fivethirtyeight--2020-02-21--How Nevada’s Three Sets Of Results Could Affect Who ‘Wins’

To a certain extent , complexity is a feature , not a bug , of caucuses .
And as hard as the Nevada Democratic Party is trying to make Saturday ’ s caucuses user-friendly , there will still be that pesky multi-step voting process and three different sets of results to wade through .
To help you make sense of it all , here ’ s our guide to how the Nevada caucuses will work — plus how our primary forecast handles all their quirks , and what that might mean for the race moving forward .
Like in Iowa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ physically align themselves with other supporters of their candidate by going to a designated corner of the room .
( Caucusgoers can also join an “ uncommitted ” group as if “ uncommitted ” were a candidate on the ballot . )
Caucus organizers will then count up the number of people in each group to produce a candidate ’ s first alignment vote .
( In Nevada , this also includes the first choices of people who voted early .
This is the first time Nevada offered this as an option , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it — quite impressive when you consider that total turnout in the 2016 Nevada Democratic caucuses was about 84,000 . )
This is the first of the three sets of election results that Nevada will put out .
Think of this first alignment vote like the raw popular vote that primary states report .
It ’ s also what polls of the Nevada caucuses are measuring .
Next up is the famous realignment process .
Any candidate that does not meet a given precinct ’ s “ viability threshold ” ( usually 15 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is deemed nonviable , and his or her supporters can thus “ realign.
” They can choose to join another candidate ’ s group , or they can simply go home .
If their first-choice candidate was just barely nonviable — say , he received 14 percent of the first alignment vote — they can also try to persuade supporters of other nonviable candidates to join their group , in a last-ditch effort to become viable .
Voters in viable candidate groupings are locked in , however , and can not realign .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ full ballots will come into play .
( Early voters were asked to rank between three and five candidates from their first choice to their last choice . )
Because they are not physically present , early voters ’ second- , third- , fourth- and fifth-place picks are used to realign them if their first-choice candidate isn ’ t still in the running .
For instance , if an early voter ’ s first choice is Sen. Amy Klobuchar , her second choice is Sen. Elizabeth Warren and her third choice is philanthropist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Warren are not viable at her precinct and Steyer is , that voter would be reassigned to Steyer ’ s camp .
After this process is finished , we are left with the final alignment vote .
Notably , this is what our model simulates when projecting a candidate ’ s expected share of the vote in caucus states .
In other words , when our primary forecast says that Sen. Bernie Sanders is expected to win 35 percent of the vote in Nevada , that ’ s a projection of his final @ @ @ @ @ @ @ details of how our model simulates the realignment process here , but here are the three most important things to keep in mind : • Other things being equal , the model assumes that larger groups will have an easier time attracting new supporters .
• Conversely , just-barely-nonviable groups will have a harder time doing so in an effort to get over the viability hump .
In some simulations of the model , these groups are successful at wooing supporters of other nonviable candidates ; other times , they fail to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a proximity rating to estimate how close the candidates are to one another along a number of ideological and other dimensions .
This is a fairly rough method , so our assumptions are fairly conservative — i.e.
, if Warren voters are trying to decide whether to realign with Sanders or former Vice President Joe Biden , the model doesn ’ t assume 100 percent of them will go to Sanders , more like about three-fifths of them — but it ’ s a way to try and gauge where some supporters might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the final alignment , there is still one more set of results to calculate : the number of county delegates a candidate has won .
Here ’ s how that works : Each precinct is worth a fixed number of county delegates based on the number of Democrats registered to vote there , and those delegates are assigned to candidates proportionally based on the final alignment vote totals .
All precincts ’ county delegate tallies are then added together to produce a statewide total ; these are the numbers you ’ re likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This is because , before this year , county delegate results were the only results released to the public , and county delegates are still the measure used to select Nevada ’ s 36 pledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention .
( I will mercifully spare you the task of explaining the math of that process , but the masochists among you can geek out about it here . )
In predicting who gets a polling boost from “ winning ” Nevada , our model puts the most weight on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gives a candidate credit for winning the first alignment and final alignment votes .
( Specifically , candidate bounces in the model are based on two factors : ( 1 ) a candidate ’ s vote share and ( 2 ) a binary variable that indicates whether he or she won the state .
We use county delegate percentages to calculate the vote share bounce and will credit up to three “ winners ” for the binary variable , giving 80 percent to the candidate who got the most county delegates , 10 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ final alignment vote and 10 percent to the candidate who won the first alignment vote . )
Of course , this will only matter if different candidates win the three measures .
Here ’ s what our model is forecasting in Nevada not only for the final alignment vote ( the number that is displayed publicly ) , but also for the first alignment vote as of Friday morning : The model currently forecasts that Sanders will receive 29 percent of the first alignment vote , 12 points more than Biden in second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gain more than 5 points in realignment , pushing him to 35 percent of the final alignment vote .
This might be too optimistic for Sanders , though .
After all , the day before the Iowa caucuses , the model predicted that Sanders would gain 4.5 points from first to final alignment , but his actual increase was just 1.8 points .
Then again , if there aren ’ t any big polling surprises in Nevada , Sanders may be the only viable candidate at many precincts , which wasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ greatly help his final alignment vote .
As for the other candidates , Biden and former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg barely gain any extra support , and , unsurprisingly , the candidates who are projected to get less than 15 percent statewide in the first alignment are expected to lose support in realignment ( they will probably be nonviable at many precincts ) .
The model doesn ’ t attempt to forecast how final alignment translates into county delegates , but if Sanders has anywhere close to that 17-point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ easily win the most county delegates as well .
However , the tendency for Sanders voters to be highly concentrated in certain precincts ( like college campuses ) can be a disadvantage in the votes-to-delegates conversion , given that precincts are capped at a fixed number of county delegates no matter how high turnout in them soars .
So in a closer-than-expected race , it is possible that Sanders wins the popular vote — again — but another candidate is named the “ official ” Nevada winner by virtue of winning the most @ @ @

To a certain extent, complexity is a feature, not a bug, of caucuses. And as hard as the Nevada Democratic Party is trying to make Saturday’s caucuses user-friendly, there will still be that pesky multi-step voting process and three different sets of results to wade through. To help you make sense of it all, here’s our guide to how the Nevada caucuses will work — plus how our primary forecast handles all their quirks, and what that might mean for the race moving forward.
Like in Iowa, participants in the Nevada caucuses will physically align themselves with other supporters of their candidate by going to a designated corner of the room. (Caucusgoers can also join an “uncommitted” group as if “uncommitted” were a candidate on the ballot.)
Caucus organizers will then count up the number of people in each group to produce a candidate’s first alignment vote. (In Nevada, this also includes the first choices of people who voted early. This is the first time Nevada offered this as an option, and nearly 75,000 people took advantage of it — quite impressive when you consider that total turnout in the 2016 Nevada Democratic caucuses was about 84,000.)
This is the first of the three sets of election results that Nevada will put out. Think of this first alignment vote like the raw popular vote that primary states report. It’s also what polls of the Nevada caucuses are measuring.
Next up is the famous realignment process. Any candidate that does not meet a given precinct’s “viability threshold” (usually 15 percent of the first alignment vote ) is deemed nonviable, and his or her supporters can thus “realign.” They can choose to join another candidate’s group, or they can simply go home. If their first-choice candidate was just barely nonviable — say, he received 14 percent of the first alignment vote — they can also try to persuade supporters of other nonviable candidates to join their group, in a last-ditch effort to become viable. Voters in viable candidate groupings are locked in, however, and cannot realign.
Realignment is also where early voters’ full ballots will come into play. (Early voters were asked to rank between three and five candidates from their first choice to their last choice.) Because they are not physically present, early voters’ second-, third-, fourth- and fifth-place picks are used to realign them if their first-choice candidate isn’t still in the running. For instance, if an early voter’s first choice is Sen. Amy Klobuchar, her second choice is Sen. Elizabeth Warren and her third choice is philanthropist Tom Steyer, but both Klobuchar and Warren are not viable at her precinct and Steyer is, that voter would be reassigned to Steyer’s camp.
After this process is finished, we are left with the final alignment vote. Notably, this is what our model simulates when projecting a candidate’s expected share of the vote in caucus states. In other words, when our primary forecast says that Sen. Bernie Sanders is expected to win 35 percent of the vote in Nevada, that’s a projection of his final alignment vote.
You can read the details of how our model simulates the realignment process here, but here are the three most important things to keep in mind:
Other things being equal, the model assumes that larger groups will have an easier time attracting new supporters.
Conversely, just-barely-nonviable groups will have a harder time doing so in an effort to get over the viability hump. In some simulations of the model, these groups are successful at wooing supporters of other nonviable candidates; other times, they fail to do so.
Finally, we use a proximity rating to estimate how close the candidates are to one another along a number of ideological and other dimensions. This is a fairly rough method, so our assumptions are fairly conservative — i.e., if Warren voters are trying to decide whether to realign with Sanders or former Vice President Joe Biden, the model doesn’t assume 100 percent of them will go to Sanders, more like about three-fifths of them — but it’s a way to try and gauge where some supporters might go in the realignment process.
After the final alignment, there is still one more set of results to calculate: the number of county delegates a candidate has won. Here’s how that works: Each precinct is worth a fixed number of county delegates based on the number of Democrats registered to vote there, and those delegates are assigned to candidates proportionally based on the final alignment vote totals. All precincts’ county delegate tallies are then added together to produce a statewide total; these are the numbers you’re likely to hear most often in news reports. This is because, before this year, county delegate results were the only results released to the public, and county delegates are still the measure used to select Nevada’s 36 pledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention. (I will mercifully spare you the task of explaining the math of that process, but the masochists among you can geek out about it here.)
In predicting who gets a polling boost from “winning” Nevada, our model puts the most weight on the county delegate results — but it also gives a candidate credit for winning the first alignment and final alignment votes. (Specifically, candidate bounces in the model are based on two factors: (1) a candidate’s vote share and (2) a binary variable that indicates whether he or she won the state. We use county delegate percentages to calculate the vote share bounce and will credit up to three “winners” for the binary variable, giving 80 percent to the candidate who got the most county delegates, 10 percent to the candidate who won the final alignment vote and 10 percent to the candidate who won the first alignment vote.)
Of course, this will only matter if different candidates win the three measures. Here’s what our model is forecasting in Nevada not only for the final alignment vote (the number that is displayed publicly), but also for the first alignment vote as of Friday morning:
How Nevada’s votes could change from one stage to the next Average FiveThirtyEight model Nevada caucus first alignment and final alignment projections, as of Feb. 21, 2020 Candidate First Alignment Final Alignment Change Bernie Sanders 29.3% 34.6% +5.3 Joe Biden 17.1 17.4 +0.3 Pete Buttigieg 15.4 15.7 +0.2 Elizabeth Warren 13.5 12.1 -1.3 Tom Steyer 11.6 10.1 -1.5 Amy Klobuchar 11.5 9.9 -1.7 Tulsi Gabbard 1.5 0.2 -1.4
The model currently forecasts that Sanders will receive 29 percent of the first alignment vote, 12 points more than Biden in second place. But it expects Sanders to gain more than 5 points in realignment, pushing him to 35 percent of the final alignment vote. This might be too optimistic for Sanders, though. After all, the day before the Iowa caucuses, the model predicted that Sanders would gain 4.5 points from first to final alignment, but his actual increase was just 1.8 points. Then again, if there aren’t any big polling surprises in Nevada, Sanders may be the only viable candidate at many precincts, which wasn’t true in Iowa. That would obviously greatly help his final alignment vote.
As for the other candidates, Biden and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg barely gain any extra support, and, unsurprisingly, the candidates who are projected to get less than 15 percent statewide in the first alignment are expected to lose support in realignment (they will probably be nonviable at many precincts).
The model doesn’t attempt to forecast how final alignment translates into county delegates, but if Sanders has anywhere close to that 17-point lead on final alignment, he should easily win the most county delegates as well. However, the tendency for Sanders voters to be highly concentrated in certain precincts (like college campuses) can be a disadvantage in the votes-to-delegates conversion, given that precincts are capped at a fixed number of county delegates no matter how high turnout in them soars. So in a closer-than-expected race, it is possible that Sanders wins the popular vote — again — but another candidate is named the “official” Nevada winner by virtue of winning the most county delegates.
Democracy!


