vox--2020-02-03--The Iowa caucuses expectations game, explained

Voters are finally ready to caucus in Iowa , and the contest for the Democratic presidential nomination will finally have finally begun .
Candidates are fighting over just 1 percent of the overall pledged delegate share , so what matters far more in Monday ’ s caucuses is who comes out looking like a winner rather than actual vote totals .
And though the status of the frontrunners has been stable for months , wacky results in Iowa could scramble the race .
So how are we supposed to interpret what happens in the Iowa caucuses ?
“ A lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who wins but how close it is — what the one , two , three order is , etc , ” Amy Walter at the Cook Political Report said over email .
She demurred on endorsing a clear narrative .
“ I ’ m really not all that comfortable with the ‘ If Warren finishes third , she ’ s dead ’ kind of stuff , ” Walter said .
“ I just think it ’ s more complicated than that.
” She noted that in 2004 , the story was not only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Iowa Democratic caucuses but John Edwards ’ s rise ( and then Howard Dean ’ s unforgettable scream ) .
Marco Rubio looked strong in Iowa to kick off the 2016 GOP primary but quickly faded .
All this is compounded by the fact that Super Tuesday , just a month away , looms larger over Iowa than ever before .
Some voters have already started casting ballots in those early states , and they add up to far more delegates than the early states of Iowa , New Hampshire , Nevada @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the political world has been making hay out of the Iowa results for years , and that ’ s unlikely to stop this year .
As Walter pointed out , the order will matter but so will the gap .
Josh Putnam , who runs the elections blog FrontloadingHQ , said campaigns should be tracking how widespread their support is : in how many different counties are clearing the 15 percent threshold to actually win some delegates .
You need a majority of the 3,979 up for grabs in the next few months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Iowa has just 41 .
As always in politics , narratives matter .
Let ’ s run through the candidates and — acknowledging the unpredictability of politics — give a general theory of how the candidates want to show in Iowa .
Joe Biden would be glad to win , but doesn ’ t have to Former vice president Joe Biden , who has consistently led national polls and polls near the front in the early primary states including Iowa , would certainly be happy to come in first .
But he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kyle Kondik at the University of Virginia ’ s Center for Politics .
For Biden , who depends on older and black voters for so much of his support , South Carolina and the Super Tuesday states will be the most critical .
But he ’ ll want to at least perform well in Iowa and New Hampshire to prove his strength as the overall frontrunner .
He ’ d certainly like to win some delegates .
“ Iowa and New Hampshire are not necessary , and a top-three finish in both is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos told me .
“ The fact that some polling has him winning one or both of those states is just a bonus.
” Still , for a presumed frontrunner , frontrunning usually means winning or at least coming close .
Heading into the caucuses , Biden is polling in second at 21 percent , according to FiveThirtyEight ’ s averages of the Iowa polling .
He ’ s leading nationally at 26.7 percent .
The main risk to Biden ’ s road to the nomination is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to other viable options .
Bernie Sanders wants to win , and victory might be a big boost Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont certainly could be expected to finish first , especially given his recent strong polling heading into the caucuses and an established history organizing in the state .
He is polling in first at 22.2 percent in Iowa , just ahead of Biden , according to FiveThirtyEight .
“ Given the late polling seeming to break in his favor , not finishing first might seem disappointing , ” Kondik said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ dream scenario ” as sweeping Iowa , New Hampshire , and the third state in the primary , Nevada .
Sanders has been the second-highest polling national candidate for most of the race , currently sitting at 21.7 percent .
He looks strong in New Hampshire too and in the polling we have for Nevada , sitting in first place and a close second respectively , according to FiveThirtyEight ’ s polling averages .
Either way , Sanders seem likely to stick in the race for a while .
He has a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s going to win the nomination outright , a first-place Iowa finish would be a big step toward overcoming Biden .
Elizabeth Warren needs to build momentum for New Hampshire Kondik said he thought Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts would want to finish in the top three and “ close to the top.
” It ’ d help to have momentum going into New Hampshire .
“ Warren must do what John Kerry did in 2004 : reignite her New Hampshire campaign in Iowa , ” Dante Scala at the University of New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , she must better Bernie , and convince New Hampshire progressives to take another look at her.
” After a rise and fall in the latter half of 2019 , Warren has been third and sometimes second in the polling , both nationally and in the early primary states ( around 15 percent nationally and in Iowa ) .
That means she needs to leapfrog Sanders and Biden , both of whom have been constants throughout , to win the nomination .
Moulitsas pointed out another complexity of the Iowa caucuses : There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ victory .
The process is going to be more complicated than ever before , with three outcomes , as Vox ’ s Andrew Prokop explained : 1 ) The pre-realignment vote total : This is the initial tally of how many people prefer each candidate at each of the more than 1,600 individual caucus sites ( added together for a statewide total ) .
Basically , it ’ s who got the most votes the first time around .
2 ) The final vote total : After the first tally , any supporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a certain threshold of the vote ( 15 percent in most precincts ) can shift their support to another candidate .
Candidates who are below the viability threshold are eliminated as “ nonviable , ” and a new and final tally is taken .
So this is who got the most votes after a reshuffling .
3 ) State delegate equivalents : The final vote total at each caucus site will then be used to assign each viable candidate a certain number of county delegates .
Then those county delegate numbers will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ equivalents ” ( how many delegates each candidate will get at the Iowa state convention ) .
Warren needs at least claim one , Moulitsas said , in order to build off Iowa .
Pete Buttigieg might need to win to have a chance “ To be a truly viable threat to win the nomination , I honestly think he needs to win , ” Kondik said .
“ With so little minority support , Iowa is a golden opportunity.
” Some were even more pessimistic .
In the national polls , former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Buttigieg actually trails quite far behind the top three of Biden , Sanders and Warren .
He ’ s recently fallen behind Michael Bloomberg , by FiveThirtyEight ’ s reckoning , and is now polling at around 7 percent .
( In Iowa , he ’ s around 15 percent . )
“ The idea that an Iowa victory would somehow propel Klobuchar or Buttigieg into wider contention is a pipe dream for those guys , ” Moulitsas said .
“ Not only are they weak with the voters of color that predominate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve fared poorly in the national primary that has preceded Iowa and that has already whittled down the field into a three-candidate race.
” Buttigieg has built a core base of affluent college-educated voters in New Hampshire , Scala said .
A strong showing in Iowa , paired with a poor Biden performance , could help him heading into the next state .
The former mayor ’ s campaign has a good organization in New Hampshire , too .
“ That said , Iowa disappointment for Buttigieg ( and Biden triumph ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats shrugging their shoulders and going with Biden , ” Scala said .
“ Could be lots of ‘ dated Pete , married Joe ’ voters.
” Amy Klobuchar is looking for a shockingly good finish Needing a pretty big shake-up to break through , Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota would really benefit from a surprise first or close second , Kondik said .
It would bring the media attention she ’ d need to extend her reach through the rest of the race .
Scala thought she could parlay Iowa into a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Klobuchar puts up a number that makes her the story out of Iowa.
” “ If she can somehow make herself appear to be the moderate alternative to Sanders or Warren , ” he said , “ she could make some headway in the last week.
” She ’ s snuck up to 10 percent in the FiveThirtyEight Iowa polling average , but that still puts her in fifth .
Tom Steyer , Andrew Yang , and Mike Bloomberg have a lot of ground to make up Billionaire Tom Steyer can afford to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he wants to but somebody polling where he is right now — 2 percent nationally , according to FiveThirtyEight — needs to finish up near the frontrunners in order to have any shot of establishing himself .
The same goes for businessman Andrew Yang .
He ’ s at least sticking around for the near term .
