2020 아이오와 민주당 대통령 코커스 - 2020 Iowa Democratic presidential caucuses

2020 아이오와 민주당 대통령 코커스

2016 년 2020 년 2 월 3 일 2024 년 →
NH

민주당 전당 대회 대의원 49 명 (41 명은 지구 수준에서 27 명, 주 전체 14 명, 8 명은 미 공약).
당첨 된 공약 대의원 수는 당첨 된 주 대의원 등가 (SDE) 수에 따라 결정됩니다. [1] [a]
Joe Biden February 2020 crop.jpg Pete Buttigieg by Gage Skidmore (cropped).jpg Bernie Sanders March 2020 (cropped).jpg
후보자 조 바이든 피트 부티 기그 버니 샌더스
집 상태 델라웨어 인디애나 버몬트
대리인 수 14 [c] 12 [d] 9 [b]
첫 번째 투표 26,291 명
(14.9 %)
37,572 명
(21.3 %)
43,581 명
(24.7 %)
최종 투표 23,605 명
(13.7 %)
43,209 명
(25.1 %)
45,652 명
(26.5 %)
SDE 340.3
(15.8 %)
563.0
(26.2 %)
562.0
(26.1 %)

Elizabeth Warren by Gage Skidmore (cropped).jpg Amy Klobuchar by Gage Skidmore (cropped).jpg
후보자 엘리자베스 워렌 에이미 클로 부차
집 상태 매사추세츠 주 미네소타
대리인 수 5 [e] 1 [f]
첫 번째 투표 32,589 명
(18.5 %)
22,454 명
(12.7 %)
최종 투표 34,909 명
(20.3 %)
21,100 명
(12.2 %)
SDE 388.4
(18.0 %)
263.9
(12.3 %)

Iowa Democratic presidential caucuses election results by county (first alignment), 2020.svg
Iowa Democratic presidential caucuses election results by county (final alignment), 2020.svg
Iowa Democratic presidential caucuses election results by congressional district, 2020.svg
Iowa Democratic presidential caucuses election results by county (delegates), 2020.svg
피트 부티 기그
버니 샌더스
엘리자베스 워렌
조 바이든
에이미 클로 부차
넥타이

2020 아이오와 민주당 대선 코커스 의 최초의 지명 대회 민주당 예비 선거 에 대한 2020 대통령 선거가 2 월 3 일에 일어났다, 2020 년 우승자이었다 피트 버티지에 그 이제까지 대통령 대회에서 우승하는 최초의 동성애 사람이되었다, 미국. 아이오와 코커스는 파티의 가입 회원 만 투표 할 자격이 특징으로 폐쇄 코커스 있습니다. [2] 아이오와 2020 년 민주당 전당 대회에 49 명의 대의원수여 하며, 그중 41 명은 전당 대회 결과에 따라 배정 된 대의원입니다. [삼]

투표보고가 3 일 지연된 후 아이오와 민주당은 Buttigieg가 Sanders보다 두 명의 대표를 더 많이 얻었고 Sanders는 대중 투표에서 승리했다고 선언했습니다. [4] 언론 기관의 대다수가 Buttigieg 승자 선언 [5] 그동안 AP 통신이 승자를 선언하기를 거부 모든 후속 recanvass / 재검 표 과정이 종결 될 때까지. [6] [7] 선거구의 3.1 % (55)에서보고 된 결과를 수정해야하므로 공약 전당 대회 대의원의 공식 결과 및 계산은 선거 후 6 일까지 더 지연되었습니다. [8] [9]Buttigieg와 Sanders는 공식 결과의 8.1 %에 대해 부분적인 재 캔버스를 요청했습니다. [10] [11] [12] Sanders에 대한 Buttigieg의 리드는 0.08 SDE로 좁혀졌습니다. [13] 재 캔버스 된 구역 63 개 (전체 결과의 3.6 %)에 대한 최종 재검토는 2 월 19 일 두 캠페인 모두에서 요청했습니다. [14] [15] 이틀 후 아이오와 민주당은 재검토 요청을 수락했다고 발표했습니다. 23 개 구역 (전체 결과의 1.3 %). [16] 재검 표는 2 월 25 일부터 2 월 27 일까지 진행되었습니다. [17] 아이오와 민주당은 2020 년 2 월 27 일 재검 표 결과를 발표했습니다. [18]결과는 2 월 29 일에 주위원회에 의해 인증되었습니다. [19]

2020 아이오와 민주당 전당 대회는 결과보고가 지연되어 논란이되었습니다. 이러한 지연은 부분적으로 투표 총계를보고하는 데 사용 Shadow Inc.에서 만든 모바일 응용 프로그램의 문제로 인해 발생했습니다 . 더 많은 논란은 여러 코커스 위치에서 SDE (State delegate equivalents)의 계산 및보고와 관련된 오류 및 불일치로 인해 발생했습니다. [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] 선거구 결과보고와 관련된 계산 지연 및 계산 오류로 인해 코커스의 미래가 의심스러워졌습니다. [25] 아이오와 민주당 의장 트로이 프라이스2020 년 아이오와 민주당 전당 대회를 둘러싼 혼란으로 인해 2 월 12 일 사임했습니다. [26]

순서

이 행사는 비공개 전당 대회 였기 때문에 민주당 원으로 등록 된 아이오와 만 투표 할 수있었습니다. 그러나 전당 대회 일 이전에 민주당 원으로 등록하지 않은 아이오와 인은 전당 대회의 밤에 자신이 지정한 구역에서 그대로 등록 할 수있어 행사에서 완전한 의결권을 얻을 수 있습니다. 투표는 선호 후보에 해당하는 코커스 사이트의 한 섹션에 물리적으로 서서 이루어집니다. 대리 투표 또는 부재자 투표 (예 : 우편 또는 이전 "가상 코커스"참여를 통한)는 허용되지 않았습니다. [27] [28]

2020 년 2 월 3 일 오후 7 CST문이 닫히고 전 세계 1,678 개의 아이오와 지구 코커스와 87 개의 위성 코커스 (자신의 선거구에서 지역적으로 투표 할 수없는 등록 된 민주당 아이오와 인을위한 대체 투표 장소로 조직 됨)가 열렸습니다. , 후속 카운티 대회를 위해 선거구 대의원을 선출하고 모든 선거구의 비례 누적 결과에 따라 주에서 약속 한 41 명의 전국 대회 대의원을 할당합니다 . [27] [28]

선거구 코커스 절차

한 명 이상의 카운티 대회 대의원을 선출하는 모든 선거구 전당 대회에서 대통령 후보자는 실행 가능한 후보 자격을 갖추기 위해 개별 선거구 내의 생존력 임계 값을 충족해야합니다. 임계 값은 다음과 같습니다. [27] [28]

  • 두 명의 대의원 만 선출하는 선거구의 경우 최소 25 %;
  • 3 명의 대의원 만 선출하는 선거구의 경우 최소 16.66 %; [g]
  • 3 명 이상의 대의원을 선출하는 선거구 대부분의 경우 최소 15 %.