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-22--2020 Nevada Caucuses: Live Updates And Results

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


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-22--What Our Forecast Says About The Nevada Caucuses At The District Level

For the first time this cycle , a state that isn ’ t more than 85 percent white will weigh in on who should be the Democratic nominee for president .
There are significant demographic differences among Nevada ’ s four congressional districts , too , which could mean different candidates will win different districts — unlike in Iowa and New Hampshire where the district-level picture didn ’ t vary much .
This is important because 23 of the 36 pledged delegates at stake in Nevada today are actually awarded based on the winner of each congressional district , not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ takes this into account , calculating the average forecasted pledged delegates for each candidate in each district .
And while we forecast that Sen. Bernie Sanders will win the state so handily that he also carries all four congressional districts , some of the lower-polling candidates are still likely to do better in some corners of the state than in others .
Nevada ’ s 1st Congressional District , which covers the heart of Las Vegas , is the least white district in Nevada — which also makes it the most racially diverse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far .
A plurality ( 45 percent ) of the population here is Latino , while 31 percent are white and 11 percent are black .
Given Sanders ’ s and former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s strength with Latino voters and black voters , our forecast thinks they will do the best here : Sanders gets 2.7 of the 1st District ’ s five total delegates in our average model run , while Biden nabs 1.0 .
In addition , the 1st District has the lowest median income in the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ college degree .
That probably hurts candidates such as former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg , Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Sen. Amy Klobuchar , whose bases include college-educated white voters .
We are forecasting all three to get fewer than one delegate in the 1st District .
However , Warren isn ’ t letting this district go without a fight — she has opened three field offices in the district , tied with Sanders for the most .
And while philanthropist Tom Steyer technically has zero field offices in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mean his field operation doesn ’ t have easy access to the area .
His 3rd and 4th district field offices are just a few blocks away from the border with the 1st .
The 2nd Congressional District is the only one not to include a portion of metro Las Vegas ; it covers the northern half of the state , most notably the Reno area , and it is the most rural district in Nevada .
But before you picture a vast desert , consider that it is still about as dense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iowa and New Hampshire .
In 2016 , this was the only district in Nevada that Sanders carried , which he did by about 9 points .
Our model anticipates that he will dominate here again in 2020 , winning an average of 3.0 of its six delegates .
But we ’ re also expecting Buttigieg to earn 1.4 delegates here , making it his best district .
Buttigieg did well in rural counties in Iowa , and he appears to be courting them in Nevada too .
Buttigieg has opened four field @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of any district — and is the only candidate with an office in Fallon , a city of 8,500 on U.S. Route 50 .
The 2nd , however , might be Biden ’ s worst district .
He only wins , on average , 0.5 delegates in our forecast .
This could be due to the fact that this is the whitest district in Nevada ( although there is still a substantial Latino population ) .
Perhaps to offset this , Biden also appears to be putting in a disproportionate amount of effort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two Biden field offices here , while every other district has only one .
The 3rd Congressional District , worth six pledged delegates , covers the southern tip of Nevada , including southern Las Vegas and the booming suburb of Henderson .
In this fairly working-class state , the 3rd District qualifies as Nevada ’ s most affluent and college-educated .
That ’ s good news for the likes of Buttigieg , whom we expect to perform better here than in most other districts , with 1.2 delegates on average .
( He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than one field office here . )
Despite voting for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by 5 points in 2016 , this year the 3rd District is expected to be Sanders ’ s best district , awarding him 3.1 delegates .
No other candidate — including Biden — averages more than one delegate here in our forecast .
Finally , the 4th Congressional District stretches from North Las Vegas to several rural counties upstate .
In 2016 , this was Clinton ’ s best district — she defeated Sanders here by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the 4th District has Nevada ’ s highest share of black voters , with whom Clinton excelled in 2016 , may have contributed to that .
And this year , although black voters have warmed to Sanders recently in national polls , most are still behind Biden , helping to explain why our forecast thinks this will be Biden ’ s best district : He gets 1.1 of the 4th District ’ s six delegates on average .
Once again , Sanders is on track to receive the most delegates from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Buttigieg has opened the most field offices of any candidate in the 4th District — three , including one in Pahrump in rural Nye County , where he is the only candidate with a presence .
But while he may do well at the district ’ s rural caucus sites , the bulk of the Democratic vote has historically come from urban Clark County , explaining why he only gets an average of 0.8 delegates here in our forecast .
Got all that ?
There will be a quiz — it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nevada caucuses , coming to your computer screen this afternoon .

For the first time this cycle, a state that isn’t more than 85 percent white will weigh in on who should be the Democratic nominee for president. There are significant demographic differences among Nevada’s four congressional districts, too, which could mean different candidates will win different districts — unlike in Iowa and New Hampshire where the district-level picture didn’t vary much. This is important because 23 of the 36 pledged delegates at stake in Nevada today are actually awarded based on the winner of each congressional district, not who wins statewide.
Our primary model takes this into account, calculating the average forecasted pledged delegates for each candidate in each district. And while we forecast that Sen. Bernie Sanders will win the state so handily that he also carries all four congressional districts, some of the lower-polling candidates are still likely to do better in some corners of the state than in others.
Nevada’s 1st Congressional District, which covers the heart of Las Vegas, is the least white district in Nevada — which also makes it the most racially diverse district to vote in the primary thus far. A plurality (45 percent) of the population here is Latino, while 31 percent are white and 11 percent are black. Given Sanders’s and former Vice President Joe Biden’s strength with Latino voters and black voters, our forecast thinks they will do the best here: Sanders gets 2.7 of the 1st District’s five total delegates in our average model run, while Biden nabs 1.0.
In addition, the 1st District has the lowest median income in the state, and few residents here have a college degree. That probably hurts candidates such as former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, whose bases include college-educated white voters. We are forecasting all three to get fewer than one delegate in the 1st District.
However, Warren isn’t letting this district go without a fight — she has opened three field offices in the district, tied with Sanders for the most. And while philanthropist Tom Steyer technically has zero field offices in the 1st District, that doesn’t mean his field operation doesn’t have easy access to the area. His 3rd and 4th district field offices are just a few blocks away from the border with the 1st.
The 2nd Congressional District is the only one not to include a portion of metro Las Vegas; it covers the northern half of the state, most notably the Reno area, and it is the most rural district in Nevada. But before you picture a vast desert, consider that it is still about as dense as the most urban congressional districts in Iowa and New Hampshire.
In 2016, this was the only district in Nevada that Sanders carried, which he did by about 9 points. Our model anticipates that he will dominate here again in 2020, winning an average of 3.0 of its six delegates. But we’re also expecting Buttigieg to earn 1.4 delegates here, making it his best district. Buttigieg did well in rural counties in Iowa, and he appears to be courting them in Nevada too. Buttigieg has opened four field offices in the 2nd — his most of any district — and is the only candidate with an office in Fallon, a city of 8,500 on U.S. Route 50.
The 2nd, however, might be Biden’s worst district. He only wins, on average, 0.5 delegates in our forecast. This could be due to the fact that this is the whitest district in Nevada (although there is still a substantial Latino population). Perhaps to offset this, Biden also appears to be putting in a disproportionate amount of effort in the 2nd District: There are two Biden field offices here, while every other district has only one.
The 3rd Congressional District, worth six pledged delegates, covers the southern tip of Nevada, including southern Las Vegas and the booming suburb of Henderson. In this fairly working-class state, the 3rd District qualifies as Nevada’s most affluent and college-educated. That’s good news for the likes of Buttigieg, whom we expect to perform better here than in most other districts, with 1.2 delegates on average. (He and Sanders are the only candidates with more than one field office here.)
Despite voting for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by 5 points in 2016, this year the 3rd District is expected to be Sanders’s best district, awarding him 3.1 delegates. No other candidate — including Biden — averages more than one delegate here in our forecast.
Finally, the 4th Congressional District stretches from North Las Vegas to several rural counties upstate. In 2016, this was Clinton’s best district — she defeated Sanders here by more than 17 points. The fact that the 4th District has Nevada’s highest share of black voters, with whom Clinton excelled in 2016, may have contributed to that. And this year, although black voters have warmed to Sanders recently in national polls, most are still behind Biden, helping to explain why our forecast thinks this will be Biden’s best district: He gets 1.1 of the 4th District’s six delegates on average. Once again, Sanders is on track to receive the most delegates from the district, at 3.1.
However, Buttigieg has opened the most field offices of any candidate in the 4th District — three, including one in Pahrump in rural Nye County, where he is the only candidate with a presence. But while he may do well at the district’s rural caucus sites, the bulk of the Democratic vote has historically come from urban Clark County, explaining why he only gets an average of 0.8 delegates here in our forecast.
Got all that? There will be a quiz — it’s called the FiveThirtyEight live blog of the Nevada caucuses, coming to your computer screen this afternoon.
Joshua Darr contributed research.


