delegates and their chances of winning Iowa ahead of tonight’s vote.
First, our overall forecast continues to view former Vice President Joe Biden as the candidate most likely to capture a majority of pledged delegates, with a roughly 2 in 5 (43 percent) chance overall. But the other candidate making a case for the “front-runner” label, Sen. Bernie Sanders, isn’t too far behind. Sanders currently has a 3 in 10 shot of winning a majority. No other candidate has better than a 10 percent chance, with Sen. Elizabeth Warren at 5 percent and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg at 4 percent. In fact, there is a higher chance that no single candidate wins a delegate majority by the time voting ends on June 6 — the model gives that outcome about a 1 in 6 (17 percent) shot of happening.
But tonight, the focus will be on Iowa, so let’s turn to the forecast’s outlook for the Hawkeye State and the final batch of Iowa polls that dropped over the weekend. Coming into the caucuses, uncertainty is the name of the game, so readers should be ready for a wide range of outcomes. Sanders is a slight favorite, with a 2 in 5 chance (41 percent) of winning the most votes, while Biden has a 1 in 3 (32 percent) shot of winning. Buttigieg and Warren aren’t too far off, though, at 14 percent and 10 percent, respectively, while Sen. Amy Klobuchar also has a 2 percent shot. Taken together, these figures suggest the race in Iowa is still pretty wide open.
We wish we had more polls going into Iowa — in particular the last big Des Moines Register poll — so we could have a better sense of any last-minute movement in the race. But looking at the four new polls we do have, Sanders’s chances have improved from 36 percent Friday to 41 percent as of 3 p.m. Monday. (Biden’s chances ticked down from 36 percent to 32 percent while Buttigieg’s and Warren’s odds are largely unchanged.) Here’s a quick look at the last four surveys of Iowa released on Sunday and earlier today:
On Sunday, Data for Progress and Civiqs found Sanders leading by 7 percentage points over Warren, 28 percent to 21 percent, with Biden and Buttigieg tied at 15 percent. Civiqs has generally found strong numbers for Warren and more negative ones for Biden than many pollsters, so once model adjusts for house effects, this poll counts as just 16 percent for Warren and 18 percent for Biden (Sanders’s figure, on the other hand, didn’t really shift).
Meanwhile, David Binder Research’s final poll on behalf of Focus on Rural America found Buttigieg leading Sanders by 2 points, 19 percent to 17 percent, with Biden and Warren tied at 15 percent and Klobuchar at 11 percent. While it’s somewhat surprising Buttigieg was in the lead, as he hasn’t led in other recent polls, our model basically had Buttigieg and Sanders tied at 19 percent instead once we adjusted for house effects, as this pollster has tended to give Sanders lower marks than other pollsters.
leading Sanders by 2 points, 19 percent to 17 percent, with Biden and Warren tied at 15 percent and Klobuchar at 11 percent. While it’s somewhat surprising Buttigieg was in the lead, as he hasn’t led in other recent polls, our model basically had Buttigieg and Sanders tied at 19 percent instead once we adjusted for house effects, as this pollster has tended to give Sanders lower marks than other pollsters. Data for Progress also conducted its own survey and found Sanders in first with 22 percent. But the field as a whole was very clustered, with Warren just behind at 19 percent while Biden and Buttigieg each had 18 percent. But because Data for Progress’s polls have been friendlier to Warren and Buttigieg, the model discounted each of their percentages by about 2 points.
Lastly, Emerson College’s final survey of Iowa found Sanders in the lead with 28 percent, with Biden 7 points behind at 21 percent. Buttigieg and Warren were at 15 and 14 percent, respectively, while Klobuchar was at 11 percent. But this poll wasn’t actually as good as it sounds for Sanders, as Emerson has consistently found very good results for him. After accounting for house effects, his percentage was closer to 22 percent in our model.
Overall, these last few surveys were fairly good for Sanders, but remember that on average, the polls show a pretty wide-open race. And there could be a polling surprise flying under the radar, as only two of these new polls included survey interviews from this weekend. Moreover, because of the rules Iowa Democrats use in their caucuses, there are many moving parts that add to the uncertainty — voters’ second choices and the realignment process where voters can switch their preferences could come into play. We’ll be tracking all that and more in real-time on our live blog, so be sure to join us as we watch the results come in tonight, starting at 7 p.m. ET!


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-03--Politics Podcast: What To Expect From The Iowa Caucuses

It ’ s finally time for the Iowa caucuses !