Former New York City Mayor ( and fellow rich person ) Michael Bloomberg seems to pretty much be punting on the first four states in the primary , focusing his efforts on the March 3 Super @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to do anything in Iowa by his campaign ’ s rationale .
Tulsi Gabbard and Michael Bennet have other reasons to run for president Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii and Sen. Michael Bennett of Colorado are polling down at 1 percent ( or even less , in the latter ’ s case , per FiveThirtyEight ) in Iowa .
Their campaigns have always been more of an ideological exercise — Gabbard as anti-war protest , Bennet arguing for pragmatism and against Medicare-for-all — and it ’ s hard to see a path @ @ @ @ @ @ @ barring a miracle early in these primaries .

There are a lot of ways to “win” Iowa. Here’s what each candidate needs to do.
Share All sharing options for: There are a lot of ways to “win” Iowa. Here’s what each candidate needs to do.
Voters are finally ready to caucus in Iowa, and the election for the Democratic presidential nomination will finally have begun.
Candidates are fighting over just 1 percent of the overall pledged delegate share, so what matters far more in Monday’s caucuses is who comes out looking like a winner rather than actual vote totals. And though the status of the frontrunners has been stable for months, wacky results in Iowa could scramble the race.
So how are we supposed to interpret what happens in the Iowa caucuses?
“A lot of this will depend not just on who wins but how close it is — what the one, two, three order is, etc,” Amy Walter at the Cook Political Report said over email. She demurred on endorsing a clear narrative.
“I’m really not all that comfortable with the ‘If Warren finishes third, she’s dead’ kind of stuff,” Walter said. “I just think it’s more complicated than that.”
She noted that in 2004, the story was not only John Kerry’s unexpected win in the Iowa Democratic caucuses but John Edwards’s rise (and then Howard Dean’s unforgettable scream). Marco Rubio looked strong in Iowa to kick off the 2016 GOP primary but quickly faded.
Related Why the Iowa caucuses matter
All this is compounded by the fact that Super Tuesday, just a month away, looms larger over Iowa than ever before. Some voters have already started casting ballots in those early states, and they add up to far more delegates than the early states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina.
Nevertheless, the political world has been making hay out of the Iowa results for years, and that’s unlikely to stop this year. As Walter pointed out, the order will matter but so will the gap.
Josh Putnam, who runs the elections blog FrontloadingHQ, said campaigns should be tracking how widespread their support is: in how many different counties are clearing the 15 percent threshold to actually win some delegates. You need a majority of the 3,979 up for grabs in the next few months to win the nomination before the convention. Iowa has just 41.
As always in politics, narratives matter. Let’s run through the candidates and — acknowledging the unpredictability of politics — give a general theory of how the candidates want to show in Iowa.
Joe Biden would be glad to win, but doesn’t have to
Former vice president Joe Biden, who has consistently led national polls and polls near the front in the early primary states including Iowa, would certainly be happy to come in first. But he doesn’t have to, said Kyle Kondik at the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics.
For Biden, who depends on older and black voters for so much of his support, South Carolina and the Super Tuesday states will be the most critical. But he’ll want to at least perform well in Iowa and New Hampshire to prove his strength as the overall frontrunner. He’d certainly like to win some delegates.
“Iowa and New Hampshire are not necessary, and a top-three finish in both is enough to show viability and a presence,” Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos told me. “The fact that some polling has him winning one or both of those states is just a bonus.”
Still, for a presumed frontrunner, frontrunning usually means winning or at least coming close. Heading into the caucuses, Biden is polling in second at 21 percent, according to FiveThirtyEight’s averages of the Iowa polling. He’s leading nationally at 26.7 percent.
The main risk to Biden’s road to the nomination is that his momentum slows and voters bolt to other viable options.
Bernie Sanders wants to win, and victory might be a big boost
Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont certainly could be expected to finish first, especially given his recent strong polling heading into the caucuses and an established history organizing in the state. He is polling in first at 22.2 percent in Iowa, just ahead of Biden, according to FiveThirtyEight.
“Given the late polling seeming to break in his favor, not finishing first might seem disappointing,” Kondik said. He describes the Vermont senator’s “dream scenario” as sweeping Iowa, New Hampshire, and the third state in the primary, Nevada.
Sanders has been the second-highest polling national candidate for most of the race, currently sitting at 21.7 percent. He looks strong in New Hampshire too and in the polling we have for Nevada, sitting in first place and a close second respectively, according to FiveThirtyEight’s polling averages.
Either way, Sanders seem likely to stick in the race for a while. He has a well-built organization. But if he’s going to win the nomination outright, a first-place Iowa finish would be a big step toward overcoming Biden.
Elizabeth Warren needs to build momentum for New Hampshire
Kondik said he thought Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts would want to finish in the top three and “close to the top.” It’d help to have momentum going into New Hampshire.
“Warren must do what John Kerry did in 2004: reignite her New Hampshire campaign in Iowa,” Dante Scala at the University of New Hampshire added. “At a minimum, she must better Bernie, and convince New Hampshire progressives to take another look at her.”
After a rise and fall in the latter half of 2019, Warren has been third and sometimes second in the polling, both nationally and in the early primary states (around 15 percent nationally and in Iowa). That means she needs to leapfrog Sanders and Biden, both of whom have been constants throughout, to win the nomination.
Moulitsas pointed out another complexity of the Iowa caucuses: There are a few different ways to claim victory. The process is going to be more complicated than ever before, with three outcomes, as Vox’s Andrew Prokop explained:
1) The pre-realignment vote total: This is the initial tally of how many people prefer each candidate at each of the more than 1,600 individual caucus sites (added together for a statewide total). Basically, it’s who got the most votes the first time around. 2) The final vote total: After the first tally, any supporters of a candidate who got less than a certain threshold of the vote (15 percent in most precincts) can shift their support to another candidate. Candidates who are below the viability threshold are eliminated as “nonviable,” and a new and final tally is taken. So this is who got the most votes after a reshuffling. 3) State delegate equivalents: The final vote total at each caucus site will then be used to assign each viable candidate a certain number of county delegates. Then those county delegate numbers will be weighted to estimate their “state delegate equivalents” (how many delegates each candidate will get at the Iowa state convention).
Warren needs at least claim one, Moulitsas said, in order to build off Iowa.
Pete Buttigieg might need to win to have a chance
“To be a truly viable threat to win the nomination, I honestly think he needs to win,” Kondik said. “With so little minority support, Iowa is a golden opportunity.”
Some were even more pessimistic. In the national polls, former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg actually trails quite far behind the top three of Biden, Sanders and Warren. He’s recently fallen behind Michael Bloomberg, by FiveThirtyEight’s reckoning, and is now polling at around 7 percent. (In Iowa, he’s around 15 percent.)
“The idea that an Iowa victory would somehow propel Klobuchar or Buttigieg into wider contention is a pipe dream for those guys,” Moulitsas said. “Not only are they weak with the voters of color that predominate South Carolina and Nevada, but they’ve fared poorly in the national primary that has preceded Iowa and that has already whittled down the field into a three-candidate race.”
Buttigieg has built a core base of affluent college-educated voters in New Hampshire, Scala said. A strong showing in Iowa, paired with a poor Biden performance, could help him heading into the next state. The former mayor’s campaign has a good organization in New Hampshire, too.
“That said, Iowa disappointment for Buttigieg (and Biden triumph) could lead to lots of New Hampshire Democrats shrugging their shoulders and going with Biden,” Scala said. “Could be lots of ‘dated Pete, married Joe’ voters.”
Amy Klobuchar is looking for a shockingly good finish
Needing a pretty big shake-up to break through, Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota would really benefit from a surprise first or close second, Kondik said. It would bring the media attention she’d need to extend her reach through the rest of the race.