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-22--26 Scenarios For What Things Could Look Like After Nevada

The results in Nevada will likely have a meaningful effect on the overall race for the Democratic presidential nomination .
Coming into Saturday , Sen. Bernie Sanders is a strong favorite to win Nevada — FiveThirtyEight ’ s forecast gives him about a 6 in 7 chance of finishing first there .
But how much he wins by — or whether he wins at all — will also affect what the race looks like coming out of the Silver State .
Although Sanders is favored , there ’ s still a chance that someone else wins Nevada — not only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about 1 out of every 7 simulations , but Wednesday ’ s debate hasn ’ t been fully factored into the polls yet , which in turn means it hasn ’ t been fully factored into our model .
In other words , don ’ t be completely surprised if there ’ s a surprise on Saturday .
So how might different outcomes in Nevada change each candidate ’ s chances of winning the nomination ?
To find out , let ’ s run through the scenarios that pop up at least 1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( so at least 100 times in 10,000 forecast simulations ) .
First up , let ’ s examine how the forecast would shift based on who wins and by what margin .
The most likely outcome in Nevada is that Sanders wins by a “ large ” margin ( more than 12 percentage points ) followed by a “ medium ” win for Sanders ( by between 4 and 12 points ) .
But there are other scenarios in which Sanders wins by a “ narrow ” margin ( fewer than 4 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vice President Joe Biden , Sen. Elizabeth Warren and former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg — wins by varying margins .
So here ’ s how our overall forecast would shift in response to these outcomes : The model has basically priced in a medium victory for Sanders in Nevada , so that result wouldn ’ t greatly increase or decrease his chances of winning a majority of pledged delegates .
But a large win for Sanders could propel him closer to the 50 percent mark in our forecast .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ off a win by those margins — not only is he polling well in Nevada , but also the rest of the field is crowded together far below him in the polls .
Five candidates are clustered between 9 and 15 percent in FiveThirtyEight ’ s Nevada polling average , well behind Sanders ’ s 27 percent .
Still , if Sanders only wins by a narrow margin , that would actually decrease his likelihood of winning a delegate majority by more than a few points .
It ’ s less likely that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but in model runs where that happened , the main takeaway is that most of those scenarios would increase the chances that no one wins a majority of pledged delegates .
Notably , Biden is the only one of those three candidates whose chances of winning a majority of pledged delegates nationwide might surpass Sanders ’ s in our forecast with a Nevada victory .
But let ’ s add one more layer of complication .
While Sanders has a hefty lead in Nevada and is easily the most likely candidate to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are in the mix for second place .
Although the second-place result won ’ t dramatically shift the overall forecast , let ’ s see how different combinations of margin of victory and second-place finisher affect each candidate ’ s odds .
Here are the 17 scenarios that popped up at least 1 percent of the time : The most likely candidate to get second is Buttigieg , but regardless of the margin , finishing runner-up doesn ’ t notably alter his chances of winning a delegate majority .
Outside of winning , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if he can finish just behind Sanders in Nevada .
If anything , another underwhelming performance for Biden could be one too many , and his South Carolina “ firewall ” might crumble .
Outside of Biden , most other candidates wouldn ’ t see much movement in their overall chances if they finished second or worse .
Even for candidates like Sen. Amy Klobuchar or billionaire activist Tom Steyer , a runner-up finish wouldn ’ t raise their chances of winning a delegate majority above the 1 percent mark .
One candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg , but we include him in both tables above .
He ’ s not an option for Nevada voters , but the outcomes we ’ ve covered have a marginal impact on his chances .
He had a 9 percent shot at winning a majority of pledged delegates going into Nevada , so the worst outcome for Bloomberg would be a Biden win , since that could help Biden win back some of the support he ’ s lost to Bloomberg .
Two results stick out as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the two tables above .
First , a narrow Warren victory , as shown in the first table , could move some progressive voters toward her at Sanders ’ s expense and make it less likely that Sanders can win a majority of pledged delegates .
But even a “ medium ” second-place finish for Steyer , as shown in the second table , would also help Bloomberg ’ s chances while lowering Sanders ’ s odds , perhaps because the moderate alternatives to Bloomberg would be greatly weakened by finishing outside the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we need to cover the important caveats and complications to keep in mind when looking at the Nevada results and how they affect our forecast .
First , the FiveThirtyEight model is looking at the popular vote in Nevada after realignment .
That is , if a candidate doesn ’ t have enough support to meet a viability threshold at a caucus site ( usually 15 percent of voters at a given caucus site , counting people who voted early ) , that candidate ’ s supporters are given a chance to move @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who don ’ t clear the threshold after this second alignment aren ’ t eligible to receive delegates . )
But don ’ t forget about early voters , who might make up a huge share of Nevada caucusgoers .
Early voters had to rank at least three candidates , so if their first choice isn ’ t viable , they will be automatically realigned to the next candidate on their ranked-choice ballot who is viable .
Yet Nevada Democrats don ’ t use the popular vote to determine who wins national delegates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of county convention delegates awarded to each candidate at the precinct caucuses .
If this sounds weirdly familiar , it should : The Iowa caucuses used a similar process where state delegate equivalents determined national delegate allocation .
So just as Buttigieg got partial credit for a win in Iowa because he narrowly won the state delegate equivalent count ( which could change after a recount ) even though Sanders won the final-alignment popular vote in Iowa , there could be a split decision in Nevada , too .
This is important because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the race , which in turn affects the sort of bounce a candidate receives from a win ( though , historically , the Nevada bounce is much smaller than Iowa ’ s ) .
Because county delegates are what matters for national delegate allocation , that ’ s what media organizations will predominantly use to call a winner , so if there ’ s a split outcome , the county delegate winner might get top billing .
Of course , the Iowa race didn ’ t have nearly as strong a favorite as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t give any candidate better than a 41 percent chance of winning , far below the 85 percent chance that Sanders has of finishing first in Nevada .
But the split-decision possibility and how it could be covered is something to keep in mind .
More generally , we can ’ t predict how the media will cover the results , even if Sanders wins as expected .
Media reactions are pretty important to determining just how much of a bounce a candidate gets from winning or performing better than expected , so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who finishes a strong second — or third , if the reaction to Klobuchar ’ s New Hampshire result is any indication — might get a lot more coverage than we might otherwise expect .
The FiveThirtyEight model is trying to make educated guesses about how the results will be received , but the only way to know for sure is to wait and see what the polls say after Nevada votes , which the model will quickly adjust for once we get enough survey data .