In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast ’ s @ @ @ @ @ Nate Silver discusses the latest data and what unknowns could still lead to a surprise @ @ @ @ @ to the episode by clicking the “ play ” button in the audio player above @ @ @ @ @ iTunes , the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform .
If you are new @ @ @ @ @ to listen .
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Mondays and Thursdays .
Help new listeners @ @ @ @ @ us a rating and review on iTunes .
Have a comment , question or suggestion @ @ @ @ @ bad polling ” ?
Get in touch by email , on Twitter or in the @ @

It’s finally time for the Iowa caucuses! In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast’s “Model Talk,” Nate Silver discusses the latest data and what unknowns could still lead to a surprise result.
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen.
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Mondays and Thursdays. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-03--Could Virtual Caucuses Ever Work In Iowa?

Caucuses are weird .
When else do voters cast their ballots by physically moving themselves into designated corners of a school gym ?
( Even your student government election probably didn ’ t work like this ! )
But that strangeness could help caucuses be one of the first types of elections where voters securely cast their ballot online .
[ Our Latest Forecast : Who will win the Iowa caucuses ? ]
Allowing voters to caucus online would greatly improve accessibility for voters who have a hard time attending caucuses in person , whether it ’ s because they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re physically not able to .
In fact , one Iowa poll found that this option could increase caucus turnout by about a third .
Last February , Iowa Democrats proposed a plan that would have let registered Democrats participate in “ virtual caucuses ” in 2020 .
The plan was intended to both accommodate more voters and adhere to new Democratic National Committee rules that require states to accept absentee votes .
The DNC ultimately rejected Iowa ’ s plan due to concerns about the possibility that the process could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are real , caucuses have one peculiarity that may eventually make them easier to conduct online : Voters don ’ t need to be completely anonymous .
Generally , in U.S. elections and primaries , the voting process generates anonymized records ; these are intended to allow officials to do things like conduct recounts or double check if someone interfered with any voting machines , while still keeping individuals ’ votes secret .
That anonymity makes it hard to take a traditional election online , since a person ’ s vote would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Iowa caucus system is different in that there ’ s no secret ballot , ” said Maggie MacAlpine , a co-founder at Nordic Innovation Labs , a firm of security consultants whose specialties include safeguarding elections .
Caucuses are , by their nature , a public affair , with voters standing in a group to support their candidate of choice .
If any candidate doesn ’ t clear a viability threshold — usually 15 percent of the vote at that caucus location — the voters who initially backed that candidate can then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process called reallocation .
All that public jockeying means the vote isn ’ t anonymous , which makes it possible to verify a digital vote in ways we can ’ t with a secret ballot .
“ So we could follow up with people , ” MacAlpine said .
“ We can say , ‘ It says here you voted for the purple party .
Did you vote for the purple party or the orange party ?
’ ” That ’ s important because any election process run online will be vulnerable to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at disrupting the voting process ( for example , a distributed denial-of-service or DDoS attack could overload servers and make it impossible for voters to participate ) or altering the results .
But while it ’ s theoretically possible to hold a secure online caucus , the three experts I spoke to said it would still be very challenging to execute .
“ To do it properly requires careful consideration of exactly how public a ballot should be , building and auditing software , and defining a practical approach for auditing the results @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Ben Adida , executive director of VotingWorks , a nonpartisan nonprofit that makes voting machines .
“ That ’ s not impossible , but it ’ s a very significant investment that I haven ’ t seen made yet , and the resulting product would really only be useful for caucuses.
” [ Our Latest Forecast : Who Will Win The 2020 Democratic Primary ? ]
In the meantime , many Iowans will continue to schlep to a school gym on a brisk February evening , checking — but not voting with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the caucus to begin .

Caucuses are weird. When else do voters cast their ballots by physically moving themselves into designated corners of a school gym? (Even your student government election probably didn’t work like this!) But that strangeness could help caucuses be one of the first types of elections where voters securely cast their ballot online.
[Our Latest Forecast: Who will win the Iowa caucuses?]
Allowing voters to caucus online would greatly improve accessibility for voters who have a hard time attending caucuses in person, whether it’s because they have a scheduling conflict or because they’re physically not able to. In fact, one Iowa poll found that this option could increase caucus turnout by about a third.
Last February, Iowa Democrats proposed a plan that would have let registered Democrats participate in “virtual caucuses” in 2020. The plan was intended to both accommodate more voters and adhere to new Democratic National Committee rules that require states to accept absentee votes. The DNC ultimately rejected Iowa’s plan due to concerns about the possibility that the process could be hacked.