첫 번째 투표 후, 실행 가능한 후보의 지지자들은 자신이 선택한 후보자에게 투표를 고정하는 반면, 실행 불가능한 후보의 지지자는 두 번째 최종 투표 (재조정이라고 함)를 통해 투표를 이미 투표를 통해 이전 할 수 있습니다. 실행 가능한 후보 또는 실행 불가능한 그룹에 첫 번째 라운드 또는 최종 라운드에서 형성된 실행 가능한 그룹의 수가 선거구에서 선출 가능한 카운티 대회 대표의 수를 초과하는 경우 실행 가능한 그룹의 수가 더 이상 수를 초과하지 않을 때까지 가장 작은 실행 가능한 그룹이 재정렬됩니다. 대의원. 단일 카운티 대회 대의원을 선출하는 선거구 전당 대회는 생존력 임계 값이 없으므로 재배치 할 필요가 없습니다.[27] [28]

최종 재정렬 라운드가 종료되고 올바른 최대 실행 가능한 그룹 수가 형성된 후 각 실행 가능한 그룹 (후보자를 지원하거나 커밋되지 않음)은 해당 그룹의 비율에 따라 우승 한 카운티 대회 대표 (들)를 선출합니다. 지역 선거구에서 최종 정렬 후 유자격 투표를 획득했습니다. 그러나 반올림 오류로 인해, 설명 된 계산 절차에 따라 선거구에서 수여하는 카운티 대회 대의원의 총 수가 해당 선거구가받을 자격이있는 대의원 수보다 많거나 적을 수 있습니다. 따라서 마지막 교정 단계로 실행 가능한 그룹은 반올림 문제를 보상하기 위해 반올림하기 전에 계산 된 대리자 비율의 크기에 따라 대리자를 얻거나 잃을 수도 있습니다.[27]

아래 표의 요약은 아이오와의 99 개 카운티 전체에 대한 주 대의원 (SDE)과 카운티 컨벤션 대의원 (CCD) 간의 비율을 표시합니다. 각 카운티는 카운티 컨벤션 대의 원당 SDE 비율이 다릅니다. 인구가 가장 많은 카운티는 SDE 비율이 가장 높고 인구가 가장 적은 카운티는 SDE 비율이 가장 낮습니다. 비율은 각 카운티가 우승 한 카운티 대회 대표의 결과를 우승 SDE의 수로 변환 할 때 사용됩니다. 각 카운티에서 다른 비율을 사용한다는 것은 일부 카운티 대회 대의원이 다른 카운티에서 선출 된 동료 카운티 대회 대의원에 비해 SDE 기간에 더 가치가있는 것으로 간주된다는 것을 의미합니다 ( 미국 선거 대학 의 원칙과 유사)., 대의원 수를 결정하는 경주에서 이기지 않고 대중 투표에서 이길 수있는 경우). [29]

위성 코커스 절차

아이오와 전당 대회 역사상 처음으로 전 세계 위성 전당 대회 (주 내 60 개, 주 외 27 개)가 모두 선거일에 2 월 3 일에 조직되었습니다. 선거구 전당 대회에서 지역적으로 투표합니다. 아래 목록은 모든 유형의 위성 사이트를 표시합니다 (이 중 대부분은 모든 Iowans의 참여를 위해 개방 된 반면 일부는 개인 거주지 또는 직장 소속이있는 경우에만 폐쇄 된 코커스) : [27] [30]

  • 14 개의 업무 관련 사이트
  • 대학 캠퍼스에있는 24 개의 학생 사이트
  • 접근성 요구를 수용하는 29 개 사이트 (노후화 된 서비스 센터 포함)
  • 언어 및 문화 요구를 수용하는 11 개 사이트
  • 다른 주에서 겨울철 Iowans를 수용하는 9 개의 타주 사이트

대부분의 위성 코커스의 문은 오후 7시 CST에 닫힙니다 . 그러나 일부 위성 코커스는 몇 시간 일찍 또는 늦게 문을 닫았습니다 (같은 날 오전 10시에서 오후 8시 30 분 사이). [30]

2 월 3 일에 타주에 있고 타주 위성 코커스에 참여하기를 원하는 아이오와 민주당 원들과 주에 있었지만 관할 구역에 참석할 수 없어서 참여해야하는 사람들 미국 중부 표준시 오후 6시 이전에 주 내 조기 위성 코커스가 열리면 모두가 2020 년 1 월 17 일까지 이러한 위성 행사 (민주당 회원 포함) 참석을 사전 등록해야합니다. 대신 주 내 위성에 참석하는 아이오와 인 그러나 오후 7시 (중부 표준시) 이후에는 선거구 전당 원과 동일한 기회가 주어지기 때문에 출석 및 파티 멤버십을 사전 등록 할 필요가 없습니다. 모든 형태의 위성 코커스에 참여하는 아이오와 인들은 지정된 구역 코커스에 참여할 수 없습니다. [27][30]

위성 코커스에 대한 투표 절차는 선거구 코커스에 사용 된 것과 거의 동일했습니다. 그러나 실제 카운티 대회 대표가 선출되지 않는다는 사실이 다릅니다. 대신, 각 위성 코커스는 코커스 참석자 수에 따라 다수의 "가상 카운티 대표"를 부여받습니다. [27]

참석자 수 1 ~ 20 21 ~ 40 41 ~ 60 61 ~ 80 81 ~ 100 100 개 이상
가상 카운티 대표 4 5 6 7 8 9

위성 전당 대회에서 대통령 후보를 지원하는 그룹의 생존력 임계 값도 최소 15 %로 설정되어 있습니다. 위성 전당 대회에서 "가상"대의원을 할당하는 계산 규칙은 선거구 전당 대회에서 "실제"선출 된 카운티 대회 대의원을 할당 할 때 사용되는 것과 동일합니다.

위성 코커스의 누적 결과 (SDE로 재 계산되는 당첨 가상 카운티 대표의 수)는 지정된 5 개의 "가상 위성 카운티"에서보고됩니다. [27] [30]

  • 아이오와의 4 개 의회 지구에 하나씩, 모든 주 내 위성 코커스의 결과가보고되고 각 의회 지구 내에서 합산됩니다.
  • 주 전체에 걸친 하나의 위성 카운티에서 모든 주 밖의 위성 코커스 결과가보고되고 합산됩니다.

선거구 선출 지구 및 주 대표의 수 (각 선거구 전당 대회의 누적 SDE 결과에 따라 카운티 대회에서 선출 됨) 외에도 각 위성 카운티와 위성 전당 대회에는 실제 지구 및 주 대표의 추가 금액이 할당됩니다. (카운티 대회에는 참석하지 않고 지구 대회와 주 대회에만 참가할 예정입니다). [27] [30]

위성으로 선출 된 지구 및 주 대표의 사용 가능한 수는 각각 4 개의 가상 의회 지구 위성 카운티 (주 내 위성 코커스의 경우) 및 주 전체의 5 번째 가상 대규모 지구 내 모든 위성 코커스의 누적 투표자 투표율에 따라 달라집니다. 위성 카운티 (주외 위성 코커스 용). 각 가상 위성 카운티는 이에 따라 위성 코커스 중 다음과 같은 수의 SDE를 할당합니다. [27] [30]

가상 의회 지구 위성 카운티
SDE (실제 선거구에서 결정한 지구 SDE 기본 총계의 백분율로 계산)
CD 카운티의 총 위성 참석자 1 ~ 600 601 ~ 1200 1201 ~ 1800 1801 ~ 2400 2401 ~ 3000 3001 ~ 3600 3601 ~ 4200 4201 ~ 4800 4801–5400 5401 이상
가상 CD1 위성 카운티 5.60 SDE (1 %) 11.20 SDE (2 %) 16.80 SDE (3 %) 22.40 SDE (4 %) 28.00 SDE (5 %) 33.60 SDE (6 %) 39.20 SDE (7 %) 44.80 SDE (8 %) 50.40 SDE (9 %) 56.00 SDE (10 %)
가상 CD2 위성 카운티 5.43 SDE (1 %) 10.86 SDE (2 %) 16.29 SDE (3 %) 21.72 SDE (4 %) 27.15 SDE (5 %) 32,58 SDE (6 %) 38,01 SDE (7 %) 43.44 SDE (8 %) 48.87 SDE (9 %) 54.30 SDE (10 %)
가상 CD3 위성 카운티 5.93 SDE (1 %) 11.86 SDE (2 %) 17.79 SDE (3 %) 23.72 SDE (4 %) 29.65 SDE (5 %) 35.58 SDE (6 %) 41.51 SDE (7 %) 47.44 SDE (8 %) 53.37 SDE (9 %) 59.30 SDE (10 %)
가상 CD4 위성 카운티 4.11 SDE (1 %) 8.22 SDE (2 %) 12.33 SDE (3 %) 16.44 SDE (4 %) 20.55 SDE (5 %) 24.66 SDE (6 %) 28.77 SDE (7 %) 32.88 SDE (8 %) 36.99 SDE (9 %) 41.10 SDE (10 %)
가상의 대규모 주 전체 위성 카운티
SDE (실제 구역에서 결정한 주 전체 SDE 기본 총계에 추가로 할당 됨)
대규모 카운티 총 위성
참석자