Scala thought she could parlay Iowa into a good New Hampshire result “only if Klobuchar puts up a number that makes her the story out of Iowa.”
“If she can somehow make herself appear to be the moderate alternative to Sanders or Warren,” he said, “she could make some headway in the last week.”
She’s snuck up to 10 percent in the FiveThirtyEight Iowa polling average, but that still puts her in fifth.
Tom Steyer, Andrew Yang, and Mike Bloomberg have a lot of ground to make up
Billionaire Tom Steyer can afford to stay in the race as long as he wants to but somebody polling where he is right now — 2 percent nationally, according to FiveThirtyEight — needs to finish up near the frontrunners in order to have any shot of establishing himself. The same goes for businessman Andrew Yang. He’s at least sticking around for the near term.
Former New York City Mayor (and fellow rich person) Michael Bloomberg seems to pretty much be punting on the first four states in the primary, focusing his efforts on the March 3 Super Tuesday. He doesn’t really need to do anything in Iowa by his campaign’s rationale.
Tulsi Gabbard and Michael Bennet have other reasons to run for president
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii and Sen. Michael Bennett of Colorado are polling down at 1 percent (or even less, in the latter’s case, per FiveThirtyEight) in Iowa.
Their campaigns have always been more of an ideological exercise — Gabbard as anti-war protest, Bennet arguing for pragmatism and against Medicare-for-all — and it’s hard to see a path to the nomination for either of them barring a miracle early in these primaries.


vox--2020-02-03--KFC is now selling vegan chicken nuggets in 2 major cities

KFC is one of the most notorious American food brands in animal rights circles — but the latest KFC news is something animal welfare supporters should cheer .
The company is rolling out Beyond Fried Chicken , a vegan chicken nugget product made in conjunction with the company Beyond Meat , to almost 100 stores in and around Charlotte , North Carolina , and Nashville , Tennessee .
The nuggets will go on sale Monday , February 3 , and will be available until February 23 or while supplies last .
If the test is successful , the company says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
KFC ’ s move is the latest in a long succession of meatless meat rollouts by various national restaurant and fast-food brands , including the Impossible Whopper at Burger King , Beyond Burgers at Denny ’ s , and the Impossible Meat tacos at Qdoba .
It ’ s an especially noteworthy move , as KFC ’ s chicken suppliers have been the frequent target of undercover investigations , including one in 2004 that showed workers kicking , stomping , and throwing chickens against walls .
Beyond Fried Chicken first premiered in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ summer .
I haven ’ t tried the nuggets yet , but Fast Company ’ s Mark Wilson is enthusiastic : “ It tastes like a doggone piece of chicken—and not just any piece of chicken , but a KFC piece of chicken with hints of those 11 herbs and spices.
” He adds that it ’ s “ the best faux chicken I ’ ve eaten in the last five years of eating mostly vegan.
” Wilson reports that while most meatless fast-food products , like Burger King ’ s Impossible Whopper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Beyond Fried Chicken nuggets are “ completely custom for KFC … The company went through countless iterations on the protein , ultimately opting , not for a ground , spongey protein , but something more akin to whole breast muscle tissue.
” If you ’ re in the Charlotte or Atlanta areas and are curious if your local KFC will feature the meatless nuggets , you can search for your store on the KFC site and look for a “ Beyond Fried Chicken ” indicator .
If you live elsewhere and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Foods products , be sure to check out Sigal Samuel ’ s guide to which restaurants and grocery stores are featuring them .
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter and we ’ ll send you a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling the world ’ s biggest challenges — and how to get better at doing good .
Future Perfect is funded in part by individual contributions , grants , and sponsorships .
Learn more here .

KFC is one of the most notorious American food brands in animal rights circles — but the latest KFC news is something animal welfare supporters should cheer.
The company is rolling out Beyond Fried Chicken, a vegan chicken nugget product made in conjunction with the company Beyond Meat, to almost 100 stores in and around Charlotte, North Carolina, and Nashville, Tennessee. The nuggets will go on sale Monday, February 3, and will be available until February 23 or while supplies last. If the test is successful, the company says it hopes to push the product nationwide.
KFC’s move is the latest in a long succession of meatless meat rollouts by various national restaurant and fast-food brands, including the Impossible Whopper at Burger King, Beyond Burgers at Denny’s, and the Impossible Meat tacos at Qdoba. It’s an especially noteworthy move, as KFC’s chicken suppliers have been the frequent target of undercover investigations, including one in 2004 that showed workers kicking, stomping, and throwing chickens against walls.
Beyond Fried Chicken first premiered in a KFC location outside Atlanta this past summer. I haven’t tried the nuggets yet, but Fast Company’s Mark Wilson is enthusiastic: “It tastes like a doggone piece of chicken—and not just any piece of chicken, but a KFC piece of chicken with hints of those 11 herbs and spices.” He adds that it’s “the best faux chicken I’ve eaten in the last five years of eating mostly vegan.”
Wilson reports that while most meatless fast-food products, like Burger King’s Impossible Whopper, are based on a standard recipe, the Beyond Fried Chicken nuggets are “completely custom for KFC … The company went through countless iterations on the protein, ultimately opting, not for a ground, spongey protein, but something more akin to whole breast muscle tissue.”
If you’re in the Charlotte or Nashville areas and are curious if your local KFC will feature the meatless nuggets, you can search for your store on the KFC site and look for a “Beyond Fried Chicken” indicator.
If you live elsewhere and want to eat Beyond Meat or Impossible Foods products, be sure to check out Sigal Samuel’s guide to which restaurants and grocery stores are featuring them.
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter and we’ll send you a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling the world’s biggest challenges — and how to get better at doing good.
vox-mark Sign up for the newsletter Future Perfect Each week, we explore unique solutions to some of the world's biggest problems. Thanks for signing up! Check your inbox for a welcome email. Email (required) Oops. Something went wrong. Please enter a valid email and try again. By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . You can opt out at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. For more newsletters, check out our newsletters page Subscribe
Future Perfect is funded in part by individual contributions, grants, and sponsorships. Learn more here.


vox--2020-02-03--Who is going to win the 2020 Iowa caucuses, according to the polls

The Iowa caucuses are here at last , and the latest polls show a very , very tight race in the Democratic primary , with Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Vice President Joe Biden at the front of the pack .
But this final stretch in polling before the Iowa caucuses isn ’ t without drama .
A highly anticipated poll from J. Ann Selzer and the Des Moines Register , scheduled for release on Saturday , failed to come out after former South Bend , Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg complained he was left off some of the surveys .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ major Iowa polls have been released in the last two weeks , with the latest from Monmouth University , Civiqs , and Emerson College .
The Monmouth results , released last Wednesday , found Biden on top — as he has been nationally all along — with 23 percent of likely caucusgoers saying they ’ d support him .
Still , his lead was far from comfortable .
Sanders came in a close second , with 21 percent support ; Buttigieg nearly tied with Sen. Elizabeth Warren for third , with 16 and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Klobuchar came in fifth with 10 percent .
The only other candidates Monmouth found to have more than 1 percent support were entrepreneurs Tom Steyer and Andrew Yang , with 4 and 3 percent support , respectively .
The poll has a margin of error of 4.2 percentage points , making the deltas between candidates perhaps even more narrow than they appear .
Civiqs — which conducted an online poll , opposed to the telephone polling Monmouth did — did its polling during the same time period as Monmouth ( January 23-27 ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Sanders topped Civiqs ’ poll , with 24 percent support from likely caucusgoers .
Warren came in second , at 19 percent ; Buttigieg third , with 17 percent ; Biden fourth , with 15 percent ; and Klobuchar still fifth , with the backing of 11 percent of likely caucusgoers .