The results in Nevada will likely have a meaningful effect on the overall race for the Democratic presidential nomination. Coming into Saturday, Sen. Bernie Sanders is a strong favorite to win Nevada — FiveThirtyEight’s forecast gives him about a 6 in 7 chance of finishing first there. But how much he wins by — or whether he wins at all — will also affect what the race looks like coming out of the Silver State. Although Sanders is favored, there’s still a chance that someone else wins Nevada — not only does our forecast have him losing in about 1 out of every 7 simulations, but Wednesday’s debate hasn’t been fully factored into the polls yet, which in turn means it hasn’t been fully factored into our model. In other words, don’t be completely surprised if there’s a surprise on Saturday.
So how might different outcomes in Nevada change each candidate’s chances of winning the nomination? To find out, let’s run through the scenarios that pop up at least 1 percent of the time in our model (so at least 100 times in 10,000 forecast simulations).
First up, let’s examine how the forecast would shift based on who wins and by what margin. The most likely outcome in Nevada is that Sanders wins by a “large” margin (more than 12 percentage points) followed by a “medium” win for Sanders (by between 4 and 12 points). But there are other scenarios in which Sanders wins by a “narrow” margin (fewer than 4 points) or another candidate — former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg — wins by varying margins. So here’s how our overall forecast would shift in response to these outcomes:
How Nevada could affect the nomination odds, Part I Chances of winning a majority of all pledged delegates based on winner and margin of victory in Nevada, according to FiveThirtyEight’s forecast CHANCE OF WINNING MAJORITY OF DELEGATES OVERALL Winner NV Margin Sanders Biden Bloom. Buttig. Warren None Sanders large 46% 7% 8% 1% 0% 38% Sanders medium 37 8 9 1 0 44 Sanders narrow 32 12 8 2 1 45 Buttigieg large 27 7 9 15 1 41 Buttigieg medium 25 8 9 5 0 52 Buttigieg narrow 26 8 11 3 0 52 Biden medium 18 23 10 0 1 47 Biden narrow 18 23 9 0 0 50 Warren narrow 18 8 19 1 5 49 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 a 1 percent chance of occurring.
The model has basically priced in a medium victory for Sanders in Nevada, so that result wouldn’t greatly increase or decrease his chances of winning a majority of pledged delegates. But a large win for Sanders could propel him closer to the 50 percent mark in our forecast. And he might be able to pull off a win by those margins — not only is he polling well in Nevada, but also the rest of the field is crowded together far below him in the polls. Five candidates are clustered between 9 and 15 percent in FiveThirtyEight’s Nevada polling average, well behind Sanders’s 27 percent. Still, if Sanders only wins by a narrow margin, that would actually decrease his likelihood of winning a delegate majority by more than a few points.
It’s less likely that Biden, Buttigieg or Warren will win, but in model runs where that happened, the main takeaway is that most of those scenarios would increase the chances that no one wins a majority of pledged delegates. Notably, Biden is the only one of those three candidates whose chances of winning a majority of pledged delegates nationwide might surpass Sanders’s in our forecast with a Nevada victory.
But let’s add one more layer of complication. While Sanders has a hefty lead in Nevada and is easily the most likely candidate to win, a bunch of other candidates are in the mix for second place. Although the second-place result won’t dramatically shift the overall forecast, let’s see how different combinations of margin of victory and second-place finisher affect each candidate’s odds. Here are the 17 scenarios that popped up at least 1 percent of the time:
How Nevada could affect the nomination odds, Part II Chances of winning a majority of all pledged delegates based on winner, margin of victory and second-place finisher in Nevada, according to FiveThirtyEight’s forecast CHANCE OF WINNING MAJORITY OF DELEGATES OVERALL Winner NV margin 2nd Sanders Biden Bloom. Buttig. Warren None Sanders large Biden 45% 9% 8% 0% 0% 37% Sanders large Buttigieg 47 6 8 1 0 38 Sanders large Klobuchar 45 7 9 1 0 38 Sanders large Steyer 47 7 11 1 1 33 Sanders large Warren 43 6 8 1 1 41 Sanders medium Biden 37 10 7 1 1 44 Sanders medium Buttigieg 37 7 10 1 0 45 Sanders medium Klobuchar 40 3 8 0 1 48 Sanders medium Steyer 28 4 19 0 0 50 Sanders medium Warren 42 8 9 0 0 41 Sanders narrow Buttigieg 35 11 6 2 0 45 Sanders narrow Biden 29 15 9 3 1 44 Sanders narrow Warren 30 11 11 0 4 44 Buttigieg medium Sanders 27 8 10 4 0 51 Buttigieg narrow Sanders 28 8 10 3 0 51 Biden medium Sanders 20 20 10 1 1 48 Biden narrow Sanders 18 26 8 0 0 48 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 a 1 percent chance of occurring.
The most likely candidate to get second is Buttigieg, but regardless of the margin, finishing runner-up doesn’t notably alter his chances of winning a delegate majority. Outside of winning, Biden’s chances only notably improve if he can finish just behind Sanders in Nevada. If anything, another underwhelming performance for Biden could be one too many, and his South Carolina “firewall” might crumble. Outside of Biden, most other candidates wouldn’t see much movement in their overall chances if they finished second or worse. Even for candidates like Sen. Amy Klobuchar or billionaire activist Tom Steyer, a runner-up finish wouldn’t raise their chances of winning a delegate majority above the 1 percent mark.
One candidate we haven’t mentioned yet is former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, but we include him in both tables above. He’s not an option for Nevada voters, but the outcomes we’ve covered have a marginal impact on his chances. He had a 9 percent shot at winning a majority of pledged delegates going into Nevada, so the worst outcome for Bloomberg would be a Biden win, since that could help Biden win back some of the support he’s lost to Bloomberg. Two results stick out as the best possible outcomes for Bloomberg in the two tables above. First, a narrow Warren victory, as shown in the first table, could move some progressive voters toward her at Sanders’s expense and make it less likely that Sanders can win a majority of pledged delegates. But even a “medium” second-place finish for Steyer, as shown in the second table, would also help Bloomberg’s chances while lowering Sanders’s odds, perhaps because the moderate alternatives to Bloomberg would be greatly weakened by finishing outside the top two.
Before we finish, we need to cover the important caveats and complications to keep in mind when looking at the Nevada results and how they affect our forecast.
First, the FiveThirtyEight model is looking at the popular vote in Nevada after realignment. That is, if a candidate doesn’t have enough support to meet a viability threshold at a caucus site (usually 15 percent of voters at a given caucus site, counting people who voted early), that candidate’s supporters are given a chance to move to a viable choice. (Candidates who don’t clear the threshold after this second alignment aren’t eligible to receive delegates.) But don’t forget about early voters, who might make up a huge share of Nevada caucusgoers. Early voters had to rank at least three candidates, so if their first choice isn’t viable, they will be automatically realigned to the next candidate on their ranked-choice ballot who is viable. Yet Nevada Democrats don’t use the popular vote to determine who wins national delegates — instead, they use the number of county convention delegates awarded to each candidate at the precinct caucuses. If this sounds weirdly familiar, it should: The Iowa caucuses used a similar process where state delegate equivalents determined national delegate allocation.
So just as Buttigieg got partial credit for a win in Iowa because he narrowly won the state delegate equivalent count (which could change after a recount) even though Sanders won the final-alignment popular vote in Iowa, there could be a split decision in Nevada, too. This is important because it could affect how the media covers the race, which in turn affects the sort of bounce a candidate receives from a win (though, historically, the Nevada bounce is much smaller than Iowa’s). Because county delegates are what matters for national delegate allocation, that’s what media organizations will predominantly use to call a winner, so if there’s a split outcome, the county delegate winner might get top billing. Of course, the Iowa race didn’t have nearly as strong a favorite as Nevada does — our model didn’t give any candidate better than a 41 percent chance of winning, far below the 85 percent chance that Sanders has of finishing first in Nevada. But the split-decision possibility and how it could be covered is something to keep in mind.
More generally, we can’t predict how the media will cover the results, even if Sanders wins as expected. Media reactions are pretty important to determining just how much of a bounce a candidate gets from winning or performing better than expected, so it’s possible that a candidate who finishes a strong second — or third, if the reaction to Klobuchar’s New Hampshire result is any indication — might get a lot more coverage than we might otherwise expect. The FiveThirtyEight model is trying to make educated guesses about how the results will be received, but the only way to know for sure is to wait and see what the polls say after Nevada votes, which the model will quickly adjust for once we get enough survey data.


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-22--Our Final Forecast For The Nevada Caucuses