1 ~ 500 501 ~ 1000 1001 ~ 1500 1501 ~ 2000 2000 이상
가상
대형
위성 카운티
2 개의 SDE 3 개의 SDE 4 개의 SDE 5 개의 SDE 6 개의 SDE

각 위성 코커스에서 획득 할 수있는 사용 가능한 SDE의 양은 "자신의 가상 위성 카운티 내의 모든 위성 코커스에 할당 된 총 가상 카운티 대의원 수"의 비율에 따라 할당 된 몫에 따라 결정됩니다. 가상 카운티 내에서 할당 된 사용 가능한 SDE의 수. [27] [30]

누적 된 위성 카운티 SDE가 최종적으로 각 위성 카운티 전체에 대해 위성으로 선출 된 "지구 및 주 대표"로 전환되면 특정 위성 카운티 내에서 15 % 미만의 몫으로 SDE를 획득 한 모든 대통령 후보는 모든 SDE를 갖게됩니다. 탈락 (지구 및 주 대의원 0 명), 특정 위성 카운티 내에서 15 % 이상의 SDE 지분을 획득 한 나머지 유자격 대통령 후보는 최종적으로 유자격 SDE의 지분과 동일한 수의 대의원을 받게됩니다. 가장 가까운 정수로 반올림 / 내림 한 분수). [27] [30]

전당 대회 절차의 일환으로 각 위성 전당 대회는 가용 한 추가 "지구 및 주 대표"직책에 대한 전당 대회 후보자 중 후보자를 적어두고 나중에지지를 약속 한 대통령 선거 운동의 선호도에 따라 선정됩니다. [27] [30]

카운티, 지구, 주 대회 및 전국 대회 대표

서약 된 전국
대회
대의원 [31]
유형 Del.
CD1 [h] 7
CD2 [i] 7
CD3 [j] 8
CD4 [k] 5
PLEO [l] 5
크게 [m] 9
총 약속 대의원 41

총 11,402 명의 카운티 대회 대의원이 1,678 개의 선거구 코커스와 87 개의 위성 코커스에서 위에서 설명한 절차에 따라 선출됩니다. 그런 다음 3 월 21 일 지역 카운티 대회에 참석하여 코커스의 비례 적 주 대의원 등가 (SDE) 결과에 따라 대통령 후보를 지원하기로 약속 한 2,107 개의 지구 및 주 대의원을 선출합니다. 이 선출 된 지구 및 주 대표자들은 4 월 25 일에 지구 대회 (의회 지구에서 27 명의 서약 국가 대회 대의원 이름 선택)와 6 월 13 일 주 대회 (나머지 주 전체에서 선출 된 서약 전국 대회의 이름 선택)에 참석합니다. 대의원 : 전체 9 명, 정당 지도자 5 명 및 선출직 공무원). [28]2020 년 민주당 전당 대회 에는 총 41 명의 전당 대회 대의원이 선출 되며, 대통령 후보의 전주 및 각주의 4 개 의회 지구 에서 획득 한 총 SDE 수에 비례하여지지를 결정합니다 . 그러나 주 전체 또는 특정 지구에서 SDE의 최소 15 % 몫을 획득하여 자격을 갖추는 대통령 후보자에게만 해당됩니다. 즉, 모든 대통령 후보가 주 전체 및 CD1, CD2, CD3, CD4에서 SDE의 15 % 미만의 몫을 차지하면 공약 된 전국 대회 대의원 0 명을 받게됩니다. [31]

주 전체 전당 대회 결과를 기반으로 한 대통령 후보가 다수의 PLEO 공약 대의원을 얻거나 대규모 대의원을 공약 한 후 6 월 13 일 주 총회 이전에 후보에서 탈퇴하기로 결정한 경우 해당 후보가 공약 된 PLEO / at- 대신 대규모 대의원은 이미 다수의 원화 PLEO / 대규모 대의원과 함께 자격을 갖춘 나머지 대통령 후보들 사이에서 비례 적으로 나뉩니다. [27]

아이오와는 전국 대회로 전송 41 전당 대회 선출 약속 대표는 팔 미리 선택 unpledged PLEO 대의원 (합류 할 수 있습니다 superdelegates )의 5 명 민주당 전국위원회 와 의회의 3 명 (이 중 세 미국 대표이다). [31] 8 명의 대의원은 더 이상 민주당 대통령 선거 후보를 결정하기위한 첫 번째 투표에서 결정적인 투표를 할 권리가 없습니다 (즉, 공약 된 모든 대의원 할당이 대회 에서 논쟁을 벌이는 경우에만 역할을 수행 할 수 있음 ). ; 그리고 그들은 민주당의 규칙에 따라 전당 대회 결과와는 무관하게 비서 약 대표로 자동 선출됩니다. [32][33]

이전 코커스의 주요 변경 사항

이전 코커스 ( 2016 년 가장 최근 )에서보고 된 선거구 결과는 각 대통령 후보에 대한 주 대표의 등가물에 따라 약속 된 전국 대회 대의원 예상를 계산하는 데 사용되었습니다. 선발 과정의 마지막 단계 (예 : 6 월 주 대회)에서만 후보자에게 지원이 고정 되었기 때문에 계산 된 예상 공약 전국 대회 대의원. [34] 이것은 2020 년 전당 대회에서 변경되었는데, 여기에서는 전당 전당 대회의 SDE 결과가 알려지면 이미 계산 된 공약 전국 대회 대의원의 최종 수가 후보자에게 고정 될 것입니다. [35]

2019 년 2 월 11 일, 아이오와 민주당은 2020 년 1 월 29 일부터 2 월 3 일까지 '가상 코커스'기간을 추가하는 등 이전 코커스 에서 사용 된 절차에 대한 몇 가지 변경 사항을 제안했습니다. 선거구 코커스는 온라인 가상 코커스 또는 원격 회의에 참여하여 후보 선호도에 순위를 매길 수있는 기회를 제공하며, 생존 할 수없는 후보자에게 재분배되는 지원을 제공합니다. [31]이 프로세스는 실행 불가능한 선택이 남아 있지 않을 때까지 계속되며, 결과는 대의원 할당을 위해 의회 지구와 집계되지만 가상 코커스 옵션을 사용하는 사람들의 수에 관계없이 10 % SDE로 제한됩니다. 가상 및 선거구 전당 대회의 결과는 2 월 3 일 밤에 공개 될 예정이며, 국민당의 규칙 변경의 결과로 전당 대회의 1 차 및 2 차 조정 기간에 대한 원시 투표 총계가 발표 될 예정이었습니다. . [36]

2019 년 8 월 말, DNC는 아이오와와 네바다 민주당 모두에게 보안 문제로 인해 "가상 코커스"계획을 폐기하라고 명령했습니다. [37]

2019 년 9 월 20 일, DNC는 "위성 코커스 사이트"계획을 조건부로 승인하여 아이오와 민주당 원이 2020 년 2 월 3 일 주 밖에서 일하거나 대학에 진학 할 때 참여할 수 있도록했습니다. [38] 87 개 사이트 중 11 개 사이트 스페인어 번역 서비스가 제공됩니다. 라틴계 인구는 인구의 6 %, 등록 유권자의 3.4 %를 차지했습니다. [39]