But while the security concerns are real, caucuses have one peculiarity that may eventually make them easier to conduct online: Voters don’t need to be completely anonymous.
Generally, in U.S. elections and primaries, the voting process generates anonymized records; these are intended to allow officials to do things like conduct recounts or double check if someone interfered with any voting machines, while still keeping individuals’ votes secret. That anonymity makes it hard to take a traditional election online, since a person’s vote would be tied to their identity.
“But the Iowa caucus system is different in that there’s no secret ballot,” said Maggie MacAlpine, a co-founder at Nordic Innovation Labs, a firm of security consultants whose specialties include safeguarding elections.
Caucuses are, by their nature, a public affair, with voters standing in a group to support their candidate of choice. If any candidate doesn’t clear a viability threshold — usually 15 percent of the vote at that caucus location — the voters who initially backed that candidate can then move to join another group in a process called reallocation.
All that public jockeying means the vote isn’t anonymous, which makes it possible to verify a digital vote in ways we can’t with a secret ballot.
“So we could follow up with people,” MacAlpine said. “We can say, ‘It says here you voted for the purple party. Did you vote for the purple party or the orange party?’”
That’s important because any election process run online will be vulnerable to attacks, whether they’re aimed at disrupting the voting process (for example, a distributed denial-of-service or DDoS attack could overload servers and make it impossible for voters to participate) or altering the results.
But while it’s theoretically possible to hold a secure online caucus, the three experts I spoke to said it would still be very challenging to execute.
“To do it properly requires careful consideration of exactly how public a ballot should be, building and auditing software, and defining a practical approach for auditing the results during the caucusing process itself,” said Ben Adida, executive director of VotingWorks, a nonpartisan nonprofit that makes voting machines. “That’s not impossible, but it’s a very significant investment that I haven’t seen made yet, and the resulting product would really only be useful for caucuses.”
[Our Latest Forecast: Who Will Win The 2020 Democratic Primary?]
In the meantime, many Iowans will continue to schlep to a school gym on a brisk February evening, checking — but not voting with — their phones while they wait for the caucus to begin.
‘Don’t reduce (Iowa caucuses) to a 2-way race yet’: Nate Silver


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-03--What Our Forecast Says About The Iowa Caucuses At The District Level

Tonight ’ s Iowa caucuses kick off a multi-step process that will eventually send 41 pledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention .
But did you know that only 14 of them are assigned to candidates based on their statewide results in Iowa ?
The remaining 27 are based on the results in each of the Hawkeye State ’ s four congressional districts .
[ Our Latest Forecast : Who will win the Iowa caucuses ? ]
In fact , about two-thirds of all pledged delegates nationwide aren ’ t assigned at the state level , which is why our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ congressional-district level in most states .
These estimates are based on the demographic makeup of each district relative to its state — so in other words , as editor-in-chief Nate Silver wrote in our forecast methodology , just like we can forecast a candidate ’ s relative strength in one state vs. another , we can also forecast which districts are likely to be relatively strong ( or weak ) for a candidate .
( That said , due to the large amount of uncertainty inherent in this type of probabilistic forecast , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . )
And in Iowa specifically , we don ’ t anticipate huge variation in the district-level results .
That ’ s because all four districts are politically and demographically pretty similar , both to one another and the state as a whole .
So just as former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders are roughly tied for first place statewide , our model thinks they are vying for the pledged-delegate lead in each congressional district as well .
Likewise , our forecast thinks former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sen. Amy Klobuchar will garner fewer delegates on the district level than Biden and Sanders .
Still , it ’ s possible that there will be some variation in the results from one district to another — and understanding Iowa ’ s political geography will be important if you plan to follow the results with us tonight in real time .
So let ’ s make like Chuck Grassley and take a full tour of the state .
In northeastern Iowa , the 1st District contains the cities of Cedar Rapids , Waterloo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
With a population that is 89 percent non-Hispanic white , it is the least diverse district in Iowa , though the differences are pretty small ( the most diverse district in Iowa , the 3rd , for instance , is 84 percent white ) .
And in the 2016 Democratic caucuses , Sanders and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton fought to a near-draw here , just like they did statewide .
Our model expects Sanders to receive an average of 2.3 delegates , Biden to receive 2.1 , Buttigieg 1.2 and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden who seems to be putting a lot of effort into this part of the state .