In a few short hours , Nevada Democrats will start caucusing , so it ’ s time for FiveThirtyEight to freeze its forecast to get a final look at where things stand prior to Nevada ’ s vote .
That means no new information will be added and that candidates ’ odds won ’ t update until after the caucus results are available — hopefully tonight , if another Iowa-esque disaster can be avoided .
First , here ’ s what our model says about the candidates ’ chances of winning a majority of pledged delegates overall going into Nevada @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the front-runner , with around a 2 in 5 ( 39 percent ) shot at winning a delegate majority .
However , there ’ s a slightly higher chance — 2 in 5 , or 41 percent — that no single candidate wins a majority of pledged delegates by the time primary voting wraps up on June 6 .
After that , former Vice President Joe Biden and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg are the candidates with the next-best chance of winning a majority , but they ’ ve each got only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( And it ’ s important to note that we still have very little polling conducted after Wednesday ’ s debate in Las Vegas ; if that helped or hurt anyone ’ s chances — we ’ re thinking of you , Bloomberg — then it ’ s not fully reflected in these numbers yet . )
Lastly , both former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Elizabeth Warren each has about a 1 in 100 chance of winning a majority .
But today , of course , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s dig into what our model has to say about the Silver State .
The forecast gives Sanders about a 6 in 7 ( 85 percent ) shot at winning the most votes in Nevada — based on the final vote after realignment — making him far and away the favorite to win today ’ s vote .
But as always , we should be prepared for surprises , especially in a caucus state .
Nevada is notoriously difficult to poll , and , as mentioned , there just haven ’ t been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Iowa or New Hampshire , especially high-quality polls .
So while Sanders is favored , there ’ s still about a 1 in 7 chance that someone else wins .
Maybe it ’ s Buttigieg , who has about a 1 in 15 ( 6 percent ) chance ; or Biden , who has about a 1 in 20 ( 5 percent ) shot ; or Warren , whose chances are 1 in 50 ( 2 percent ) .
We also can ’ t totally write off billionaire activist Tom Steyer ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) or Sen. Amy Klobuchar ( < 1 in 100 , or 0.5 percent ) .
In total , seven polls have been conducted of Nevada since the New Hampshire primary , but none was entirely conducted after Wednesday night ’ s debate , so it ’ s hard to escape that nagging feeling that the picture in Nevada might be fuzzier than we realize .
For one thing , the polls disagree on whether Nevada is a close race or whether Sanders has a sizable lead , and we haven ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in more than a month .
In fact , only one of the recent polls we do have came from a pollster with a well-established track record .
But here ’ s what those surveys show , from most recent to oldest : • A Feb. 19-21 Atlas Intel poll had the best news for Sanders of any recent Nevada survey , as it found him with an overwhelming 24-point lead over Buttigieg ( 38 percent to 14 percent ) .
After Buttigieg were Steyer and Biden with 11 percent each , then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Klobuchar in fourth with 5 percent .
Even once you adjust for Atlas Intel ’ s Sanders-leaning house effects , Sanders ’ s support is 35 percent .
• In a Feb. 19-21 poll , Data for Progress found Sanders comfortably ahead of the rest of the field with 35 percent .
This was more than twice Warren ’ s and Biden ’ s 16 percent , while Buttigieg was close behind with 15 percent .
Klobuchar and Steyer pulled 8 percent each .
After accounting for house effects , the results were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 33 percent , Biden up to 17 percent , Warren down to 14 percent and Buttigieg down to 13 percent .
It ’ s worth noting that Data for Progress conducted another Nevada poll Feb. 12-15 that had similar results .
• Emerson College ’ s polls usually have been pretty good for Sanders , and the pollster ’ s final Nevada survey ( conducted Feb. 19-20 ) was no different — it found Sanders in first with 30 percent .
The rest of the field was grouped between 10 and 17 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Biden at 15 percent , Warren at 12 percent , Klobuchar at 11 percent and Steyer at 10 percent .
Adjusting for Emerson ’ s house effect , Sanders still leads , but with 25 percent instead ; no other candidate shifted more than 1 point up or down in our model .
• Breaking with other pollsters , Point Blank Political released a poll that showed Steyer ahead with 19 percent .
Following him were Klobuchar ( 16 percent ) , Biden ( 14 percent ) , Sanders and Buttigieg ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 7 percent ) .
This poll , conducted Feb. 13-15 , is the one Nevada survey that doesn ’ t put Sanders in the lead .
• Finally , WPA Intelligence polled Nevada on Feb. 11-13 on behalf of the Las Vegas Review-Journal and AARP Nevada .
The results : Sanders 25 percent , Biden 18 percent , Warren 13 percent , Steyer 11 percent , Buttigieg and Klobuchar 10 percent .
It isn ’ t a poll of Nevada , but we do have one survey from the aftermath of Wednesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national poll from Morning Consult .
The survey found Bloomberg down 3 points compared with the pollster ’ s pre-debate poll .
Of course , Bloomberg isn ’ t on the ballot in Nevada , but it ’ s a reminder that things could have shifted on the ground in the state after the debate , and this could have ( direct or indirect ) effects on the other candidates .
Both Sanders ( who led overall ) and Warren ticked up slightly in the Morning Consult poll , for instance , although @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the margin of error .
Bottom line : According to the polls we do have , Sanders is in a pretty solid position to win Nevada .
Yet there ’ s enough uncertainty surrounding the result — particularly as Nevada is a caucus state — to leave the door open for an unexpected outcome .
But even if the expected happens and Sanders wins , his margin of victory and who finishes second will also influence each candidate ’ s odds of winning a majority of pledged delegates in our overall forecast .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ make sure to join us on our live blog as we monitor each twist and turn in the Silver State .

In a few short hours, Nevada Democrats will start caucusing, so it’s time for FiveThirtyEight to freeze its forecast to get a final look at where things stand prior to Nevada’s vote. That means no new information will be added and that candidates’ odds won’t update until after the caucus results are available — hopefully tonight, if another Iowa-esque disaster can be avoided.
First, here’s what our model says about the candidates’ chances of winning a majority of pledged delegates overall going into Nevada. Sen. Bernie Sanders enters today as the front-runner, with around a 2 in 5 (39 percent) shot at winning a delegate majority. However, there’s a slightly higher chance — 2 in 5, or 41 percent — that no single candidate wins a majority of pledged delegates by the time primary voting wraps up on June 6.
After that, former Vice President Joe Biden and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg are the candidates with the next-best chance of winning a majority, but they’ve each got only about a 1 in 12 shot. (And it’s important to note that we still have very little polling conducted after Wednesday’s debate in Las Vegas; if that helped or hurt anyone’s chances — we’re thinking of you, Bloomberg — then it’s not fully reflected in these numbers yet.) Lastly, both former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Elizabeth Warren each has about a 1 in 100 chance of winning a majority.
But today, of course, is about Nevada specifically, so let’s dig into what our model has to say about the Silver State. The forecast gives Sanders about a 6 in 7 (85 percent) shot at winning the most votes in Nevada — based on the final vote after realignment — making him far and away the favorite to win today’s vote. But as always, we should be prepared for surprises, especially in a caucus state. Nevada is notoriously difficult to poll, and, as mentioned, there just haven’t been as many polls there as there were in Iowa or New Hampshire, especially high-quality polls. So while Sanders is favored, there’s still about a 1 in 7 chance that someone else wins. Maybe it’s Buttigieg, who has about a 1 in 15 (6 percent) chance; or Biden, who has about a 1 in 20 (5 percent) shot; or Warren, whose chances are 1 in 50 (2 percent). We also can’t totally write off billionaire activist Tom Steyer (1 in 100, or 0.6 percent) or Sen. Amy Klobuchar (<1 in 100, or 0.5 percent).
In total, seven polls have been conducted of Nevada since the New Hampshire primary, but none was entirely conducted after Wednesday night’s debate, so it’s hard to escape that nagging feeling that the picture in Nevada might be fuzzier than we realize. For one thing, the polls disagree on whether Nevada is a close race or whether Sanders has a sizable lead, and we haven’t seen a traditional gold-standard poll of Nevada in more than a month. In fact, only one of the recent polls we do have came from a pollster with a well-established track record.
But here’s what those surveys show, from most recent to oldest:
A Feb. 19-21 Atlas Intel poll had the best news for Sanders of any recent Nevada survey, as it found him with an overwhelming 24-point lead over Buttigieg (38 percent to 14 percent). After Buttigieg were Steyer and Biden with 11 percent each, then Warren in third with 9 percent and Klobuchar in fourth with 5 percent. Even once you adjust for Atlas Intel’s Sanders-leaning house effects, Sanders’s support is 35 percent.
In a Feb. 19-21 poll, Data for Progress found Sanders comfortably ahead of the rest of the field with 35 percent. This was more than twice Warren’s and Biden’s 16 percent, while Buttigieg was close behind with 15 percent. Klobuchar and Steyer pulled 8 percent each. After accounting for house effects, the results were only slightly different: Sanders was down to 33 percent, Biden up to 17 percent, Warren down to 14 percent and Buttigieg down to 13 percent. It’s worth noting that Data for Progress conducted another Nevada poll Feb. 12-15 that had similar results.
Nevada poll Feb. 12-15 that had similar results. Emerson College’s polls usually have been pretty good for Sanders, and the pollster’s final Nevada survey (conducted Feb. 19-20) was no different — it found Sanders in first with 30 percent. The rest of the field was grouped between 10 and 17 percent, with Buttigieg at 17 percent, Biden at 15 percent, Warren at 12 percent, Klobuchar at 11 percent and Steyer at 10 percent. Adjusting for Emerson’s house effect, Sanders still leads, but with 25 percent instead; no other candidate shifted more than 1 point up or down in our model.
Breaking with other pollsters, Point Blank Political released a poll that showed Steyer ahead with 19 percent. Following him were Klobuchar (16 percent), Biden (14 percent), Sanders and Buttigieg (13 percent each) and finally Warren (7 percent). This poll, conducted Feb. 13-15, is the one Nevada survey that doesn’t put Sanders in the lead.
ahead with 19 percent. Following him were Klobuchar (16 percent), Biden (14 percent), Sanders and Buttigieg (13 percent each) and finally Warren (7 percent). This poll, conducted Feb. 13-15, is the one Nevada survey that doesn’t put Sanders in the lead. Finally, WPA Intelligence polled Nevada on Feb. 11-13 on behalf of the Las Vegas Review-Journal and AARP Nevada. The results: Sanders 25 percent, Biden 18 percent, Warren 13 percent, Steyer 11 percent, Buttigieg and Klobuchar 10 percent.
It isn’t a poll of Nevada, but we do have one survey from the aftermath of Wednesday night’s debate: a one-day national poll from Morning Consult. The survey found Bloomberg down 3 points compared with the pollster’s pre-debate poll. Of course, Bloomberg isn’t on the ballot in Nevada, but it’s a reminder that things could have shifted on the ground in the state after the debate, and this could have (direct or indirect) effects on the other candidates. Both Sanders (who led overall) and Warren ticked up slightly in the Morning Consult poll, for instance, although neither candidate’s improvement was outside the margin of error.
Bottom line: According to the polls we do have, Sanders is in a pretty solid position to win Nevada. Yet there’s enough uncertainty surrounding the result — particularly as Nevada is a caucus state — to leave the door open for an unexpected outcome. But even if the expected happens and Sanders wins, his margin of victory and who finishes second will also influence each candidate’s odds of winning a majority of pledged delegates in our overall forecast. So no matter what happens today, make sure to join us on our live blog as we monitor each twist and turn in the Silver State.