당은 2020 년 1 월 말에 "첫 번째 초기 정렬"과 "두 번째 최종 정렬"모두에 대한 "원 투표 수"가 1 차에 대해보고 될 것이라고 발표했습니다 (계산 된 주 대표 등가물 및 서약 된 전국 대회 대표자들과 함께). 코커스 역사에서 시간. 이전 코커스에서보고 된 선거구 코커스의 결과는 최종 계산 된 주 대의원 등가물과 약속 된 전국 대회 대의원의 예상 수로 만 구성되었습니다. [40] [28] [35]

투표

폴링 집계
폴 집계 소스
업데이트 날짜

폴링 된 날짜
버니
샌더스

바이든
피트
부티 기그
엘리자베스
워렌
에이미
클로 부차
앤드류
톰 스타
이어
다른 되지 않는다는 것은
결정적으로 [N]
270 승리 2020 년 2 월 3 일 2020 년 1 월 22 일 – 2 월 2 일 22.6 % 18.2 % 15.2 % 15.6 % 11.8 % 3.8 % 3.6 % 3.6 % [o] 5.6 %
RealClear 정치 2020 년 2 월 3 일 2020 년 1 월 20 일 – 2 월 2 일 23.0 % 19.3 % 16.8 % 15.5 % 9.0 % 3.3 % 3.0 % 2.5 % [p] 7.6 %
FiveThirtyEight 2020 년 2 월 3 일 2020 년 2 월 2 일까지 [q] 22.2 % 20.7 % 15.7 % 14.5 % 10.1 % 3.7 % 3.6 % 2.9 % [r] 6.6 %
평균 22.6 % 19.4 % 15.9 % 15.2 % 10.3 % 3.6 % 3.4 % 3.0 % [초] 6.6 %

인터뷰 대상자가 인터뷰 중에 Pete Buttigieg 가 여론 조사 옵션으로 주어지지 않았다고 불평 한 후, Des Moines Register 의 최종 여론 조사 결과는 2 월 1 일 예정대로 발표 되지 않았으며 누락은 사람의 실수로 인한 것으로 알려졌습니다 . 여론 조사 기관이 실수가 고립 된 사건인지 아닌지를 판단 할 수 없었기 때문에 여론 조사 기관인 Ann Selzer여론 조사 결과를 완전히 보류하기로 결정했습니다. 이는 76 년 만에 처음으로 최종 사전 코커스 여론 조사가 등록 . [41] [42] 설문 조사는 나중에 Twitter 에서 유출되었으며 결과는 FiveThirtyEight에 의해 확인되었습니다.Sanders가 22 %로 선두를 차지했고 Warren이 18 %, Buttigieg가 16 %, Biden이 13 %를 차지했습니다. [43]

민주당 국가위원회가 지정한 토론 자격 투표
2019 년 12 월 1 일부터 2020 년 2 월 3 일까지 투표
설문 조사 출처
관리 날짜
샘플
크기 [t]