Yang and Steyer again topped the second tier of candidates , with pollsters recording 5 percent support for Yang and 4 percent for Steyer .
The margin of error for Civiqs ’ work is 4.8 percentage points , again meaning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among the top four candidates — might be closer that the results might initially suggest .
And Emerson ’ s telephone poll — the most recent of these three , taken from January 30 to February 2 — found Sanders to be the favorite , with 28 percent support ; Biden trailed him with 21 percent .
Buttigieg and Warren were again nearly tied , with 15 and 14 percent support , respectively , and Klobuchar was fifth , with 11 percent .
Yang and Steyer ’ s results matched Civiqs ’ survey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support , respectively .
The poll ’ s margin of error is 3.3 percentage points .
Those new results are of a kind with four polls that came in during the penultimate week of January .
Back then , Sanders began to emerge as a state frontrunner : An Emerson College poll put his support at 30 percent ; a New York Times/Siena College poll placed him at 25 percent , and a CBS News/YouGov poll put him at 26 percent .
Biden led in the fourth poll , from Suffolk University/USA Today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second in two of the polls led by Sanders ( 21 percent in Emerson ’ s poll , and 25 percent in the CBS survey ) ; Buttigieg was second in the Times poll , with 18 percent support .
The CBS and Suffolk polls put the former mayor in third place ; the Emerson poll in fourth .
Warren was fourth in every poll , except for the Emerson survey , in which she was essentially tied with Buttigieg .
If we take a look at all these in aggregate , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Sanders appears poised to take Iowa , with a lead of 4 percentage points , though depending on how those votes are distributed , it ’ s hard to say how that will translate into the final results .
Sanders certainly has an advantage .
However , it is important to remember that Iowa ’ s caucuses aren ’ t run like a regular primary , and just because a candidate gets the most votes doesn ’ t mean the candidate will get the most delegates , as Vox ’ s Andrew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the way the caucuses are run , quirks in the pollsters ’ models , and Iowans ’ very relatable uncertainty in the eleventh hour means anything could happen .
There are a lot of factors that ’ ll affect Monday ’ s results Much of how Monday night ends depends on the size of caucus turnout , the demographic groups that come and caucus , which candidates are caucusgoers ’ second choices , and who the large number of currently undecided likely caucusgoers ultimately decide to caucus for .
Obviously , the more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ show up for them at caucus sites across the state , the better their chances .
But as of now , no one knows exactly how big ( or small ) the turnout will be .
State and national polls of Democrats , likely voters , and likely caucusgoers have shown an incredible degree of excitement around the 2020 primary for months — a January Quinnipiac University national poll , for instance , found 85 percent of Democratic and Democratic-leaning independent voters saying they are either “ extremely ” or “ very ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s contests .
Based on this enthusiasm , pollsters have — in general — assumed a large turnout .
Monmouth ’ s numbers , for instance , assume a night of crowds reminiscent of the 2008 primary , when around 236,000 Iowans caucused .
That may seem fairly safe , but if pollsters ’ assumptions are off by just a little , the results could be strikingly different that the numbers cited above , because , as Vox ’ s Ella Nilsen and our former colleague Tara Golshan have explained , the winner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a very small number of people : And it ’ s not just how many caucusgoers turn out that will affect the results — the average age caucusgoers is also expected to have a marked effect on who is the eventual victor .
The latest polls show that should the turnout skew younger , Sanders has a marked advantage ( one that Monmouth ’ s pollsters found unique to him — that is , caucuses with more younger voters didn ’ t help Warren , or say , Buttigieg as much as they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Turnout that skews older , however , would help Biden , who Monmouth found to have 37 percent support of those over 65 and just 7 percent support among likely caucusgoers 18-49 , a group Sanders carried , with 39 percent support .
Sanders acknowledged this paradigm Saturday in Iowa , telling supporters , “ We will know early on in the night if we are going to win .
If voter turnout is high , we are going to win ... if it is low , quite frankly , we will not.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ this dynamic could make the margin of victory even narrower than Sterzenbach projected .
“ A turnout swing of as few of 10,000 voters could determine who ‘ wins ’ the caucus if it is driven by a specific demographic group , ” Murray said in a statement Wednesday .
Based on this , one could say that if Sanders manages to bring out 10,000 more young caucusgoers than expected , Iowa would be — as he predicts — his this time .
But that ignores the fact that some caucusgoers will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact that seems as if it could benefit Biden as much as Sanders .
The viability standard could change everything The caucuses are conducted in a manner that is similar to ranked-choice voting .
Iowans gather at their local precinct , and publicly declare their allegiance to their candidate by gathering in groups .
This year , officials will tally those supporters using documents called presidential preference cards .
Candidates who are found to have more than 15 percent support of a precinct following a count of those cards will be deemed “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be locked in — that is , Iowans who caucused for them can ’ t change their minds .
But those who caucused for candidates who fail to meet that 15 percent threshold will be allowed to change their allegiance to one of the viable candidates .
This is known as realignment .
This makes caucusgoers ’ second choices important .
In all three of the latest polls , Warren was the top second choice , with 19 percent of Monmouth respondents putting her second , 16 percent in the Civiqs poll , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Biden was the second most popular in two , with 16 percent of Monmouth ’ s poll choosing him as their number two , and 15 percent in Civiqs ’ survey .
Emerson ’ s pollsters found Klobuchar the top second choice among the top five candidates in that poll , with 18.7 percent second choice support .
But it ’ s important to look at where that second choice support is coming from — many polls have found that Sanders supporters overwhelmingly said Warren is their second choice .
For instance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 31 percent of Sanders backers said Warren is their second choice , more than any other group .
And Emerson ’ s poll saw 50 percent of Sanders supporters saying Warren was their second choice .
But given recent polls , it seems likely that if Sanders fails to clear the 15 percent mark , he ’ ll do so in precious few precincts , meaning the majority of his caucusgoers will not be required to throw their support elsewhere .
This is a reality that also affects Yang and Steyer , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coming from Sanders backers as well .
Instead , the backers of candidates like Yang , Steyer , or even Klobuchar , could make all the difference .
Emerson found Yang ’ s supporters split in their second choice support ; assuming Sanders , Biden , Warren , Buttigieg , and Klobuchar were still viable , 30.7 percent said they ’ d caucus for Klobuchar ; 22.4 percent said they ’ d go for Warren ; 17.6 said they ’ d move to Sanders ; and 14.1 percent said they ’ d go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evenly between Sanders , Buttigieg , and Klobuchar ; and Klobuchar backers overwhelming liked Biden as their second choice , with 41.2 percent saying they ’ d back him , while 25.9 and 23.3 percent said they ’ d go to Warren and Buttigieg , respectively .
Civiqs grouped all the candidates outside of Sanders , Warren , Buttigieg , and Biden together when reporting supporters ’ second choices .
Respondents who are for a candidate not in this top tier split almost evenly for Warren ( 19 percent ) , Biden ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 20 percent ) .
Sanders received just 9 percent second choice support among these caucusgoers .
Klobuchar stands to gain most if Sanders and Biden don ’ t make the 15 percent threshold , again , something that isn ’ t likely to happen .
She also has the greatest support among Buttigieg backers after Biden in the Civiqs poll , at 18 percent , and the most in the Emerson poll , with 30.1 percent — numbers that could serve her well in any precincts in which Buttigieg fails to meet the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that any realignment boosts would likely benefit Sanders less than his chief rivals — unless there are a lot of districts where Warren misses the 15 percent cutoff , as 33 percent of Warren supporters say Sanders is their second choice .
The good news for candidates counting on realignment boosts is that most Iowans seem to have settled on a second choice .