According to the Des Moines Register ’ s tally of candidate appearances , since Sept. 1 , he has held the highest share of his campaign events in the 1st District .
This makes sense , too , given Dubuque ’ s history as a center of industry and Waterloo ’ s large ( for Iowa ) African-American population .
The 2nd District covers southeastern Iowa , whose many manufacturing cities along the Mississippi River have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Candidates venture to cities like Davenport and Clinton , which both have levels of educational attainment and median incomes lower than the state average , to talk about the plight of the working class .
To take one extreme example , Andrew Yang , who emphasizes the impact that job automation is having on the American workforce , has held 43 campaign events in the 2nd District , more than any of the top five candidates have held in any Iowa district .
At the same time , Iowa City is home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Iowa .
These two factors probably played a big role in making the 2nd District Sanders ’ s best district in Iowa in 2016 , although it was still close ( Sanders beat Clinton by about 5 points ) .
Our forecast currently predicts Sanders will win 2.3 delegates , on average ; Biden 2.2 ; Buttigieg 1.2 ; and Warren 1.0 .
Anchored by metro Des Moines , the southwestern 3rd District is the least white , most college-educated and most affluent district in Iowa — but again , not by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rural counties brings the district ’ s overall demographics more closely in line with those of the state .
Accordingly , we are forecasting its delegates to break down similarly to the statewide delegates : an average of 2.6 for Sanders , 2.3 for Biden , 1.5 for Buttigieg and 1.2 for Warren .
( Everyone ’ s forecasted delegate hauls are bigger in the 3rd because the district sends eight delegates to the DNC , the most of any district in Iowa . )
But different parts of the district might vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Des Moines proper ) , as well as exurban Dallas and Warren counties , are wealthier and more college-educated than the state average .
Given their bases of college-educated white voters , Buttigieg and Warren could do well in these counties .
However , Polk is also 23 percent nonwhite , providing an opening for Biden in the state ’ s most delegate-rich county .
If the 2016 results are any indication , the Democratic electorate in the 3rd District is also Iowa ’ s least progressive ; Clinton beat Sanders by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her best district .
Klobuchar may be well positioned to benefit from that : She has held 38 events in the district since Sept. 1 , more than any other candidate .
Finally , the 4th District encompasses the rural northwestern corner of Iowa , including a sizable evangelical population .
Unsurprisingly , it is solidly Republican in general elections , which also means it is worth the fewest Democratic delegates ( five ) of any Iowa district .
Take out those Republicans , though , and you ’ re left with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the state .
In the 2016 caucuses , Clinton received approximately 49.7 percent in the 4th District while Sanders earned 49.6 percent — almost identical to their statewide performances .
[ Our Latest Forecast : Who Will Win The 2020 Democratic Primary ? ]
Our forecast expects the 4th District to see another close contest between the establishment and progressive wings of the party : In the model , Sanders and Biden each receives 1.6 delegates on average , Buttigieg 0.8 and Warren 0.7 .
Buttigieg in particular has spent a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ events he ’ s held in the 4th District since Sept. 1 are more than he has held in any of the other three districts ( despite them being worth more delegates… ) .
By contrast , Warren has been a relative stranger in the 4th District , holding just two events here in the past five months .
Despite the demographic similarities of Iowa ’ s congressional districts , we might still see some candidates distinguish themselves in certain areas — and those differences could matter for the delegate math .
Tune @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ ll be tracking the results district by district as well as overall .

Tonight’s Iowa caucuses kick off a multi-step process that will eventually send 41 pledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention. But did you know that only 14 of them are assigned to candidates based on their statewide results in Iowa? The remaining 27 are based on the results in each of the Hawkeye State’s four congressional districts.
[Our Latest Forecast: Who will win the Iowa caucuses?]
In fact, about two-thirds of all pledged delegates nationwide aren’t assigned at the state level, which is why our primary forecast also estimates delegates at the congressional-district level in most states. These estimates are based on the demographic makeup of each district relative to its state — so in other words, as editor-in-chief Nate Silver wrote in our forecast methodology, just like we can forecast a candidate’s relative strength in one state vs. another, we can also forecast which districts are likely to be relatively strong (or weak) for a candidate. (That said, due to the large amount of uncertainty inherent in this type of probabilistic forecast, these estimates aren’t terribly precise.)
And in Iowa specifically, we don’t anticipate huge variation in the district-level results. That’s because all four districts are politically and demographically pretty similar, both to one another and the state as a whole. So just as former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders are roughly tied for first place statewide, our model thinks they are vying for the pledged-delegate lead in each congressional district as well. Likewise, our forecast thinks former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Sen. Amy Klobuchar will garner fewer delegates on the district level than Biden and Sanders.