오차 한계

바이든
피트
부티 기그
툴시 개
버드
에이미
클로 부차
버니
샌더스
톰 스타
이어
엘리자베스
워렌
앤드류
다른 미정
에머슨 칼리지 2020 년 1 월 30 일 – 2 월 2 일 853 (LV) ± 3.3 % 21 % 15 % 1% 11 % 28 % 4 % 14 % 5 % 2 %
진행 데이터 [1] 2020 년 1 월 28 일 – 2 월 2 일 2,394 (LV) ± 1.6 % 24 % [u] 22 % 28 % 25 %
18 % 18 % 2 % 9 % 22 % 4 % 19 % 6 % 2 % [v]
YouGov / CBS 뉴스 (MRP) 2020 년 1 월 22 ~ 31 일 1,835 (RV) ± 3 % 25 % 21 % [w] 5 % 25 % [w] 16 % [w] [w] [w]
David Binder Research / Focus on Rural America 2020 년 1 월 28 ~ 30 일 300 (LV) ± 5.7 % 46 % [x] 40 % 14 %
15 % 19 % 삼% 11 % 17 % 삼% 15 % 1% 2 % [y] 12 %
미국 연구 그룹 2020 년 1 월 27 ~ 30 일 400 (LV) ± 4.0 % 17 % 9 % 2 % 16 % 23 % 삼% 15 % 5 % 4 % [z] 6 %
진행을위한 Civiqs / 데이터 2020 년 1 월 26 ~ 29 일 615 (LV) ± 4.7 % 20 % [aa] 18 % 1% 0 % 31 % 2 % 25 % 1% 1 % [ab] 2 %
15 % 15 % 2 % 8 % 28 % 2 % 21 % 5 % 0 % [ac] 2 %
파크 스트리트 전략 2020 년 1 월 24 ~ 28 일 600 (LV) ± 3.0 % 20 % 17 % 1% 12 % 18 % 4 % 17 % 5 % <1 % [광고] 6 %
몬 머스 대학교 2020 년 1 월 23 ~ 27 일 544 (LV) ± 4.2 % 29 % [ae] 20 % 25 % 19 % 1 % [af] 6 %
22 % [ag] 17 % 12 % 22 % 16 % 5 % <1 % [ah] 6 %
23 % 16 % 1% 10 % 21 % 4 % 15 % 삼% 1 % [ai] 5 %
Civiqs / Iowa State University 2020 년 1 월 23 ~ 27 일 655 (LV) ± 4.8 % 15 % 17 % 2 % 11 % 24 % 4 % 19 % 5 % 2 % [aj] 3 % [ak]
에머슨 칼리지 2020 년 1 월 23 ~ 26 일 450 (LV) ± 4.6 % 21 % 10 % 5 % 13 % 30 % 5 % 11 % 5 % 2 % [al]
Suffolk University / USA Today 2020 년 1 월 23 ~ 26 일 500 (LV) ± 4.4 % 25.4 % 17.6 % 0.8 % 5.6 % 18.6 % 2.2 % 13.2 % 3.0 % 13.6 % [오전]
변경 연구 / 부정 된 미디어 2020 년 1 월 22 ~ 26 일 704 (LV) ± 3.7 % 22 % [an] 23 % 30 % 20 % 5 %
18 % 19 % 1% 10 % 27 % 4 % 15 % 4 % 2 % [ao]
시에나 칼리지 / 뉴욕 타임즈 2020 년 1 월 20 ~ 23 일 584 (LV) ± 4.8 % 23 % [ap] 23 % 30 % 19 % 8 % [수성]
17 % 18 % 1% 8 % 25 % 삼% 15 % 삼% 1 % [ar] 8 %
모닝 사이드 칼리지 2020 년 1 월 17 ~ 23 일 253 (LV) ± 6.2 % 19 % 18 % 삼% 12 % 15 % 6 % 15 % 4 % 2 % [as] 4 %
YouGov / CBS 뉴스 2020 년 1 월 16 ~ 23 일 1401 (RV) ± 3.9 % 25 % 22 % 0 % 7 % 26 % 1% 15 % 1% 2%[at] 1%
Civiqs/Data for Progress[permanent dead link] Jan 19–21, 2020 590 (LV) ± 4.8% 17% 19% 2% 6% 24% 3% 19% 5% 0%[au] 5%
David Binder Research/Focus on Rural America Jan 15–18, 2020 500 (LV) ± 4.4% 24% 16% 1% 11% 14% 4% 18% 3% 2%[av]
Neighbourhood Research and Media/Breitbart Jan 14–17, 2020 300 (LV) ± 4.8% 23% 17% [aw] 11% 10% 2% 15% 2% 6%[ax] 13%
Jan 13, 2020 Booker withdraws from the race
Monmouth University Jan 9–12, 2020 405 (LV) ± 4.9% 28%[ay] 25% 24% 16% 2%[az] 4%
24% 17% 2% 8% 18% 4% 15% 4% 4%[ba] 5%
Selzer/CNN/Des Moines Register January 2–8, 2020 701 (LV) ± 3.7% 15% 16% 2% 6% 20% 2% 17% 5% 2%[bb] 11%
YouGov/CBS News Dec 27, 2019 – Jan 3, 2020 953 (RV) ± 3.8% 23% 23% 1% 7% 23% 2% 16% 2% 2%[bc] 1%
KG Polling Dec 19–23, 2019 750 (LV) ± 3.8% 24% 12% 5% 31% 13% 10% 5%[bd]
Civiqs/Iowa State University Dec 12–16, 2019 632 (LV) ± 4.9% 15% 24% 3% 4% 21% 2% 18% 3% 4%[be] 4%
Emerson College Dec 7–10, 2019 325 (LV) ± 5.4% 23% 18% 2% 10% 22% 3% 12% 2% 8%[bf]
Dec 3, 2019 Harris withdraws from the race
Polling during November 2019
Poll source Date(s)
administered
Sample
size[t]
Margin
of error
Joe
Biden
Pete
Buttigieg
Tulsi
Gabbard
Kamala
Harris
Amy
Klobuchar
Bernie
Sanders
Tom
Steyer
Elizabeth
Warren
Andrew
Yang
Other Un­decided
Civiqs/Iowa State University Nov 15–19, 2019 614 (LV) ± 4.9% 12% 26% 2% 2% 5% 18% 2% 19% 4% 6%[bg] 3%
Des Moines Register/CNN Nov 8–13, 2019 500 (LV) ± 4.4% 15% 25% 3% 3% 6% 15% 3% 16% 3% 6%[bh] 5%
YouGov/CBS News Nov 6–13, 2019 856 (RV) ± 4.1% 22% 21% 0% 5% 5% 22% 2% 18% 1% 4%[bi]
Monmouth University Nov 7–11, 2019 451 (LV) ± 4.6% 19% 22% 2% 3% 5% 13% 3% 18% 3% 6%[bj] 8%
University of Iowa Oct 28 – Nov 10, 2019 465 (LV) ± 4.6% 15% 16% 3% 2% 1% 18% 3% 23% 3% 2%[bk] 13%
Public Policy Polling Nov 5–6, 2019 715 (LV) 13% 20% 3% 9% 14% 6% 21% 3% 10%
Quinnipiac University Oct 30 – Nov 5, 2019 698 (LV) ± 4.5% 15% 19% 3% 4% 5% 17% 3% 20% 3% 4%[bl] 8%
Nov 1, 2019 O'Rourke withdraws from the race
Polling before November 2019
Poll source Date(s)
administered
Sample
size[t]
Margin
of error
Joe
Biden
Cory
Booker
Pete
Buttigieg
Kamala
Harris
Amy
Klobuchar
Beto
O'Rourke
Bernie
Sanders
Elizabeth
Warren
Other Un­decided
Siena College/New York Times Oct 25–30, 2019 439 (LV) ± 4.7% 17% 2% 18% 3% 4% 1% 19% 22% 8%[bm] 6%
Civiqs/Iowa State University Oct 18–22, 2019 598 (LV) ± 5% 12% 1% 20% 3% 4% 1% 18% 28% 8%[bo] 4%
Suffolk University/USA Today Oct 16–18, 2019 500 (LV) ± 4.4% 18% 1% 13% 3% 3% 1% 9% 17% 7%[bp] 29%
Emerson College Oct 13–16, 2019 317 (LV) ± 5.5% 23% 3% 16% 2% 1% 0% 13% 23% 15%[bq]
Firehouse Strategies/Øptimus Oct 8–10, 2019 548 (LV) ± 3.6% 22% 2% 17% 3% [br] 1% 5% 25% 26%[bs] [br]
YouGov/CBS News Oct 3–11, 2019 729 (RV) ± 4.6% 22% 2% 14% 5% 2% 2% 21% 22% 7%[bt]
Selzer/CNN/Des Moines Register [2] Sep 14–18, 2019 602 (LV) ± 4.0% 20% 3% 9% 6% 3% 2% 11% 22% 11%[bu] 14%
David Binder Research Sep 14–17, 2019 500 (LV) ± 4.4% 25% 2% 12% 5% 8% 1% 9% 23% 9%[bv] 6%
Civiqs/Iowa State University Sep 13–17, 2019 572 (LV) ± 5.2% 16% 2% 13% 5% 3% 2% 16% 24% 11%[bw] 8%
YouGov/CBS News Aug 28 – Sep 4, 2019 835 ± 4.3% 29% 2% 7% 6% 2% 2% 26% 17% 9%[bx]
Change Research Aug 9–11, 2019 621 (LV) ± 3.9% 17% 3% 13% 8% 2% 3% 17% 28% 9%[by]
Monmouth University Aug 1–4, 2019 401 (LV) ± 4.9% 28% 1% 8% 11% 3% <1% 9% 19% 11%[bz] 10%
Firehouse Strategies/Øptimus Jul 23–25, 2019 630 ± 3.3% 23% 2% 7% 12% 2% 11% 23% 4% 16%
YouGov/CBS News Jul 9–18, 2019 706 ± 4.4% 24% 3% 7% 16% 4% 1% 19% 17% 9%[ca]
Jul 9, 2019 Steyer announces his candidacy
Change Research Jun 29 – Jul 4, 2019 420 (LV) 16% 1% 25% 16% 1% 2% 16% 18% 5%[cb]
David Binder Research Jun 29 – Jul 1, 2019 600 ± 4.0% 17% 2% 10% 18% 4% 1% 12% 20% 9%[cc] 9%
Suffolk University/USA Today Jun 28 – Jul 1, 2019 500 ± 4.4% 24% 2% 6% 16% 2% 1% 9% 13% 6%[cd] 21%
Change Research Jun 17–20, 2019 308 (LV) 27% 5% 17% 4% 2% 1% 18% 20% 7%[ce]
Selzer/CNN/Des Moines Register Jun 2–5, 2019 600 ± 4.0% 24% 1% 14% 7% 2% 2% 16% 15% 6%[cf] 6%
Change Research May 15–19, 2019 615 (LV) ± 3.9% 24% 1% 14% 10% 2% 5% 24% 12% 9%[cg]
Firehouse Strategies/Øptimus Apr 30 – May 2, 2019 576 ± 4.1% 35% 2% 11% 5% 4% 3% 14% 10% 16%
Apr 25, 2019 Biden announces his candidacy
Gravis Marketing Apr 17–18, 2019 590 ± 4.0% 19% 4% 14% 6% 4% 5% 19% 6% 7%[ch] 16%
Apr 14, 2019 Buttigieg announces his candidacy
Monmouth University Apr 4–9, 2019 351 ± 5.2% 27% 3% 9% 7% 4% 6% 16% 7% 7%[ci] 12%
David Binder Research Mar 21–24, 2019 500 ± 4.4% 25% 7% 6% 9% 6% 6% 17% 8% 9%[cj] 7%
Emerson College Mar 21–24, 2019 249 ± 6.2% 25% 6% 11% 10% 2% 5% 24% 9% 8%[ck]
Public Policy Polling (D)[cl] Mar 14–15, 2019 678 29% 4% 5% 6% 7% 15% 8% 4% 22%
Mar 14, 2019 O'Rourke announces his candidacy
Selzer/CNN/Des Moines Register Mar 3–6, 2019 401 ± 4.9% 27% 3% 1% 7% 3% 5% 25% 9% 5%[cm] 10%
Feb 19, 2019 Sanders announces his candidacy
Feb 10, 2019 Klobuchar announces her candidacy
Feb 9, 2019 Warren announces her candidacy
Firehouse Strategies/Øptimus Jan 31 – Feb 2, 2019 558 ± 3.6% 25% 4% 17% 5% 4% 10% 11% 1%[cn] 25%
Emerson College Jan 30 – Feb 2, 2019 260 ± 6.0% 29% 4% 0% 18% 3% 6% 15% 11% 15%[co]
Feb 1, 2019 Booker announces his candidacy
Jan 21, 2019 Harris announces her candidacy
Jan 11, 2019 Gabbard announces her candidacy
Change Research Dec 13–17, 2018 1,291 (LV) 20% 4% 7% 5% 19% 20% 7% 18%[cp]
Selzer/CNN/Des Moines Register Dec 10–13, 2018 455 ± 4.6% 32% 4% 5% 3% 11% 19% 8% 7%[cq] 6%
David Binder Research Dec 10–11, 2018 500 ± 4.4% 30% 6% 7% 10% 11% 13% 9% 8%[cr] 6%
David Binder Research Sep 20–23, 2018 500 ± 4.4% 37% 8% 10% 12% 16% 6%[cs] 9%
Nov 6, 2017 Yang announces his candidacy
Public Policy Polling (D)[ct] Mar 3–6, 2017 1,062 17% 3% 11% 34%[cu] 32%