Monmouth asked who its respondents would caucus for if only the top six candidates in its poll — Biden , Sanders , Buttigieg , Warren , Klobuchar , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 6 percent said they didn ’ t know .
In Emerson ’ s poll , only 9 percent said they wouldn ’ t choose one of those five .
The bad news is timing and individual caucusgoers ’ commitment to the process is a huge part of how much the realignment process will benefit viable candidates , because caucugoers can leave .
Say you caucused for Klobuchar , and she was declared nonviable in your precinct , but the night ’ s growing long and you need to get back to your baby @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support .
Essentially , it ’ s important to remember that realignment will change things , but it won ’ t affect final totals in every case , as Vox ’ s Andrew Prokop has explained .
And even in precincts where it may appear as if it will matter a lot , it might not impact things at all .
There ’ s still a lot of uncertainty around first choices , too Throughout months of polling , one thing has been constant — Iowans aren ’ t sure if they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In Selzer ’ s November 2019 poll , 62 percent of respondents said they could be persuaded to support someone other than their first choice .
Her early January poll found that number had fallen some , but was still significant : 45 percent of likely caucusgoers .
Monmouth ’ s most recent work found similar results — 45 percent of likely caucusgoers said they were “ open ” to caucusing for a candidate other than their current first choice , with 13 percent saying there was a “ high possibility ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Monday night .
And some — 5 percent — said they still have no first choice .
Emerson ’ s pollsters found 66 percent of likely caucusgoers said they are sure to caucus for their first choice , while — and again , this poll was taken in the three days before the caucuses — 34 percent said they may still change their minds .
Recent polls have found Warren and Sanders support to be more set in stone , and Monmouth ’ s work appear to bear this out : 62 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liberal ” said they know for sure who they will caucus for , while only 41 percent of those identifying as “ moderate ” or “ conservative ” said the same .
And 34 percent of very liberal likely caucusgoers said they could change their minds , while 50 percent of moderates and conservatives were open to switching .
This would seem to provide an opportunity for a candidate like Klobuchar to win over some last minute supporters , and it ’ s an opportunity she told reporters Saturday she plans to capitalize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ above our weight … we clearly have a surge going here.
” Also presenting an opportunity is that half of all respondents who said they are “ somewhat liberal ” said they would be open to changing their allegiance .
That presents a situation that could benefit almost anyone given this is the most progressive slate of candidates in decades — even Biden , as Vox ’ s Laura McGann has pointed out , would be the most progressive president in generations .
All this makes candidates ’ last minute pitches extremely important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solidify the support they have , while also trying to convince people to defect , and win over those still undecided .
The campaigns are all aware of this , and spent Saturday and Sunday covering the state , holding dozens of events , fending off pranksters , deploying high profile surrogates , and in Sanders ’ case , holding concerts .
And Emerson ’ s polling suggests these final pushes are bearing fruit .
For instance , 22.6 percent of Yang ’ s backers told the college ’ s pollsters they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three days — and even candidates who haven ’ t polled well are earning last minute supporters : 4.9 percent of those who plan to back Sen. Michael Bennet said he ’ d won them over in the last three days .
But who is going to win ?
As Vox ’ s Andrew Prokop has explained , more than one candidate could “ win ” the caucuses given state officials will be releasing three sets of results .
One candidate could win the pre-realignment total — essentially the popular vote — another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ third could come away with the most state delegates ( a number that will help determine how many of Iowa ’ s 41 national delegates each candidate will receive ) .
Given this , and all the uncertainty and byzantine processes we went through above , it is hard to say who will come out on top in any of these three results .
But we can say who things are looking good for .
Obviously , Sanders and Biden have a fairly healthy lead in polling averages .
We know that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meaning Biden ’ s standing many not be as strong as it appears in topline poll numbers .
We also know Warren is the popular second choice , but that a lot of her universe of support with that metric comes from Sanders supporters , who probably won ’ t have to realign themselves .
And we know that Biden and Buttigieg also do well as second choices .
Turnout should be fairly high , something that could benefit Sanders greatly , especially if a large number of younger Iowans come out to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say Sanders appears to be in good stead , particularly in pre-realignment totals , but that any lead he might be able to rack up there will be threatened by the second round , in which we can expect Warren , Biden , Buttigieg — and maybe Klobuchar — to pick up more new supporters than Sanders will .
Whether those gains will be enough for him to be knocked off his top spot remains to be seen .
The final state delegate count is what is usually used to determine who wins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a winner-take-all system ; delegates are distributed proportionately , meaning in a race that has been this close , several candidates could end up with similar numbers .
That won ’ t necessarily stop whoever gets the most from declaring themselves the winner — like when Hillary Clinton “ won ” the state by 0.25 percentage points in 2016 — but it would make it difficult for any one candidate to pick up strong momentum boost ahead of the New Hampshire primary .
And that boost is really what the caucuses are about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ represent such a small fraction of the total that former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg isn ’ t even bothering to compete in the state .
It won ’ t be until Super Tuesday that candidates get to compete in states with large delegate totals , with 1,344 delegates up for grabs ( the first four contests in February only have 155 ) .
It ’ s difficult to make it to Super Tuesday without proving yourself first , however , and Iowa is a chance — for some candidates , like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do just that .

Who is going to win the 2020 Iowa caucuses, according to the polls
Share All sharing options for: Who is going to win the 2020 Iowa caucuses, according to the polls
The Iowa caucuses are here at last, and the latest polls show a very, very tight race in the Democratic primary, with Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Vice President Joe Biden at the front of the pack.
But this final stretch in polling before the Iowa caucuses isn’t without drama. A highly anticipated poll from J. Ann Selzer and the Des Moines Register, scheduled for release on Saturday, failed to come out after former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg complained he was left off some of the surveys.
Aside from that bungled poll, seven major Iowa polls have been released in the past two weeks, with the latest from Monmouth University, Civiqs, and Emerson College.
The Monmouth results, released last Wednesday, found Biden on top — as he has been nationally all along — with 23 percent of likely caucus-goers saying they’d support him. Still, his lead was far from comfortable. Sanders came in a close second, with 21 percent support; Buttigieg nearly tied with Sen. Elizabeth Warren for third, with 16 and 15 percent respectively; and Sen. Amy Klobuchar came in fifth with 10 percent.
The only other candidates Monmouth found to have more than 1 percent support were entrepreneurs Tom Steyer and Andrew Yang, with 4 and 3 percent support, respectively. The poll has a margin of error of 4.2 percentage points, making the deltas between candidates perhaps even more narrow than they appear.
Civiqs — which conducted an online poll, opposed to the telephone polling Monmouth did — completed its polling during the same time period as Monmouth (January 23 to 27), but found a slightly different result.
Sanders topped Civiqs’ poll, with 24 percent support from likely caucus-goers. Warren came in second, at 19 percent; Buttigieg third, with 17 percent; Biden fourth, with 15 percent; and Klobuchar still fifth, with the backing of 11 percent of likely caucus-goers.
Yang and Steyer again topped the second tier of candidates, with pollsters recording 5 percent support for Yang and 4 percent for Steyer. The margin of error for Civiqs’ work is 4.8 percentage points, again meaning the differences in standing — at least among the top four candidates — might be closer than the results initially suggest.
And Emerson’s telephone poll — the most recent of these three, taken from January 30 to February 2 — found Sanders to be the favorite, with 28 percent support; Biden trailed him with 21 percent. Buttigieg and Warren were again nearly tied, with 15 and 14 percent support, respectively, and Klobuchar was fifth, with 11 percent.
Yang’s and Steyer’s results matched Civiqs’ survey: They received 5 and 4 percent support, respectively. The poll’s margin of error is 3.3 percentage points.