Still, it’s possible that there will be some variation in the results from one district to another — and understanding Iowa’s political geography will be important if you plan to follow the results with us tonight in real time. So let’s make like Chuck Grassley and take a full tour of the state.
In northeastern Iowa, the 1st District contains the cities of Cedar Rapids, Waterloo and Dubuque, plus several rural counties. With a population that is 89 percent non-Hispanic white, it is the least diverse district in Iowa, though the differences are pretty small (the most diverse district in Iowa, the 3rd, for instance, is 84 percent white). And in the 2016 Democratic caucuses, Sanders and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton fought to a near-draw here, just like they did statewide.
Our model expects Sanders to receive an average of 2.3 delegates, Biden to receive 2.1, Buttigieg 1.2 and Warren 1.0. But it’s Biden who seems to be putting a lot of effort into this part of the state. According to the Des Moines Register’s tally of candidate appearances, since Sept. 1, he has held the highest share of his campaign events in the 1st District. This makes sense, too, given Dubuque’s history as a center of industry and Waterloo’s large (for Iowa) African-American population.
The 2nd District covers southeastern Iowa, whose many manufacturing cities along the Mississippi River have struggled to recover since the Great Recession. Candidates venture to cities like Davenport and Clinton, which both have levels of educational attainment and median incomes lower than the state average, to talk about the plight of the working class. To take one extreme example, Andrew Yang, who emphasizes the impact that job automation is having on the American workforce, has held 43 campaign events in the 2nd District, more than any of the top five candidates have held in any Iowa district.
At the same time, Iowa City is home to the 32,000+ students at the University of Iowa. These two factors probably played a big role in making the 2nd District Sanders’s best district in Iowa in 2016, although it was still close (Sanders beat Clinton by about 5 points). Our forecast currently predicts Sanders will win 2.3 delegates, on average; Biden 2.2; Buttigieg 1.2; and Warren 1.0.
Anchored by metro Des Moines, the southwestern 3rd District is the least white, most college-educated and most affluent district in Iowa — but again, not by much, as the presence of several rural counties brings the district’s overall demographics more closely in line with those of the state. Accordingly, we are forecasting its delegates to break down similarly to the statewide delegates: an average of 2.6 for Sanders, 2.3 for Biden, 1.5 for Buttigieg and 1.2 for Warren. (Everyone’s forecasted delegate hauls are bigger in the 3rd because the district sends eight delegates to the DNC, the most of any district in Iowa.)
But different parts of the district might vote very differently. Polk County (home of Des Moines proper), as well as exurban Dallas and Warren counties, are wealthier and more college-educated than the state average. Given their bases of college-educated white voters, Buttigieg and Warren could do well in these counties. However, Polk is also 23 percent nonwhite, providing an opening for Biden in the state’s most delegate-rich county.
If the 2016 results are any indication, the Democratic electorate in the 3rd District is also Iowa’s least progressive; Clinton beat Sanders by about 7 points here, making it her best district. Klobuchar may be well positioned to benefit from that: She has held 38 events in the district since Sept. 1, more than any other candidate.
Finally, the 4th District encompasses the rural northwestern corner of Iowa, including a sizable evangelical population. Unsurprisingly, it is solidly Republican in general elections, which also means it is worth the fewest Democratic delegates (five) of any Iowa district. Take out those Republicans, though, and you’re left with a Democratic electorate very similar to the rest of the state. In the 2016 caucuses, Clinton received approximately 49.7 percent in the 4th District while Sanders earned 49.6 percent — almost identical to their statewide performances.
[Our Latest Forecast: Who Will Win The 2020 Democratic Primary?]
Our forecast expects the 4th District to see another close contest between the establishment and progressive wings of the party: In the model, Sanders and Biden each receives 1.6 delegates on average, Buttigieg 0.8 and Warren 0.7. Buttigieg in particular has spent a lot of time here: The 31 campaign events he’s held in the 4th District since Sept. 1 are more than he has held in any of the other three districts (despite them being worth more delegates…). By contrast, Warren has been a relative stranger in the 4th District, holding just two events here in the past five months.
Despite the demographic similarities of Iowa’s congressional districts, we might still see some candidates distinguish themselves in certain areas — and those differences could matter for the delegate math. Tune into our live blog tonight, where we’ll be tracking the results district by district as well as overall.