Results

Sanders, Buttigieg, Warren and Biden campaigning in Iowa throughout the lead up to the caucus.
county
Final alignment popular vote share by county
congressional district
Final alignment popular vote share by congressional district

Neither the final statewide total of "initial alignment votes" nor "final alignment votes" were used to determine the statewide number of "state delegate equivalents" (SDEs) won. Instead, a number of SDEs can be won in each of the 1,678 precinct caucuses and 87 satellite caucuses based upon the final alignment votes in each specific precinct. The number of "pledged national convention delegates" was determined proportionally to the candidate's total number of SDEs won statewide and in each of the state's four congressional districts, but only for those candidates who won more than a 15.0% share of the SDEs statewide or in the specific district.[31]

On the evening of February 6, after a three-day delay for all precinct votes to be reported, the first preliminary count for statewide results was published by the Iowa Democratic Party, which found that Pete Buttigieg had narrowly won the state delegate equivalent (SDE) count over Bernie Sanders, while Sanders won the popular vote on both the first and final caucus alignments (after supporters of non-viable candidates below the 15% threshold redistributed their support to viable ones). Due to various journalists identifying a number of potential errors in the reported vote total and calculated state delegate equivalents, and due to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) suggesting a recanvass of the results would be needed,[44][45][46] some major news organizations refused to declare a winner until completion of a possible recanvass or recount.[47][48]

On the evening of February 9, the Iowa Democratic Party (IDP) had (through their own conducted initial audit of the first preliminary count of statewide results) found the need to correct some incorrectly reported results from 3.1% (55) of the precincts. The corrected result was published as the first final official result before certification (meaning before conducting a formal potential recanvass/recount). The IDP also calculated the number of won pledged national convention delegates on the same basis.[8][9] The deadline for campaigns to request a recanvass or recount of the results was extended from February 7 to February 10, giving campaigns three additional days to review the results and decide whether they want to challenge them,[49] which both the Sanders campaign and the Buttigieg campaign did for 8.1% (143) of the precincts/satellite sites.[10]

The IDP accepted both partial recanvass requests on February 12, and carried out the recanvass from February 16–18 after the campaigns agreed to bear the costs. The recanvass was an audit to check if the initial reporting of figures concurred with the figures displayed on the math worksheet of the voting site. In order to correct the observed mathematical errors on several math worksheets, which were initially signed by all caucus group captains at the respective local voting sites, a subsequent recount process also needed to be called after the conclusion of the recanvass process.[11][12]

On February 18, the post-recanvass SDE count was released, with Buttigieg leading Sanders by 0.08 SDEs.[13] The following day, the Buttigieg and Sanders campaigns requested a final recount for 63 of the recanvassed precincts (3.6% of all results).[14][15] On February 21, the IDP announced that it had accepted recount requests for 23 precincts (1.3% of all results). It announced it would recount all 10 precincts requested by the Sanders campaign and 14 of the 54 precincts requested by the Buttigieg campaign, stating it rejected the Buttigieg request to recount the remaining 40 precincts because the campaign had failed to demonstrate that a potential recount of those precincts could result in a different SDE result.[16] The recount began on February 25 and was completed over the following two days.[50] On February 27, the IDP concluded the official recount, resulting in Buttigieg maintaining a slight edge over Sanders in SDEs.[17] Sanders challenged the results of the Iowa caucuses; as of February 29, 2020, that challenge was pending before the Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws Committee.[1]

2020 Iowa Democratic presidential caucuses[51][3][1]
Candidate Initial
alignment
Final
alignment[cv]
State delegate
equivalents
Pledged
national
convention
delegates[52][cw]
Votes % Votes % Number %
Joe Biden 26,291 14.9 23,605 13.7 340.3238 15.8 [c]14
Pete Buttigieg 37,572 21.3 43,209 25.1 562.9538 26.17 [d]12
Bernie Sanders 43,581 24.7 45,652 26.5 562.0214 26.13 [b]9
Elizabeth Warren 32,589 18.5 34,909 20.3 388.4403 18.1 [e]5
Amy Klobuchar 22,454 12.7 21,100 12.2 263.8689 12.3 [f]1
Andrew Yang 8,914 5.1 1,758 1.0 21.8559 1.0
Tom Steyer 3,061 1.7 413 0.2 6.6189 0.3
Michael Bloomberg (did not run yet) 212 0.1 16 0.0 0.2096 0.0
Tulsi Gabbard 341 0.2 16 0.0 0.1143 0.0
Michael Bennet 164 0.1 4 0.0 0.0000 0.0
Deval Patrick 9 0.0 0 0.0 0.0000 0.0
John Delaney (withdrawn) 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0000 0.0
Other / Write-in 155 0.1 198 0.1 0.6931 0.0
Uncommitted 1,009 0.6 1,420 0.8 3.7321 0.2
Totals[cx] 176,352 100% 172,300 100% 2,150.8321 100% 41

Participation in the 2020 caucuses (176,352 initial alignment votes in the official count) was slightly higher than the 171,517 people who participated in the 2016 caucuses,[54] but still 26% lower compared to the over 239,000 people who participated in the 2008 caucuses.[55]

Sanders won the popular vote on both the initial and the final alignments.[56] Former Vice President Joe Biden had a particularly disappointing performance and called it a "gut punch" after winning significantly fewer votes than either Buttigieg or Sanders.[57] Following the caucuses, Buttigieg became the first openly LGBT candidate to win any pledged national convention delegates towards a major party's presidential nomination.[58]

Delay in final results

Up until February 4 at 4:00 pm local time, the Iowa Democratic Party (IDP) had not reported any final results due to what a party spokesperson described as "quality checks".[59] According to The New York Times, a new app-based reporting system may have been responsible for the delay, with Sean Bagniewski, the Polk County Democratic Party chairman, reporting that only "20% of his 177 precinct chairs" could access the app.[60] In a statement released on February 3 at 10:30 pm local time, IDP communications director Mandy McClure said "inconsistencies" had been found in the three sets of results. However, McClure also assured that the delay was not the result of a "hack or intrusion" and that the overall results are "sound".[61] During the delay in the release of final results, the campaigns of Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders both released incomplete results taken by their respective precinct captains, respectively showing the two candidates as having won the caucus. Also during the delay, Amy Klobuchar's campaign manager, Justin Buoen, claimed that Klobuchar either exceeded or equaled the number of votes that Joe Biden received.[62]

Problems encountered included usage and interface failures of an app designed to report final vote tallies for Iowa precinct captains; a backlog of phone calls to the state vote-reporting hotline,[63] including at least one case of a precinct captain being placed on an hour-long hold, only to have the hotline attendant immediately hang up on him when finally answering; confusion about coin flips to decide delegates; the need to use backup paper ballots to verify the results; and discrepancies between backup paper ballots and tallies by precinct captains.[64][65][66] Reporters found that the Internet message board 4chan had encouraged its members to flood the phone lines of the DNC in Des Moines, which further complicated the process of reporting results.[67][68][69][70] Additionally, the reported data had to be entered manually, which took longer than expected.[71]