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-23--Bernie Sanders Wins Nevada — Putting Him In The Driver’s Seat To Win The Nomination

Bernie Sanders has won the Nevada caucuses , and it looks like he ’ s going to win them by a big , perhaps even landslide margin .
We don ’ t know exactly how big .
As I ’ m writing this just before 7 p.m. Las Vegas time , only a relatively small percentage of precincts have officially reported results .
Nor do we know who ’ s going to wind up in second place , although it will probably be either Joe Biden or Pete Buttigieg .
Unless the final margin unexpectedly tightens , though , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to matter that much .
This was a big , impressive win for Sanders , and it should be even clearer now that Sanders is easily the most likely Democrat to win the nomination .
Unlike in Iowa and New Hampshire , there aren ’ t really any qualifications or caveats about Sanders ’ s victory here .
Nevada is a diverse state , and Sanders did well among a broad array of demographic groups , including winning 53 percent of Hispanics and 27 percent of African Americans , according to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good electorate for Sanders : young , working-class , unionized , heavily Hispanic .
But he ’ s also worked hard to cultivate support from those groups of voters — Hispanic voters weren ’ t a major strength of his in 2016 for example .
Perhaps fortunately for him , there are also plenty of these types of voters in the two biggest delegate prizes on Super Tuesday , California and Texas .
In addition to being the most likely winner overall , Sanders is by far the most likely Democrat to win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delegates .
Other candidates are mostly hoping for a messy outcome in which they win the nomination by plurality — potentially at a contested convention .
We don ’ t have enough results as of this writing to officially update our forecast model , but the first two of these prebaked scenarios we built should give you a rough idea of what it will say : That is , Sanders will probably be somewhere in the vicinity of an even-money bet to win the nomination with a delegate majority .
He will presumably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least some of the time that nobody wins a majority .
( The model will likely show around a 35 or 40 percent chance of there being no majority . )
That means Sanders is probably more likely than not to be the nominee , whether by majority or plurality , although note that our model doesn ’ t try to forecast what would happen in the event of a contested convention .
After Sanders , the candidate with the next-best puncher ’ s chance at winning via the majority route is probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so far which — yes — is extremely damning Biden with faint praise after a 4th place finish in Iowa and a 5th place finish in New Hampshire .
But it looks like Biden at least found a bottom and will match or slightly exceed his polls in Nevada , unlike in the first two states .
He also did win some key groups in the entrance poll , such as African-Americans and seniors .
Obviously , Biden would need to win South Carolina for a comeback to be a real possibility .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ his majority chances would likely improve to somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 percent in the model . )
Biden does still lead in the polls in South Carolina , but it ’ s a narrow lead , and the question is whether any further bounce that Sanders gets from winning Nevada will be enough to propel him into first place .
There are a lot of other contingencies in South Carolina , also , including a debate next week , and what Tom Steyer will do after a poor finish in Nevada @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we wind up with a Sanders-Biden faceoff for the nomination , though — albeit one where Sanders probably has the advantage .
So what about everyone else ?
Buttigieg has been the second-best performer in the first three states , after Sanders .
But neither his ( disputed ) win in Iowa nor his strong second-place finish in New Hampshire produced much of a polling bounce , so there ’ s no particular reason to expect a distant second or third place finish in Nevada to do so either .
And Buttigeg needs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at best flirting with the 15 percent viability threshold in South Carolina and in Super Tuesday states , and often polling below it .
That ’ s not to say Buttigieg is out of the running , but his wins largely involve the long , protracted plurality and/or contested convention route , and not winning by majority .
Meanwhile , Michael Bloomberg still looms over Super Tuesday , although maybe he doesn ’ t loom so large after this week ’ s debate .
The model still gives him an outside chance at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plurality .
But there ’ s been little post debate polling and his position may decline as more of it comes in ; initial results should be a bit concerning for Bloomberg .
Elizabeth Warren ’ s finish was disappointing tonight — but her campaign will undoubtedly claim they were done in by early voting , which took place before last week ’ s debate .
As of this writing , we don ’ t really have enough data in to comprehensively evaluate that claim , although she did win 17 percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ somewhat stronger than her overall finish .
Finally , there ’ s no particular reason to think that Amy Klobuchar or Steyer have a way forward .
And Steyer ’ s poor finish , likely to be in the single digits after investing millions of dollars in advertising and other resources in Nevada , is an inauspicious omen for Bloomberg .
We ’ ll let you know once we have enough data to turn the model back on .
In the meantime , though , the headline is pretty simple : This was @ @ @ @ @ @

Bernie Sanders has won the Nevada caucuses, and it looks like he’s going to win them by a big, perhaps even landslide margin.
We don’t know exactly how big. As I’m writing this just before 7 p.m. Las Vegas time, only a relatively small percentage of precincts have officially reported results. Nor do we know who’s going to wind up in second place, although it will probably be either Joe Biden or Pete Buttigieg.
Unless the final margin unexpectedly tightens, though, I don’t think the details are going to matter that much. This was a big, impressive win for Sanders, and it should be even clearer now that Sanders is easily the most likely Democrat to win the nomination.
Unlike in Iowa and New Hampshire, there aren’t really any qualifications or caveats about Sanders’s victory here. Nevada is a diverse state, and Sanders did well among a broad array of demographic groups, including winning 53 percent of Hispanics and 27 percent of African Americans, according to the entrance poll. This is a pretty good electorate for Sanders: young, working-class, unionized, heavily Hispanic. But he’s also worked hard to cultivate support from those groups of voters — Hispanic voters weren’t a major strength of his in 2016 for example. Perhaps fortunately for him, there are also plenty of these types of voters in the two biggest delegate prizes on Super Tuesday, California and Texas.
In addition to being the most likely winner overall, Sanders is by far the most likely Democrat to win the nomination with a majority of pledged delegates. Other candidates are mostly hoping for a messy outcome in which they win the nomination by plurality — potentially at a contested convention.
We don’t have enough results as of this writing to officially update our forecast model, but the first two of these prebaked scenarios we built should give you a rough idea of what it will say:
How Nevada could affect the nomination odds Chances of winning a majority of all pledged delegates based on winner, margin of victory and second-place finisher in Nevada, according to FiveThirtyEight’s forecast CHANCE OF WINNING MAJORITY OF DELEGATES Winner NV margin 2nd Sanders Biden Bloom. Buttig. Warren None Sanders large Biden 45% 9% 8% <1% <1% 37% Sanders large Buttigieg 47 6 8 1 <1 38 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 a 1 percent chance of occurring.
That is, Sanders will probably be somewhere in the vicinity of an even-money bet to win the nomination with a delegate majority. He will presumably also be the nominee by plurality at least some of the time that nobody wins a majority. (The model will likely show around a 35 or 40 percent chance of there being no majority.) That means Sanders is probably more likely than not to be the nominee, whether by majority or plurality, although note that our model doesn’t try to forecast what would happen in the event of a contested convention.
After Sanders, the candidate with the next-best puncher’s chance at winning via the majority route is probably Biden. Nevada is his best result so far which — yes — is extremely damning Biden with faint praise after a 4th place finish in Iowa and a 5th place finish in New Hampshire. But it looks like Biden at least found a bottom and will match or slightly exceed his polls in Nevada, unlike in the first two states. He also did win some key groups in the entrance poll, such as African-Americans and seniors.
Obviously, Biden would need to win South Carolina for a comeback to be a real possibility. (With a South Carolina win, his majority chances would likely improve to somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 percent in the model.) Biden does still lead in the polls in South Carolina, but it’s a narrow lead, and the question is whether any further bounce that Sanders gets from winning Nevada will be enough to propel him into first place. There are a lot of other contingencies in South Carolina, also, including a debate next week, and what Tom Steyer will do after a poor finish in Nevada. It’s still possible that we wind up with a Sanders-Biden faceoff for the nomination, though — albeit one where Sanders probably has the advantage.
So what about everyone else?
Buttigieg has been the second-best performer in the first three states, after Sanders. But neither his (disputed) win in Iowa nor his strong second-place finish in New Hampshire produced much of a polling bounce, so there’s no particular reason to expect a distant second or third place finish in Nevada to do so either. And Buttigeg needs a bounce, because he’s at best flirting with the 15 percent viability threshold in South Carolina and in Super Tuesday states, and often polling below it. That’s not to say Buttigieg is out of the running, but his wins largely involve the long, protracted plurality and/or contested convention route, and not winning by majority.
Meanwhile, Michael Bloomberg still looms over Super Tuesday, although maybe he doesn’t loom so large after this week’s debate. The model still gives him an outside chance at a majority and decent chances of a plurality. But there’s been little post debate polling and his position may decline as more of it comes in; initial results should be a bit concerning for Bloomberg.
Elizabeth Warren’s finish was disappointing tonight — but her campaign will undoubtedly claim they were done in by early voting, which took place before last week’s debate. As of this writing, we don’t really have enough data in to comprehensively evaluate that claim, although she did win 17 percent of late-deciding voters in the entrance poll, somewhat stronger than her overall finish.
Finally, there’s no particular reason to think that Amy Klobuchar or Steyer have a way forward. And Steyer’s poor finish, likely to be in the single digits after investing millions of dollars in advertising and other resources in Nevada, is an inauspicious omen for Bloomberg.
We’ll let you know once we have enough data to turn the model back on. In the meantime, though, the headline is pretty simple: This was a great day for Sanders.
Is our primary system democratic?