Those new results are of a kind with four polls that came in during the penultimate week of January. Back then, Sanders began to emerge as a state frontrunner: An Emerson College poll put his support at 30 percent; a New York Times/Siena College poll placed him at 25 percent, and a CBS News/YouGov poll put him at 26 percent. Biden led in the fourth poll, from Suffolk University/USA Today, with 25.4 percent.
Biden was second in two of the polls led by Sanders (21 percent in Emerson’s poll, and 25 percent in the CBS survey); Buttigieg was second in the Times poll, with 18 percent support. The CBS and Suffolk polls put the former mayor in third place; the Emerson poll in fourth. Warren was fourth in every poll, except for the Emerson survey, in which she was essentially tied with Buttigieg.
If we take a look at all these in aggregate, as RealClearPolitics does in its Iowa polling average, Sanders appears poised to take Iowa, with a lead of 4 percentage points, though depending on how those votes are distributed, it’s hard to say how that will translate into the final results.
Sanders certainly has an advantage. However, it is important to remember that Iowa’s caucuses aren’t run like a regular primary. Just because a candidate gets the most votes doesn’t mean the candidate will get the most delegates, as Vox’s Andrew Prokop explained. Also, because of the way the caucuses are run, quirks in the pollsters’ models and Iowans’ very relatable uncertainty in the eleventh hour, anything could happen.
There are a lot of factors that will affect Monday’s results
Much of how Monday night ends depends on the size of caucus turnout, the demographic groups that come and caucus, which candidates are caucus-goers’ second choices and who the large number of currently undecided likely caucus-goers ultimately decide to caucus for.
Obviously, the more supporters any given candidate can get to show up for them at caucus sites across the state, the better their chances. But as of now, no one knows exactly how big (or small) the turnout will be.
State and national polls of Democrats, likely voters, and likely caucus-goers have shown an incredible degree of excitement around the 2020 primary for months — a January Quinnipiac University national poll, for instance, found 85 percent of Democratic and Democratic-leaning independent voters saying they are either “extremely” or “very” motivated to vote in the primary’s contests.
Based on this enthusiasm, pollsters have — in general — assumed a large turnout. Monmouth’s numbers, for instance, assume a night of crowds reminiscent of the 2008 primary, when around 236,000 Iowans caucused.
That may seem fairly safe, but if pollsters’ assumptions are off by just a little, the results could be strikingly different than the numbers cited above. As Vox’s Ella Nilsen and our former colleague Tara Golshan have explained, the winner of the caucuses is actually decided by a very small number of people:
With a field of 11 candidates, the winner could walk away having only received the support of 40,000 to 50,000 caucus-goers statewide — fewer people than live in Dubuque, Iowa. And political experts here said with five strong candidates going into caucus night, it’s still anyone’s guess who could win. “Maybe the top candidate ends up with 20 percent, because you’ve got six strong candidates going into caucus night,” Norm Sterzenbach, a former Iowa Democratic Party official said this fall. “Twenty percent could win it, that’s only 40,000-50,000 votes.” ... “It’s a relatively small number, right? It’s the size of a sort of medium-sized town,” said David Redlawsk, a political science professor at the University of Delaware and an expert on the Iowa caucuses. “In Congressional elections, winners normally have more than 100,000 votes.”
And it’s not just how many caucus-goers turn out that will affect the results — the average age of caucus-goers is also expected to have a marked effect on who is the eventual victor.
The latest polls show that should the turnout skew younger, Sanders has a marked advantage (one that Monmouth’s pollsters found unique to him — that is, caucuses with more younger voters didn’t help Warren or, say, Buttigieg as much as they did the senator from Vermont).
Turnout that skews older, however, would help Biden, whom Monmouth found to have 37 percent support of those over 65 and just 7 percent support among likely caucus-goers 18 to 49, a group Sanders carried, with 39 percent support.
Sanders acknowledged this paradigm Saturday in Iowa, telling supporters, “We will know early on in the night if we are going to win. If voter turnout is high, we are going to win ... if it is low, quite frankly, we will not.”
Monmouth’s Patrick Murray said this dynamic could make the margin of victory even narrower than Sterzenbach projected.
“A turnout swing of as few of 10,000 voters could determine who ‘wins’ the caucus if it is driven by a specific demographic group,” Murray said in a statement Wednesday.
Based on this, one could say that if Sanders manages to bring out 10,000 more young caucus-goers than expected, Iowa would be — as he predicts — his this time.
But that ignores the fact that some caucus-goers will be required to change their allegiances, a fact that seems as if it could benefit Biden as much as Sanders.
The viability standard could change everything
The caucuses are conducted in a manner that is similar to ranked-choice voting.
Iowans gather at their local precinct and publicly declare their allegiance to their candidate by gathering in groups. This year, officials will tally those supporters using documents called presidential preference cards. Candidates who are found to have more than 15 percent support of a precinct following a count of those cards will be deemed “viable,” and their support will be locked in — that is, Iowans who caucused for them can’t change their minds.
But those who caucused for candidates who fail to meet that 15 percent threshold will be allowed to change their allegiance to one of the viable candidates. This is known as realignment.
This makes caucus-goers’ second choices important. In all three of the latest polls, Warren was the top second choice, with 19 percent of Monmouth respondents putting her second, 16 percent in the Civiqs poll, and 23.8 percent in Emerson’s.
Biden was the second most popular in two, with 16 percent of Monmouth’s poll choosing him as their No. 2, and 15 percent in Civiqs’ survey. Emerson’s pollsters found Klobuchar the top second choice among the top five candidates in that poll, with 18.7 percent second-choice support.
But it’s important to look at where that second-choice support is coming from — many polls have found that Sanders supporters overwhelmingly said Warren is their second choice. For instance, in Civiqs’ latest poll, 31 percent of Sanders backers said Warren is their second choice, more than any other group. And Emerson’s poll saw 50 percent of Sanders supporters saying Warren was their second choice.
But given recent polls, it seems likely that if Sanders fails to clear the 15 percent mark, he’ll do so in precious few precincts, meaning the majority of his caucus-goers will not be required to throw their support elsewhere. This is a reality that also affects Yang and Steyer, who find most of their second-choice support coming from Sanders backers as well.
Instead, the backers of candidates like Yang, Steyer, or even Klobuchar could make all the difference.
Emerson found Yang’s supporters split in their second-choice support; assuming Sanders, Biden, Warren, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar were still viable, 30.7 percent said they’d caucus for Klobuchar; 22.4 percent said they’d go for Warren; 17.6 said they’d move to Sanders; and 14.1 percent said they’d go home.
Steyer fans were split almost evenly between Sanders, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar; and Klobuchar backers overwhelming liked Biden as their second choice, with 41.2 percent saying they’d back him, while 25.9 and 23.3 percent said they’d go to Warren and Buttigieg, respectively.
Civiqs grouped all the candidates outside of Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg, and Biden together when reporting supporters’ second choices. Respondents who are for a candidate not in this top tier split almost evenly for Warren (19 percent), Biden (19 percent), and Buttigieg (20 percent). Sanders received just 9 percent second-choice support among these caucus-goers.
Klobuchar stands to gain the most if Sanders and Biden don’t make the 15 percent threshold, again, something that isn’t likely to happen. She also has the greatest support among Buttigieg backers after Biden in the Civiqs poll, at 18 percent, and the most in the Emerson poll, with 30.1 percent — numbers that could serve her well in any precincts in which Buttigieg fails to meet the viability standard.
All this would suggest that any realignment boosts would likely benefit Sanders less than his chief rivals — unless there are a lot of districts where Warren misses the 15 percent cutoff, as 33 percent of Warren supporters say Sanders is their second choice.