The morning after the caucus, Iowa Democratic Party Chair Troy Price issued a clarifying statement, reiterating that he did not believe there was a "cyber security intrusion", and that "data collected via the app was sound". Rather, due to a "coding issue in the reporting system", the app was reporting out only "partial data" from what had been recorded. This flaw was verified by comparison to the paper vote records and examination of the underlying data recorded by the app.[72] The Iowa Democratic Party said in a statement that it planned to release partial results at 4:00 pm local time on Tuesday, nearly a full day after caucuses began.[73]

Moreover, several precinct captains reportedly released their results to the Iowa Democratic Party over 24 hours before numbers were reported, with some criticizing the length of time taken for the party to release results as well as the process's lack of transparency.[74]

IowaRecorder app

The app, named IowaRecorder,[75] was developed by Shadow Inc., a majority-owned subsidiary of Acronym.[76][77] The company received money from the Biden, Buttigieg, and Kirsten Gillibrand campaigns for services distinct from the app;[78][79] Biden's campaign paid the firm $1,225 for text messaging, Buttigieg's campaign paid $42,500 for software service, and Gillibrand's campaign paid $37,400 for software, text, and fundraising services.[78]

Social media posts claimed shortly after the election that the Buttigieg campaign had paid for the creation of the app, a theory which was debunked by the Associated Press.[80] The app was also criticized for alleged conflicts of interest due to the company behind the app selling separate services to campaigns associated with Biden, Buttigieg, and Gillibrand; as well as a PAC founded by Tom Steyer and connections to former staffers for Hillary Clinton, among others.[81][82][83][84]

App-development expert Kasra Rahjerdi said "the app was clearly done by someone following a tutorial. It's similar to projects I do with my mentees who are learning how to code." A team of researchers at Stanford University, including former Facebook chief security officer Alex Stamos, said that while analyzing the app they found potentially concerning code within it, including hard-coded API keys. The faulty app coding was found to have caused some incorrect and incomplete result calculation, creating a discrepancy between its data input and data output, which made the app useless for the report of results from all the precinct caucuses (meaning that all data reporting instead had to be phoned/mailed and manually typed into a calculating work sheet).[85]

The app was also criticized for its lack of user-friendliness and openness to potential hacks and data intercepts.[86]

Inconsistencies in votes

During the initial release of the results, it was noted that some of the data being reported were inconsistent, flawed, or entirely impossible. According to The New York Times, more than 100 precincts reported incorrect results. Most common errors included wrong number of delegates being allotted to candidates and disparities in numbers released by the Iowa Democratic Party (IDP) and those reported by precincts.[87] One such example is in Black Hawk County, where the county supervisor independently released results of his county via Facebook that varied from the later-released results provided by the Iowa Democratic Party—which incorrectly gave Elizabeth Warren delegates to Tom Steyer and Bernie Sanders delegates to Deval Patrick, despite the latter reportedly receiving zero votes in the county. Although corrections were later made, these results still varied from those given by the county supervisor.[74][88]

This quickly gave rise to a number of theories online that were accusing the Democratic Party of corruption and cheating in favor of Buttigieg and other candidates at the expense of Sanders.[89] On February 6, three days after the caucus, and with three percent of the results still unreported, the Democratic Party chairman Tom Perez requested a recanvass of the results,[90][91] saying:

Enough is enough. In light of the problems that have emerged in the implementation of the delegate selection plan and in order to assure public confidence in the results, I am calling on the Iowa Democratic Party to immediately begin a recanvass.[92]

Because Perez specified satellite caucuses in his request for a recanvass, an area where Sanders support was strong, Sanders supporters on social media accused the Democratic National Committee of rigging the caucus against him.[93][94]

According to the IDP, errors on the handwritten caucus math worksheets could not be corrected because they are unalterable legal records.“The incorrect math on the Caucus Math Worksheets must not be changed to ensure the integrity of the process” wrote the party lawyer, Shayla McCormally, according to an email sent by IDP chair Troy Price.[95] Photographs of caucus math worksheets taken by caucus "captains" showed errors in adding up votes for candidates and in calculating "state delegate equivalents".[8] IDP chair Troy Price said that a recount of votes would be required to correct the miscalculations on the handwritten tally sheets from precincts.[10]

Analysis

According to entrance polls by CNN, the close result was due to splits among key demographic groups: gender, educational attainment and age. Buttigieg won women with 24%, while Sanders won men with 26%. Buttigieg won voters with a college degree with 23%, while Sanders won among voters with a high school education or less with 30%. Sanders continued the trend of 2016 in which he won young voters, winning 44% in the 18–29 demographic and 41% with voters under 45 overall, while Buttigieg won older voters (40–64).[96]

Contrary to media belief in Biden's strength among non-white voters,[97] Sanders won that demographic in Iowa with 46% support, with Buttigieg placing second with 15% and Biden placing third with only 13% support. According to CNN reported entrance polls, Buttigieg won white voters with 23%. However, The New York Times indicates a statistical tie at 23%, with a slight advantage to Sanders.[98] Some counties carried by Buttigieg, such as Clinton County, had swung from Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016 by double digits.[96]

Although Latinos constitute a relatively small portion of Iowa's electorate, Sanders performed exceptionally well with Latino voters, winning all 32 Latino-majority and plurality precincts in the state with 52.6% of the vote, well ahead of Buttigieg (14%) and Biden (13.5%). He also won all four Spanish-language satellite caucus sites by overwhelming margins. Matt A. Barreto noted that Sanders's strength among the Latino demographic alone provided him with an 18.6 SDE advantage over Buttigieg, making up lost ground in other demographics where Buttigieg performed better. Sanders's success with Latino voters could be credited to the "Latino strategy" his campaign is pursuing by focusing on Latino voter outreach.[99]

Buttigieg's declaration of victory in Iowa provided him with a boost in polls going into New Hampshire, a state where Sanders had been polling consistently well.[100]