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-22--What Went Down In The 2020 Nevada Caucuses


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-23--Bernie Sanders Is The Front-Runner

Bernie Sanders Is The Front-Runner

With 60 percent of precincts reporting in Nevada , it ’ s time for us to turn our 2020 primary forecast back on , as we think the results we have are pretty representative and the topline picture appears set .
Sen. Bernie Sanders won , and he won big .
As of the time of this writing , he leads the initial popular vote in Nevada by 16 percentage points .
He also gained the most votes on realignment : He leads the final , realigned popular vote by 21 points and is even further ahead , 26 points @ @ @ @ @ @ @ short , he ’ s projected to receive the bulk of Nevada ’ s 36 national convention delegates .
Here ’ s The New York Times ’ s results ( they seem to have more of the result in than other outlets ) : It was , as editor-in-chief Nate Silver wrote yesterday , a decidedly good night for Sanders .
Our model had already anticipated a pretty good showing for Sanders in Nevada ; we expected him to win , 39 percent of the final vote , on average — exactly what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t a huge change in how the model sees the race .
But Sanders ’ s outlook still meaningfully improved : His chances of winning a majority of pledged delegates are up 6 points , to 46 percent .
In fact , as you can see in the table below , he is the only candidate whose odds of clinching the nomination significantly improved .
Former Vice President Joe Biden did see a small uptick in our overall forecast thanks to a good CBS/YouGov South Carolina poll released on Sunday that put him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ahead of the rest of the field .
It also edged him ahead of Sanders in our South Carolina forecast , giving him a 1 in 2 chance of winning the most votes , compared with Sanders ’ s 2 in 5 shot .
Similarly , a national CBS News/YouGov poll put Sen. Elizabeth Warren in second place at 19 percent , which helped her overall odds tick up ever so slightly in our forecast despite a disappointing fourth-place finish in Nevada .
But perhaps the biggest wildcard after Nevada is that former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ biggest hit of any candidate , dropping more than 4 points in our forecast , even though he wasn ’ t on the ballot in Nevada .
That ’ s because we ’ re starting to get some post-debate polls , and they do not have good numbers for Bloomberg .
In that national YouGov poll , Bloomberg was in fourth with 13 percent , and in a Morning Consult poll released on Friday , he was in third with 17 percent , down 3 points from Morning Consult ’ s pre-debate poll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that only Biden will benefit from a Bloomberg stumble , but it certainly holds good news for him at this point , especially if he holds onto his second place finish in Nevada .
Notably , the odds that no one wins a majority of pledged delegates fell by 1.5 points , too , meaning that is no longer the single most likely outcome in our forecast .
( Going into the caucuses , there was a 41 percent chance no one would win a majority of delegates and a 39 percent chance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will end without anyone winning a pledged-delegate majority is still the second most likely outcome in our forecast after a Sanders win , but Sanders ’ s decisive victory in Nevada helped him put a little distance between himself and that more chaotic scenario .
And remember , there are also plenty of eventualities in which Sanders wins the nomination with only a plurality of pledged delegates — his chances of winning the most delegates ( though not necessarily a majority ) , rose from 61 percent before Nevada to 69 percent after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as more likely to win in the two most delegate-rich Super Tuesday states : California and Texas and , even though he may no longer be in the lead in South Carolina , things are incredibly close between him and Biden there , and it ’ s probably best thought of as a tie at this point .
Put simply , the model now puts Sanders in a modestly stronger position across the board .
His chances of winning rose in a bunch of states .
As always in the wake of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a bit of an educated guess until we get more polls — the model will quickly update if new polling differs from what it expects .
But the picture here isn ’ t all that fuzzy — Sanders is the front-runner in a race that remains extremely fluid .

With 60 percent of precincts reporting in Nevada, it’s time for us to turn our 2020 primary forecast back on, as we think the results we have are pretty representative and the topline picture appears set. Sen. Bernie Sanders won, and he won big. As of the time of this writing, he leads the initial popular vote in Nevada by 16 percentage points. He also gained the most votes on realignment: He leads the final, realigned popular vote by 21 points and is even further ahead, 26 points, in county convention delegates. In short, he’s projected to receive the bulk of Nevada’s 36 national convention delegates. Here’s The New York Times’s results (they seem to have more of the result in than other outlets):
It was, as editor-in-chief Nate Silver wrote yesterday, a decidedly good night for Sanders.
Our model had already anticipated a pretty good showing for Sanders in Nevada; we expected him to win, 39 percent of the final vote, on average — exactly what he won. So there isn’t a huge change in how the model sees the race. But Sanders’s outlook still meaningfully improved: His chances of winning a majority of pledged delegates are up 6 points, to 46 percent. In fact, as you can see in the table below, he is the only candidate whose odds of clinching the nomination significantly improved.
How the preliminary Nevada results changed our forecast With 60 percent of precincts reporting, as of Feb. 23, 2020, 2 p.m. ET Candidate Avg. projected delegates Change Chance of majority Change Sanders 1,796 +120.5 45.9% +6.4 No majority — — 39.9 -1.5 Biden 818 +65.0 8.7 +0.3 Bloomberg 771 -150.5 4.5 -4.4 Warren 248 +49.7 0.7 +0.1 Buttigieg 235 -63.0 0.3 -0.9
Former Vice President Joe Biden did see a small uptick in our overall forecast thanks to a good CBS/YouGov South Carolina poll released on Sunday that put him at 28 percent, and 5 points ahead of the rest of the field. It also edged him ahead of Sanders in our South Carolina forecast, giving him a 1 in 2 chance of winning the most votes, compared with Sanders’s 2 in 5 shot. Similarly, a national CBS News/YouGov poll put Sen. Elizabeth Warren in second place at 19 percent, which helped her overall odds tick up ever so slightly in our forecast despite a disappointing fourth-place finish in Nevada.
But perhaps the biggest wildcard after Nevada is that former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg took the biggest hit of any candidate, dropping more than 4 points in our forecast, even though he wasn’t on the ballot in Nevada. That’s because we’re starting to get some post-debate polls, and they do not have good numbers for Bloomberg. In that national YouGov poll, Bloomberg was in fourth with 13 percent, and in a Morning Consult poll released on Friday, he was in third with 17 percent, down 3 points from Morning Consult’s pre-debate poll. It’s not necessarily clear that only Biden will benefit from a Bloomberg stumble, but it certainly holds good news for him at this point, especially if he holds onto his second place finish in Nevada.
Notably, the odds that no one wins a majority of pledged delegates fell by 1.5 points, too, meaning that is no longer the single most likely outcome in our forecast. (Going into the caucuses, there was a 41 percent chance no one would win a majority of delegates and a 39 percent chance Sanders would win.)
That voting will end without anyone winning a pledged-delegate majority is still the second most likely outcome in our forecast after a Sanders win, but Sanders’s decisive victory in Nevada helped him put a little distance between himself and that more chaotic scenario. And remember, there are also plenty of eventualities in which Sanders wins the nomination with only a plurality of pledged delegates — his chances of winning the most delegates (though not necessarily a majority), rose from 61 percent before Nevada to 69 percent after.
The model now also sees Sanders as more likely to win in the two most delegate-rich Super Tuesday states: California and Texas and, even though he may no longer be in the lead in South Carolina, things are incredibly close between him and Biden there, and it’s probably best thought of as a tie at this point.
Put simply, the model now puts Sanders in a modestly stronger position across the board. His chances of winning rose in a bunch of states. As always in the wake of a caucus or primary, treat the forecast as a bit of an educated guess until we get more polls — the model will quickly update if new polling differs from what it expects. But the picture here isn’t all that fuzzy — Sanders is the front-runner in a race that remains extremely fluid.
Bloomberg’s strategy of skipping early states is ‘confusing’ the process: Nate Silver


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-24--Tech Was Supposed To Improve Caucuses. Instead, It May Have Doomed Them.