The good news for candidates counting on realignment boosts is that most Iowans seem to have settled on a second choice. Monmouth asked whom its respondents would caucus for if only the top six candidates in its poll — Biden, Sanders, Buttigieg, Warren, Klobuchar, and Yang — remained viable, and only 6 percent said they didn’t know. In Emerson’s poll, only 9 percent said they wouldn’t choose one of those five.
The bad news is timing and individual caucus-goers’ commitment to the process is a huge part of how much the realignment process will benefit viable candidates, because caucus-goers can leave.
Say you caucused for Klobuchar, and she was declared nonviable in your precinct, but the night’s growing long and you need to get back to your baby. You can go without realigning your support. Essentially, it’s important to remember that realignment will change things, but it won’t affect final totals in every case, as Vox’s Andrew Prokop has explained. And even in precincts where it may appear as if it will matter a lot, it might not impact things at all.
There’s still a lot of uncertainty around first choices, too
Throughout months of polling, one thing has been constant: Iowans aren’t sure if they’ll actually caucus for their first choices.
In Selzer’s November 2019 poll, 62 percent of respondents said they could be persuaded to support someone other than their first choice. Her early January poll found that number had fallen some, but was still significant: 45 percent of likely caucus-goers.
Monmouth’s most recent work found similar results — 45 percent of likely caucus-goers said they were “open” to caucusing for a candidate other than their current first choice, with 13 percent saying there was a “high possibility” they’ll change their minds before Monday night. And 5 percent said they still have no first choice.
Emerson’s pollsters found 66 percent of likely caucus-goers said they are sure to caucus for their first choice, while — and again, this poll was taken in the three days before the caucuses — 34 percent said they may still change their minds.
Recent polls have found Warren and Sanders support to be more set in stone, and Monmouth’s work appear to bear this out: 62 percent of those who identify as “very liberal” said they know for sure who they will caucus for, while only 41 percent of those identifying as “moderate” or “conservative” said the same. And 34 percent of very liberal likely caucus-goers said they could change their minds, while 50 percent of moderates and conservatives were open to switching.
This would seem to provide an opportunity for a candidate like Klobuchar to win over some last-minute supporters, and it’s an opportunity she told reporters Saturday she plans to capitalize on. “We are punching way above our weight … we clearly have a surge going here.”
Also presenting an opportunity is that half of all respondents who said they are “somewhat liberal” said they would be open to changing their allegiance. That presents a situation that could benefit almost anyone given this is the most progressive slate of candidates in decades — even Biden, as Vox’s Laura McGann has pointed out, would be the most progressive president in generations.
All this makes candidates’ last-minute pitches extremely important — they need to make sure they solidify the support they have, while also trying to convince people to defect and win over those still undecided. The campaigns are all aware of this and spent Saturday and Sunday covering the state, holding dozens of events, fending off pranksters, deploying high-profile surrogates, and, in Sanders’s case, holding concerts.
Warren plays it off like a pro, telling him that yes, she will be his candidate. Turns at the end to her husband Bruce and asks, “Are you okay with this, sweetie?” We are back on track and @ewarren is taking questions from the audience. https://t.co/K24FMMkYzu pic.twitter.com/iCxbLSvuJw — Tara Prindiville (@taraprindiville) February 1, 2020
And Emerson’s polling suggests these final pushes are bearing fruit. For instance, 22.6 percent of Yang’s backers told the college’s pollsters they’d settled on him in the past three days — and even candidates who haven’t polled well are earning last-minute supporters: 4.9 percent of those who plan to back Sen. Michael Bennet said he’d won them over in the past three days.
But who is going to win?
As Prokop has explained, more than one candidate could “win” the caucuses given state officials will be releasing three sets of results.
One candidate could win the pre-realignment total, essentially the popular vote; another, the realigned numbers; and a third could come away with the most state delegates (a number that will help determine how many of Iowa’s 41 national delegates each candidate will receive).
Given this, and all the uncertainty and byzantine processes we went through above, it is hard to say who will come out on top in any of these three results.
But we can say whom things are looking good for.
Obviously, Sanders and Biden have a fairly healthy lead in polling averages. We know that the progressive candidates have more stalwart supporters, meaning Biden’s standing many not be as strong as it appears in topline poll numbers.
We also know Warren is the popular second choice, but that a lot of her universe of support with that metric comes from Sanders supporters, who probably won’t have to realign themselves. And we know that Biden and Buttigieg also do well as second choices.
Turnout should be fairly high, something that could benefit Sanders greatly, especially if a large number of younger Iowans come out to caucus.
It’s safe to say Sanders appears to be in good stead, particularly in pre-realignment totals, but that any lead he might be able to rack up there will be threatened by the second round, in which we can expect Warren, Biden, Buttigieg — and maybe Klobuchar — to pick up more new supporters than Sanders will. Whether those gains will be enough for him to be knocked off his top spot remains to be seen.
The final state delegate count is what is usually used to determine who wins. But Iowa doesn’t have a winner-take-all system; delegates are distributed proportionately, meaning in a race that has been this close, several candidates could end up with similar numbers.
That won’t necessarily stop whoever gets the most from declaring themselves the winner — like when Hillary Clinton “won” the state by 0.25 percentage points in 2016 — but it would make it difficult for any one candidate to pick up strong momentum boost ahead of the New Hampshire primary.
And that boost is really what the caucuses are about. Iowa’s 41 national delegates represent such a small fraction of the total that former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg isn’t even bothering to compete in the state.
It won’t be until Super Tuesday that candidates get to compete in states with large delegate totals, with 1,344 delegates up for grabs (the first four contests in February only have 155). It’s difficult to make it to Super Tuesday without proving yourself first, however, and Iowa is a chance — for some candidates, like Klobuchar, perhaps a last chance — to do just that.


vox--2020-02-03--The Iowa caucuses have a big accessibility problem

The ideal Iowa caucus is a crowded room of people holding a spirited argument about politics , electability , and passionately held beliefs .
But to Iowa caucus-goer Emmanuel Smith , who has osteogenesis imperfecta — otherwise known as brittle bones disease — the prospect of jostling over caucus votes is terrifying .
Smith suffers from persistent chronic pain and fatigue , and being in crowded spaces is risky .
When they participated in the 2016 Iowa caucuses , the very layout of the room presented a challenge .
“ If somebody backs into my wheelchair and falls and topples @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get very badly injured , ” Smith , an advocate with Disability Rights Iowa , told Vox in a recent interview .
If Smith lived in another state , it would be easy enough to cast a primary ballot in-person or vote absentee by mail .
But with the Iowa caucuses , voting is an in-person , hours-long event where Iowans have to physically travel to one of the state ’ s 1,678 precincts to participate .
Voting in the caucuses is a physical act — congregating with other people who support the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Just 15.7 percent of Iowa ’ s voting-eligible population participated in the caucuses in 2016 — a fraction of the 52 percent of New Hampshire voters who turned out a week later for that state ’ s primary .
Even during Iowa ’ s record-setting turnout of the 2008 elections , it was still just 16.1 percent .
Access to the caucuses has long been a problem in Iowa , and not just for those with disabilities .
Think of the elderly , those who don ’ t speak English , parents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ afford a babysitter , or folks who simply can ’ t take time off work to go and caucus for hours .
“ This system was designed for 40 people in a living room , ” said John Deeth , a longtime party activist and member of the Johnson County Democrats executive committee .
Smith , for one , would prefer a system that gives more voters access — even if it means switching from a caucus to a primary and giving up being first .
“ I don ’ t think we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ability for people to participate in order to preserve the status quo , ” Smith said .
Iowa ’ s low turnout has to do with accessibility The caucuses have grown exponentially from the living room days of the 1970s when party leaders mainly controlled the candidate selection process .