Samantha Sergi contributed research.
‘Don’t reduce (Iowa caucuses) to a 2-way race yet’: Nate Silver


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-04--Iowa Might Have Screwed Up The Whole Nomination Process

In trying to build a forecast model of the Democratic primaries , we literally had to think about the entire process from start ( Iowa ) to finish ( the Virgin Islands on June 6 ) .
Actually , we had to do more than that .
Since the nomination process is sequential — states vote one at a time rather than all at once — we had to determine , empirically , how much the results of one state can affect the rest .
The answer in the case of Iowa is that it matters a lot .
Despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the caucuses process , the amount of media coverage the state gets makes it far more valuable a prize than you ’ d assume from the fact that it only accounts for 41 of the Democrats ’ 3,990 pledged delegates .
More specifically , we estimate — based on testing how much the results in various states have historically changed the candidates ’ position in national polls — that Iowa was the second most-important date on the calendar this year , trailing only Super Tuesday .
It was worth the equivalent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its actual number .
Everything was a little weird in Iowa this year , however .
And there were already some signs that the Iowa bounce — which essentially results from all the favorable media coverage that winning candidates get — might be smaller than normal .
Iowa was bracketed by an extremely busy news calendar : President Trump ’ s impeachment trial both before and after the caucuses , the Super Bowl on Sunday , the State of the Union address on Tuesday .
There was not the usual climactic uptick in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indications — to the extent any information at all is reliable at this point — Democratic turnout there wound up being fairly low .
But we weren ’ t prepared for what actually happened , which is that — as I ’ m writing this at 3:15 a.m. on Tuesday morning — the Iowa Democratic Party literally hasn ’ t released any results from its caucuses .
I ’ m not going to predict what those numbers will eventually be , although early indications are that Bernie Sanders , Pete Buttigieg and perhaps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point is that the lead story around the 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses is now — and will forever be — the colossal shitshow around the failure to release results in a timely fashion .
Maybe there will eventually be a decent-sized Iowa bounce despite all of this .
But there ’ s a good chance that the candidates who did well in Iowa get screwed , and the candidates who did poorly there get a mulligan .
To repeat : There ’ s very little importance in a mathematical sense to who wins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the media narrative it produces and all about momentum , and that momentum , whoever wins , is likely to have been blunted .
Who might this help ?
Let ’ s pretend for a moment we don ’ t have any hints about how the results might have turned out .
In fact , let ’ s pretend that Iowa didn ’ t happen at all .
I re-ran our forecast model as though the Iowa caucuses were canceled .
Here ’ s how that changed each candidate ’ s chances of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Iowa was helpful to Bernie Sanders , whose chances of winning a national delegate majority would have been 24 percent without Iowa — as compared to the 31 percent chance that he had with Iowa , as of Monday afternoon .
Iowa was hurtful to Joe Biden , however , whose chances of a delegate majority would have been 50 percent without it , rather than 43 percent with it .
And Iowa was extremely helpful to Buttigieg , whose chances of winning the delegate majority were fairly low even with Iowa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slipped to third in polls of Iowa and fifth in national polls — but would have been virtually nonexistent ( less than one percent ) without it .
By giving the winning candidates a boost , the presence of Iowa also reduced the chance of an unstructured race and a potential brokered convention .
The chance of there being no delegate majority was 17 percent without Iowa , but would have been 20 percent with it .
Granted , none of those changes — say , 24 percent versus 31 percent — are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s partly because , as of Monday afternoon , four or five candidates appeared to have a shot at winning Iowa .
For the candidate who actually won Iowa , it would have been a much bigger deal .
We estimate that Sanders ’ s chances of a majority would have shot up to from 31 percent to 58 percent with an Iowa win , Warren ’ s from 5 percent to 32 percent , and Buttigieg ’ s from 4 percent to 22 percent .
And in some ways that still discounts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the campaigns — for better or worse — built their entire strategy around the state .
Would Buttigieg have been a major player in the race without Iowa ?
Considering his lack of support among black voters , probably not .
Would candidates such as Kamala Harris , Cory Booker and Julian Castro have dropped out so soon ?
That ’ s a harder call , since Harris , Booker and Castro weren ’ t polling particularly well anywhere .
But the Democratic field might have remained a little more diverse .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ point of some ambivalence .
On the one hand , candidates such as Buttigieg , who seemingly did well there , are liable to be injured by the muddled storylines in Iowa following the results-reporting disaster on Monday night .