It all seemed so noble at first .
The Democratic National Committee wanted its primary to be more transparent and accessible , so it required state parties to accept absentee ballots and to report raw vote numbers .
Iowa and Nevada Democrats responded by adding technology to their caucuses in the hopes of improving transparency , increasing participation and speeding up how quickly results could be reported .
Seemed straightforward enough .
But there ’ s one thing Democrats probably weren ’ t expecting tech would do : highlight so much of what was already wrong with caucuses .
Even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the need for these digital tools only underscored the many problems with caucuses , nearly none of which could be solved with an app .
Now , there ’ s an open question about whether caucuses will be part of 2024 ’ s nominating process .
The Democrats ’ tech utopianism started with plans in Iowa and Nevada to hold “ virtual caucuses , ” allowing Democrats who couldn ’ t attend a caucus in person to cast a ballot remotely by phone .
There ’ s a reason you didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ month — they were kiboshed by the DNC due to security concerns .
But even traditional caucuses were being modernized , which is why you heard all about infamous apps , jammed phone lines and Google forms in the past few weeks .
They were high-tech workarounds for some of caucuses ’ flaws : they ’ re not inclusive , they ’ re not transparent and the complicated math and arcane rules can confuse even the most seasoned of volunteers , opening the door for errors .
Take , for example , one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ absentee ballot .
In a primary , early ballots can just be counted alongside day-of votes , but caucusing requires some way for those early ballots to be realigned .
In a caucus , voters group together to support their first-choice candidate , but if he or she doesn ’ t attract a certain percentage of votes — typically 15 percent — that candidate is deemed nonviable .
Those supporters then have to realign themselves to form a viable group , either by combining with the supporters of other nonviable candidates or by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ met the threshold .
This is difficult in person .
Now try to figure out a way to do that with people who voted early .
In the past , most caucuses just … didn ’ t , which plays into one of the biggest critiques of caucusing : it ’ s not inclusive .
If you work a late shift , or have a disability , or lack the transportation or time or childcare required to spend a few hours in a school gymnasium on a specific date , then too bad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ participate .
The DNC tried to solve this problem by introducing the absentee ballot requirement , but meeting that requirement forced caucus states to turn to tech solutions .
The first pitch — the “ virtual ” caucuses — was rife with security risks .
Iowa ’ s second option , to host remote satellite caucuses , avoided tech issues but didn ’ t solve a lot of the accessibility issues with caucusing .
Meanwhile , Nevada ’ s solution was to host a four-day early voting period that again required a tech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Google form ) to incorporate these ranked-choice ballots into the live caucus process .
Though the Google form seems to have worked more or less as intended , with no reports of systemic problems , it underscores how much simpler it would be to just have a primary , where early votes could be incorporated without the need of any special tech tools .
Then there ’ s the lack of transparency .
For decades , state parties would only report out the caucuses ’ final results ( technically , the number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by each candidate ) .
This left a lot of unknowns about how voters changed their preferences and who actually won the popular vote .
In a bid for more transparency , the DNC enacted rules this year requiring states to report three sets of numbers : the total votes in the first alignment , the total votes in the final alignment and the delegate equivalents .
More transparent ?
Sure .
Easy ?
Hardly .
It was this requirement that , in part , spurred the Iowa Democratic Party to commission the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ widespread failures on the day of the caucuses and led to an extended delay in reporting results .
The requirement is also being blamed for the delay in Nevada ’ s results being reported — it simply took longer for all those numbers to be reported and verified .
In a way , the effort to create more transparency worked , just not in the way the DNC may have intended .
The new system ’ s failure drew greater scrutiny to the process , and the need to report all three numbers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The combination revealed pervasive errors that may very well have plagued caucuses forever — reports of errors have occurred in previous years , too .
The shuffling of voters over one or many realignments has always been ripe for mistakes .
No app can fix that .
A primary , where each voter votes just once , largely avoids these pitfalls .
Even former Senator Harry Reid , the godfather of Nevada ’ s early calendar caucuses , and some Iowa Democrats have now said they believe a primary is the way to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for these issues for years now , and it ’ s one of the reasons that more and more states have already made the decision to switch to a primary .
But the efforts to introduce tech as a means to solve these issues has only served to further highlight how difficult they are to solve .
Democrats turned to tech in an effort to save caucuses .
In the end , it might be what finally kills them .

It all seemed so noble at first. The Democratic National Committee wanted its primary to be more transparent and accessible, so it required state parties to accept absentee ballots and to report raw vote numbers. Iowa and Nevada Democrats responded by adding technology to their caucuses in the hopes of improving transparency, increasing participation and speeding up how quickly results could be reported. Seemed straightforward enough.
But there’s one thing Democrats probably weren’t expecting tech would do: highlight so much of what was already wrong with caucuses. Even if the new technology worked flawlessly, the need for these digital tools only underscored the many problems with caucuses, nearly none of which could be solved with an app. Now, there’s an open question about whether caucuses will be part of 2024’s nominating process.
The Democrats’ tech utopianism started with plans in Iowa and Nevada to hold “virtual caucuses,” allowing Democrats who couldn’t attend a caucus in person to cast a ballot remotely by phone. There’s a reason you didn’t hear much about them over the past month — they were kiboshed by the DNC due to security concerns.
But even traditional caucuses were being modernized, which is why you heard all about infamous apps, jammed phone lines and Google forms in the past few weeks. They were high-tech workarounds for some of caucuses’ flaws: they’re not inclusive, they’re not transparent and the complicated math and arcane rules can confuse even the most seasoned of volunteers, opening the door for errors.
Take, for example, one caucus quandary: how to incorporate an absentee ballot.
In a primary, early ballots can just be counted alongside day-of votes, but caucusing requires some way for those early ballots to be realigned. In a caucus, voters group together to support their first-choice candidate, but if he or she doesn’t attract a certain percentage of votes — typically 15 percent — that candidate is deemed nonviable. Those supporters then have to realign themselves to form a viable group, either by combining with the supporters of other nonviable candidates or by joining the supporters of a candidate who met the threshold.
This is difficult in person. Now try to figure out a way to do that with people who voted early.
In the past, most caucuses just … didn’t, which plays into one of the biggest critiques of caucusing: it’s not inclusive. If you work a late shift, or have a disability, or lack the transportation or time or childcare required to spend a few hours in a school gymnasium on a specific date, then too bad, you don’t get to participate.
The DNC tried to solve this problem by introducing the absentee ballot requirement, but meeting that requirement forced caucus states to turn to tech solutions. The first pitch — the “virtual” caucuses — was rife with security risks. Iowa’s second option, to host remote satellite caucuses, avoided tech issues but didn’t solve a lot of the accessibility issues with caucusing.
Meanwhile, Nevada’s solution was to host a four-day early voting period that again required a tech solution (first the app, then a Google form) to incorporate these ranked-choice ballots into the live caucus process. Though the Google form seems to have worked more or less as intended, with no reports of systemic problems, it underscores how much simpler it would be to just have a primary, where early votes could be incorporated without the need of any special tech tools.
Then there’s the lack of transparency. For decades, state parties would only report out the caucuses’ final results (technically, the number of state or county convention delegates won by each candidate). This left a lot of unknowns about how voters changed their preferences and who actually won the popular vote. In a bid for more transparency, the DNC enacted rules this year requiring states to report three sets of numbers: the total votes in the first alignment, the total votes in the final alignment and the delegate equivalents.
More transparent? Sure. Easy? Hardly.
It was this requirement that, in part, spurred the Iowa Democratic Party to commission the development of an app, which experienced widespread failures on the day of the caucuses and led to an extended delay in reporting results. The requirement is also being blamed for the delay in Nevada’s results being reported — it simply took longer for all those numbers to be reported and verified.
In a way, the effort to create more transparency worked, just not in the way the DNC may have intended. The new system’s failure drew greater scrutiny to the process, and the need to report all three numbers meant more detailed records were kept. The combination revealed pervasive errors that may very well have plagued caucuses forever — reports of errors have occurred in previous years, too.
The shuffling of voters over one or many realignments has always been ripe for mistakes. No app can fix that. A primary, where each voter votes just once, largely avoids these pitfalls. Even former Senator Harry Reid, the godfather of Nevada’s early calendar caucuses, and some Iowa Democrats have now said they believe a primary is the way to go.
Caucuses have been drawing criticism for these issues for years now, and it’s one of the reasons that more and more states have already made the decision to switch to a primary. But the efforts to introduce tech as a means to solve these issues has only served to further highlight how difficult they are to solve.
Democrats turned to tech in an effort to save caucuses. In the end, it might be what finally kills them.


fivethirtyeight--2020-02-24--Who Will Win The South Carolina Democratic Debate?

Who voters are considering Share of respondents who are considering voting for each candidate After three voting contests in which @ @ @ @ @ the state or done extremely well , Sen. Bernie Sanders is now the top candidate @ @ @ @ @ with 46 percent listing him as a possible choice .
Former Vice President Joe Biden @ @ @ @ @ behind , though , with 38 percent considering him , and Sen. Elizabeth Warren is @ @ @ @ @ 32 percent .
Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and former South Bend , Indiana @ @ @ @ @ within striking distance too , but the remaining two candidates — Sen. Amy Klobuchar and @ @ @ @ @ a bit of catching up to do .
We ’ ll be tracking how this @ @ @ @ @ changes after the debate .
Are they considering fewer candidates ?
More ?
And which @ @ @ @ @ most potential supporters ?

Seven candidates participated in Tuesday’s debate, hosted by CBS News in Charleston, South Carolina. With the state’s primary looming this Saturday, the stakes were high, and we once again partnered with Ipsos to track how the debate affected likely primary voters’ feelings about the candidates. The FiveThirtyEight/Ipsos poll, conducted using Ipsos’s KnowledgePanel, interviewed the same group of voters twice, once on either side of the debate, to capture both the “before” and “after” picture.
To better understand which candidates did well or poorly, we plotted how favorably respondents rated the candidates before the debate vs. how debate-watchers rated candidates’ performances afterward. The first thing that stands out from last night’s debate is that Democratic voters were not especially thrilled with anyone’s performance. And as you’ll see, there’s no consistent theme to who voters responded well to, and their responses add up to a somewhat muddled picture of the debate’s effects. That said, Sen. Bernie Sanders and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg got the highest average performance marks, closely followed by former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Amy Klobuchar.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, on the other hand, got a middle-of-the-pack performance score, but because of her relatively high pre-debate favorability ratings, you’d expect a lot of voters to be predisposed to viewing her debate performance in a positive light, and her score doesn’t look as impressive in comparison. (The same is true for Sanders, even though he got the highest average marks.)
The numbers behind the chart
Candidate Pre-debate favorability Debate performance Bernie Sanders 64.7% 3.0 Pete Buttigieg 61.3 3.0 Joe Biden 59.3 2.9 Amy Klobuchar 56.9 2.8 Elizabeth Warren 62.4 2.8 Tom Steyer 49.6 2.6 Michael Bloomberg 46.7 2.5
In terms of raw debate grades — respondents graded candidates on a four-point scale (higher scores are better) — the clear losers were billionaire activist Tom Steyer and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. However, their scores do look a little better judged against their relatively mediocre pre-debate favorability ratings.