But as power shifted to voters and the caucuses became more of a draw , finding a big enough place to fit everyone turned into more of a challenge .
“ We do anticipate record crowds and with that comes challenges .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Ed Cranston , chair of the Johnson County Democrats in Iowa .
Johnson County is ground zero for spatial problems ; it ’ s home to Iowa City and the University of Iowa , meaning high turnout from students and faculty .
Deeth is the one tasked with finding a big enough caucus site for the 50-plus precincts in Johnson County .
Every four years brings challenges ; for instance , this year Deeth was turned down by a church and a high school that scheduled a wrestling meet on caucus night @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an elementary school instead of a high school.
” His search for a room big enough to hold enough caucus-goers encapsulates a problem in certain parts of Iowa ; Democrats want more folks to turn out , but sometimes there ’ s literally not enough space to hold them .
“ If less people showed up , I wouldn ’ t be upset , ” said Deeth .
“ It ’ s not that I want less people to participate , it ’ s just we ’ re straining our capacity .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t build parking lots .
We are doing the best we can with the resources we ’ ve got.
” After the Democratic National Committee nixed the Iowa Democratic Party ’ s plan for a virtual , tele-caucus this year , the state ’ s Democratic party has allowed separate satellite caucuses in an attempt to boost accessibility .
Many are happening in nursing homes around the state to accommodate the elderly .
Smith , the disability rights advocate with brittle bones disease , is holding one in their apartment building @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on-site , as the Gazette columnist Lyz Lenz wrote for the Cedar Rapids-based newspaper .
Still , there have been lingering complaints from caucus-goers that the satellite caucus was poorly advertised and hastily arranged , and put the burden on individuals to organize .
“ We don ’ t think there ’ s systemic approaches to solving the inaccessibility of the causes for many marginalized people , ” said Jane Hudson , executive director of Disability Rights Iowa .
“ The parties keep giving these bandaged kinds of fixes that have a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re disenfranchising a lot of people.
” The Iowa Democratic Party didn ’ t respond to a request for comment from Vox .
“ The Democratic party is keenly aware of issues of access , ” said Sue Dvorsky , a former Iowa Democratic Party chair and longtime party activist .
“ We know the caucus is not an election , it is not a constitutionally protected right .
It is a process where we begin to elect our delegates , it ’ s not our primary.
” Dvorsky believes the current Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what few resources they have .
While she and many others think the caucus system should stay , Deeth thinks the persistent accessibility issues with the caucus mean it ’ s time to seriously consider moving to a primary system .
“ I just hope that when it ’ s over , we take an honest look at ourselves and decide , can we really continue to justify this ?
” Deeth said .

The ideal Iowa caucus is a crowded room of people holding a spirited argument about politics, electability, and passionately held beliefs. But to Iowa caucus-goer Emmanuel Smith, who has osteogenesis imperfecta — otherwise known as brittle bones disease — the prospect of jostling over caucus votes is terrifying.
Smith suffers from persistent chronic pain and fatigue, and being in crowded spaces is risky. When they participated in the 2016 Iowa caucuses, the very layout of the room presented a challenge.
“If somebody backs into my wheelchair and falls and topples me, I’m going to get very badly injured,” Smith, an advocate with Disability Rights Iowa, told Vox in a recent interview.
If Smith lived in another state, it would be easy enough to cast a primary ballot in-person or vote absentee by mail. But with the Iowa caucuses, voting is an in-person, hours-long event where Iowans have to physically travel to one of the state’s 1,678 precincts to participate. Voting in the caucuses is a physical act — congregating with other people who support the same candidate.
This is inherently limiting. Just 15.7 percent of Iowa’s voting-eligible population participated in the caucuses in 2016 — a fraction of the 52 percent of New Hampshire voters who turned out a week later for that state’s primary. Even during Iowa’s record-setting turnout of the 2008 elections, it was still just 16.1 percent.
Access to the caucuses has long been a problem in Iowa, and not just for those with disabilities. Think of the elderly, those who don’t speak English, parents of young children who can’t afford a babysitter, or folks who simply can’t take time off work to go and caucus for hours.
“This system was designed for 40 people in a living room,” said John Deeth, a longtime party activist and member of the Johnson County Democrats executive committee.
Smith, for one, would prefer a system that gives more voters access — even if it means switching from a caucus to a primary and giving up being first.
“I don’t think we should be able to trade away the ability for people to participate in order to preserve the status quo,” Smith said.
Iowa’s low turnout has to do with accessibility
The caucuses have grown exponentially from the living room days of the 1970s when party leaders mainly controlled the candidate selection process. But as power shifted to voters and the caucuses became more of a draw, finding a big enough place to fit everyone turned into more of a challenge.
“We do anticipate record crowds and with that comes challenges. The challenges are size and parking,” said Ed Cranston, chair of the Johnson County Democrats in Iowa. Johnson County is ground zero for spatial problems; it’s home to Iowa City and the University of Iowa, meaning high turnout from students and faculty.
Deeth is the one tasked with finding a big enough caucus site for the 50-plus precincts in Johnson County. Every four years brings challenges; for instance, this year Deeth was turned down by a church and a high school that scheduled a wrestling meet on caucus night, “so we’re in an elementary school instead of a high school.”
His search for a room big enough to hold enough caucus-goers encapsulates a problem in certain parts of Iowa; Democrats want more folks to turn out, but sometimes there’s literally not enough space to hold them.
“If less people showed up, I wouldn’t be upset,” said Deeth. “It’s not that I want less people to participate, it’s just we’re straining our capacity. We can’t build buildings. We can’t build parking lots. We are doing the best we can with the resources we’ve got.”
After the Democratic National Committee nixed the Iowa Democratic Party’s plan for a virtual, tele-caucus this year, the state’s Democratic party has allowed separate satellite caucuses in an attempt to boost accessibility. Many are happening in nursing homes around the state to accommodate the elderly. Smith, the disability rights advocate with brittle bones disease, is holding one in their apartment building. Some caucuses are offering child care on-site, as the Gazette columnist Lyz Lenz wrote for the Cedar Rapids-based newspaper.
Still, there have been lingering complaints from caucus-goers that the satellite caucus was poorly advertised and hastily arranged, and put the burden on individuals to organize.
“We don’t think there’s systemic approaches to solving the inaccessibility of the causes for many marginalized people,” said Jane Hudson, executive director of Disability Rights Iowa. “The parties keep giving these bandaged kinds of fixes that have a lot of problems themselves. But they’re disenfranchising a lot of people.”
In a statement, the Iowa Democratic Party said they’re working to make the Iowa caucuses more accessible, with the addition of satellite caucuses, early check-in at caucus locations, and a reduced realignment time to make the whole process shorter.
“This year’s caucuses will be the most accessible ever because of the tireless work of disability activists and the groundbreaking changes the Iowa Democratic Party has put forth,” said Catherine Crist, the Iowa Democratic Party disability caucus chair. “While our work is far from finished, our years-long effort to shift the culture and expand access for people with disabilities has borne historic progress.”
Some Democratic activists told Vox the party is aware of the issues, and trying to fix them.
“The Democratic party is keenly aware of issues of access,” said Sue Dvorsky, a former Iowa Democratic Party chair and longtime party activist. “We know the caucus is not an election, it is not a constitutionally protected right. It is a process where we begin to elect our delegates, it’s not our primary.”
Dvorsky believes the current Democratic party officials are doing the best with what few resources they have. While she and many others think the caucus system should stay, Deeth thinks the persistent accessibility issues with the caucus mean it’s time to seriously consider moving to a primary system.
“I just hope that when it’s over, we take an honest look at ourselves and decide, can we really continue to justify this?” Deeth said.
Update: This piece has been updated with a statement from the Iowa Democratic Party.