On the other hand , it ’ s not clear why Iowa was afforded so much importance in the first place , and Buttigieg possibly owed his entire presence in the campaign to this quirk in the nomination process .
Nonetheless , these were the rules of the game , as every candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out not to matter very much because of the results-reporting snafu , they have every right to be upset .
To be even more blunt : the Iowa Democratic Party ’ s colossal screw-up in reporting results will potentially have direct effects on the outcome of the nomination process .
The failure to report results will almost certainly help Biden , assuming that indications that he performed poorly in Iowa are correct , as they won ’ t get nearly as much media coverage .
And they ’ ll hurt whichever candidate wins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Buttigieg .
( Although if Sanders winds up finishing in second place or lower , he also might not mind a reduction in the importance of Iowa , especially with one of his best states , New Hampshire , coming up next . )
Furthermore , Iowa is typically a state that winnows the field .
But with every candidate either having performed well there , potentially having an excuse for a disappointing finish there , or somewhere in between , it might not do that .
Delaying the winnowing process would tangibly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s not a good situation for the Democratic Party .
And it ’ s already too late for the damage to be entirely undone , even if Iowa eventually gets its act together .

In trying to build a forecast model of the Democratic primaries, we literally had to think about the entire process from start (Iowa) to finish (the Virgin Islands on June 6). Actually, we had to do more than that. Since the nomination process is sequential — states vote one at a time rather than all at once — we had to determine, empirically, how much the results of one state can affect the rest.
The answer in the case of Iowa is that it matters a lot. Despite its demographic non-representativeness, and the quirks of the caucuses process, the amount of media coverage the state gets makes it far more valuable a prize than you’d assume from the fact that it only accounts for 41 of the Democrats’ 3,979 pledged delegates.
More specifically, we estimate — based on testing how much the results in various states have historically changed the candidates’ position in national polls — that Iowa was the second most-important date on the calendar this year, trailing only Super Tuesday. It was worth the equivalent of almost 800 delegates, about 20 times its actual number.
Which states will produce the biggest bounces? Expected bounce magnitude according to FiveThirtyEight’s primary model Relative bounce magnitude Date States Based on delegates Early state bonus Combined Feb. 3 Iowa +3 +20 +23 Feb. 11 New Hampshire +2 +10 +12 Feb. 22 Nevada +3 +5 +8 Feb. 29 South Carolina +3 +5 +8 Mar. 3 Colorado, Alabama, Utah, Oklahoma, Vermont, Texas, Tennessee, Maine, Virginia, North Carolina, California, American Samoa, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Arkansas +30 +30 Mar. 10 Mississippi, Michigan, North Dakota, Washington, Missouri, Idaho, Democrats Abroad +12 +12 Mar. 14 Northern Marianas +1 +1 Mar. 17 Ohio, Arizona, Florida, Illinois +16 +16 Mar. 24 Georgia +5 +5 Mar. 29 Puerto Rico +3 +3 Apr. 4 Alaska, Hawaii, Wyoming, Louisiana +5 +5 Apr. 7 Wisconsin +4 +4 Apr. 28 Rhode Island, New York, Delaware, Maryland, Connecticut, Pennsylvania +18 +18 May 2 Guam, Kansas +3 +3 May 5 Indiana +4 +4 May 12 Nebraska, West Virginia +3 +3 May 19 Kentucky, Oregon +5 +5 June 2 New Mexico, New Jersey, South Dakota, Montana, District of Columbia +8 +8 June 6 Virgin Islands +1 +1
Everything was a little weird in Iowa this year, however. And there were already some signs that the Iowa bounce — which essentially results from all the favorable media coverage that winning candidates get — might be smaller than normal. Iowa was bracketed by an extremely busy news calendar: President Trump’s impeachment trial both before and after the caucuses, the Super Bowl on Sunday, the State of the Union address on Tuesday. There was not the usual climactic uptick in media coverage around Iowa. From initial indications — to the extent any information at all is reliable at this point — Democratic turnout there wound up being fairly low.
But we weren’t prepared for what actually happened, which is that — as I’m writing this at 3:15 a.m. on Tuesday — the Iowa Democratic Party literally hasn’t released any results from its caucuses. I’m not going to predict what those numbers will eventually be, although early indications are that Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg and perhaps Elizabeth Warren had good results. The point is that the lead story around the 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses is now — and will forever be — the colossal shitshow around the failure to release results in a timely fashion.
Maybe there will eventually be a decent-sized Iowa bounce despite all of this. But there’s a good chance that the candidates who did well in Iowa get screwed, and the candidates who did poorly there get a mulligan. To repeat: There’s very little importance in a mathematical sense to who wins 41 delegates. Iowa is all about the media narrative it produces and all about momentum, and that momentum, whoever wins, is likely to have been blunted.
Who might this help? Let’s pretend for a moment we don’t have any hints about how the results might have turned out. In fact, let’s pretend that Iowa didn’t happen at all. I reran our forecast model as though the Iowa caucuses were canceled. Here’s how that changed each candidate’s chances of getting a delegate majority:
How Iowa’s presence affected Democrats’ odds Chances of winning a majority of pledged delegates per FiveThirtyEight forecast model on Feb. 3 (pre-Iowa), compared with a version of the model that skips the Iowa caucuses Candidate As of our final PRE-IOWA SIMULATIONS ON Monday night In A HYPOTHETICAL SIMULATION WHERE Iowa didn’t exist Biden 43% 50% Sanders 31 24 Warren 5 5 Buttigieg 4 <1 Other <1 <1 No one 17 20
The presence of Iowa was helpful to Sanders, whose chances of winning a national delegate majority would have been 24 percent without Iowa — as compared to the 31 percent chance that he had with Iowa, as of Monday afternoon. Iowa hurt Biden, however, whose chances of a delegate majority would have been 50 percent without it, rather than 43 percent with it.
And Iowa was extremely helpful to Buttigieg, whose chances of winning the delegate majority were fairly low even with Iowa — keep in mind that he had slipped to third in polls of Iowa and fifth in national polls — but would have been virtually nonexistent (less than 1 percent) without it.
By giving the winning candidates a boost, the presence of Iowa also reduced the chance of an unstructured race and a potential brokered convention. The chance of there being no delegate majority was 17 percent without Iowa, but would have been 20 percent with it.
Granted, none of those changes — say, 24 percent versus 31 percent — are necessarily that large. But that’s partly because, as of Monday afternoon, four or five candidates appeared to have a shot at winning Iowa. For the candidate who actually won Iowa, it would have been a much bigger deal. We estimate that Sanders’s chances of a majority would have shot up to from 31 percent to 58 percent with an Iowa win, Warren’s from 5 percent to 32 percent, and Buttigieg’s from 4 percent to 22 percent.
And in some ways that still discounts Iowa’s impact, because several of the campaigns — for better or worse — built their entire strategy around the state. Would Buttigieg have been a major player in the race without Iowa? Considering his lack of support among black voters, probably not. Would candidates such as Kamala Harris, Cory Booker and Julian Castro have dropped out so soon? That’s a harder call, since Harris, Booker and Castro weren’t polling particularly well anywhere. But the Democratic field might have remained a little more diverse.
So we’ve arrived at a point of some ambivalence. On the one hand, candidates such as Buttigieg, who seemingly did well there, are liable to be injured by the muddled storylines in Iowa following the results-reporting disaster on Monday night. On the other hand, it’s not clear why Iowa was afforded so much importance in the first place, and Buttigieg possibly owed his entire presence in the campaign to this quirk in the nomination process. Nonetheless, these were the rules of the game as every candidate understood them. So if Iowa turns out not to matter very much because of the results-reporting snafu, they have every right to be upset.
To be even more blunt: The Iowa Democratic Party’s colossal screw-up in reporting results will potentially have direct effects on the outcome of the nomination process. The failure to report results will almost certainly help Biden, assuming that indications that he performed poorly in Iowa are correct, as they won’t get nearly as much media coverage. And they’ll hurt whichever candidate wins the state — most likely Sanders or Buttigieg. (Although if Sanders winds up finishing in second place or lower, he also might not mind a reduction in the importance of Iowa, especially with one of his best states, New Hampshire, coming up next.)
Furthermore, Iowa is typically a state that winnows the field. But with every candidate either having performed well there, potentially having an excuse for a disappointing finish there, or somewhere in between, it might not do that. Delaying the winnowing process would tangibly increase the chance of a contested convention.
It’s not a good situation for the Democratic Party. And it’s already too late for the damage to be entirely undone, even if Iowa eventually gets its act together.
CORRECTION (Feb. 4, 2020, 8:47 a.m.): An earlier version of this article inaccurately said that Democrats have 3,990 pledged delegates this primary cycle. They have 3,979. Therefore, if Iowa’s delegates were discounted, the remaining total would be 3,938, not 3,949.
Nate Silver reacts to 1st results from Iowa