Footnotes

  1. ^ The number of pledged national convention delegates is determined by the number of SDEs won, however, a candidate must get at least 15% of the total vote to get statewide and district delegates or at least 15% of the vote in a congressional district to get district delegates from that district. Each precinct has a certain number of SDEs and allocates them based on how many caucus goers there are for each candidate at that precinct. However, the caucus's allocation is preliminary and gets finally decided on district and state conventions, whith only candidates still running during the state convention considered for statewide delegates. Yet, differing from this Buttigieg and Sanders actually retained at least a few of their statewide delegates.
  2. ^ a b Original runner-up with 12 delegates. Due to his withdrawal in April, 3 of the 4 statewide delegates mathematically won by Sanders were reallocated to Biden at the state convention on June 13.[52][53]
  3. ^ a b Originally placed fourth with 6 delegates. 8 of the 12 statewide delegates initially awarded to Buttigieg (2), Sanders (3) and Warren (3), who had withdrawn in the meantime, had to be reallocated to Biden as the sole remaining viable contender and were added to his own 2 statewide delegates at the state convention on June 13.[52][53]
  4. ^ a b Original winner with 14 delegates. Due to his withdrawal in March, 2 of the 5 statewide delegates mathematically won by Buttigieg were reallocated to Biden at the state convention on June 13.[52][53]
  5. ^ a b Originally placed third with 8 delegates. Due to her withdrawal in March, all of the 3 statewide delegates mathematically won by Warren were reallocated to Biden at the state convention on June 13.[52][53]
  6. ^ a b Falling short of 15% on state level and in three of four districts, Klobuchar only surpassed the treshold in one district and won 1 delegate there.
  7. ^ To avoid the repeating fraction, the procedure involves dividing the total number of caucusgoers by 6.
  8. ^ Each 1st congressional district (CD1)-elected national convention delegate is pledged to support a specific presidential candidate as determined per the total qualified SDE result of the caucuses held only in CD1 on February 3, but the exact name of the CD1 elected national convention delegate will only be selected among the participating "district and state delegates" at the Iowa CD1 District Convention on April 25.
  9. ^ Each 2nd congressional district (CD2)-elected national convention delegate is pledged to support a specific presidential candidate as determined per the total qualified SDE result of the caucuses held only in CD2 on February 3, but the exact name of the CD2 elected national convention delegate will only be selected among the participating "district and state delegates" at the Iowa CD2 District Convention on April 25.
  10. ^ Each 3rd congressional district (CD3)-elected national convention delegate is pledged to support a specific presidential candidate as determined per the total qualified SDE result of the caucuses held only in CD3 on February 3, but the exact name of the CD3 elected national convention delegate will only be selected among the participating "district and state delegates" at the Iowa CD3 District Convention on April 25.
  11. ^ Each 4th congressional district (CD4)-elected national convention delegate is pledged to support a specific presidential candidate as determined per the total qualified SDE result of the caucuses held only in CD4 on February 3, but the exact name of the CD4 elected national convention delegate will only be selected among the participating "district and state delegates" at the Iowa CD4 District Convention on April 25.
  12. ^ Each PLEO delegate is pledged to support a specific presidential candidate as determined per the statewide qualified SDE result of the caucuses held on February 3, but the exact name of the PLEO delegate will only be elected among the participating PLEO delegates at the Iowa State Democratic Convention on June 13.
  13. ^ Each at-large delegate is pledged to support a specific presidential candidate as determined per the statewide qualified SDE result of the caucuses held on February 3, but the exact name of the at-large delegate will only be elected among the participating delegates at the Iowa State Democratic Convention on June 13.
  14. ^ Calculated by taking the difference of 100% and all other candidates combined
  15. ^ Gabbard with 1.8%; Bloomberg with 1.3%; Bennet with 0.5%; Patrick not reported
  16. ^ Gabbard with 1.5%; Bloomberg with 1.0%; Bennet and Patrick not reported
  17. ^ FiveThirtyEight aggregates polls with a trendline regression of polls rather than a strict average of recent polls.
  18. ^ Gabbard and Bloomberg with 1.2%; Bennet with 0.4%; Patrick with 0.1%
  19. ^ Gabbard with 1.5%; Bloomberg with 1.2%; Bennet with 0.3%; Patrick with 0.0%
  20. ^ a b c Key:
    A – all adults
    RV – registered voters
    LV – likely voters
    V – unclear
  21. ^ After reallocation of delegates from candidates estimated to not clear the viability threshold in each precinct
  22. ^ Bloomberg with 2%
  23. ^ a b c d e Data not yet released, but all other candidates each have <5%
  24. ^ If the contest came down to Biden and Sanders
  25. ^ Bloomberg and Delaney with 1%; Bennet and Patrick with 0%
  26. ^ Bloomberg with 2%; Bennet and Patrick with 0%; others with 2%
  27. ^ Re-allocating support to second choice for candidates receiving <15% of first choice votes
  28. ^ Bennet with 1%; Delaney with 0%
  29. ^ Bennet and Delaney with 0%
  30. ^ Bloomberg with <1%
  31. ^ If only the four candidates listed were viable in the voters' caucus sites
  32. ^ "None of these/won't caucus" with 1%
  33. ^ If only the six candidates listed were viable in the voters' caucus sites
  34. ^ "None of these/won't caucus" with <1%
  35. ^ Bennet with 1%; Delaney and Patrick with 0%; other with <1%; "no one" with 0%
  36. ^ Bloomberg and Delaney with 1%; Bennet and Patrick with 0%
  37. ^ Reported as "Unsure"
  38. ^ Delaney with 1%; Bennet and Patrick with 0%; Someone Else with 1%
  39. ^ Patrick with 0.2%; Bennet and Delaney with 0.0%; "Other/Please Specify" with 0.4%; "Don't Know/Refused" with 13%
  40. ^ If voters could choose only one of Biden, Buttigieg, Sanders or Warren
  41. ^ Delaney and Patrick with 1%; Bennet with 0%
  42. ^ If the field is narrowed to these top four candidates
  43. ^ Listed as "don't know/refused"
  44. ^ Bloomberg with 1%; Bennet, Delaney, and Patrick with 0%
  45. ^ Bennet, Bloomberg and Delaney with 1%; Patrick with 0%
  46. ^ Delaney with 1%; Bennet and Patrick with 0%; someone else with 1%
  47. ^ Bennet and Delaney with 0%
  48. ^ Bennet and Bloomberg with 1%; Delaney and Patrick with 0%
  49. ^ Not listed separately from "others"
  50. ^ Trump with 5%; "others" with 2%
  51. ^ If the only viable candidates to caucus for were the four listed in this poll
  52. ^ "None of these/wouldn't vote" with 2%
  53. ^ Booker with 4%, Bennet and Delaney with <1%, Patrick with 0%, Other with <1%
  54. ^ Booker with 3%; Bloomberg with 1%; Bennet, Castro, Delaney, Patrick and Williamson with 0%; someone else with 1%
  55. ^ Booker with 2%; Bennet, Castro, Delaney, Patrick and Williamson with 0%; someone else with 1%
  56. ^ Includes "refused"
  57. ^ Booker with 3%; Castro with 1%; Delaney, Bloomberg, Bennet, Williamson with 0%
  58. ^ Booker with 4%; Bloomberg with 2%; Bennet, Castro, Delaney, Patrick and Williamson with 0%; someone else with 2%
  59. ^ Bennet, Bloomberg, Booker, Bullock, Castro and Williamson with 1%; Delaney, Messam, Patrick and Sestak with 0%
  60. ^ Booker with 3%; Bloomberg with 2%; Bennet with 1%; Bullock, Castro, Delaney, Sestak and Williamson with 0%; none with 2%
  61. ^ Booker, Bullock, and Castro with 1%, Messam, Delaney, Bennet, Williamson, and Sestak with 0%, "Someone else" with 1%
  62. ^ Booker with 2%; Bullock and Castro with 1%; Bennet, Bloomberg, Delaney, and Williamson with <1%; Sestak with 0%
  63. ^ Castro with 1%; Bennet, Booker, Bullock, Delaney, O'Rourke and Ryan with 0%
  64. ^ Bennett, Booker, Bullock and Castro with 1%; Delaney, Messam, Sestak and Williamson with 0%
  65. ^ Yang with 3%; Gabbard and Steyer with 2%; Delaney with 1%; Bennet, Bullock, Castro, Messam, Sestak and Williamson with 0%
  66. ^ As evidenced by Sestak being listed in second choices but not first preferences and the lack of an 'other' column in the first preferences topline
  67. ^ Steyer with 3%; Gabbard and Yang with 2%; Bennet with 1%; Bullock, Castro, Delaney, Ryan and Williamson with 0%; Messam and Sestak with no voters[bn]
  68. ^ Gabbard and Steyer with 3%; Yang with 1%; Delaney, Ryan and Williamson with 0%; Bennet, Bullock, Castro, Messam and Sestak with no voters; refused with 0%
  69. ^ Yang with 5%; Bullock with 4%; Gabbard and Steyer with 2%; Bennet and Williamson with 1%; Castro with 0%; Delaney, Messam, Ryan and Sestak with no voters; everyone else with 4%
  70. ^ a b The poll did not announce this result separately; it is listed as part of 'Other'.
  71. ^ Yang with 1%; a different Democratic candidate, don't know, or refused with 25%
  72. ^ Steyer with 3%; Bennet, Gabbard, Williamson, and Ryan with 1%, Bullock, Castro, Delaney, Messam, Sestak, and Yang with 0%; "someone else" with 0%
  73. ^ Gabbard, Steyer, and Yang with 2%, Bullock, Castro, and Delaney with 1%, Bennet, de Blasio, Ryan, Sestak, and Williamson with 0%; "none of these" with 2%
  74. ^ Steyer with 3%; Yang with 2%; Bullock, Castro, Delaney and Gabbard with 1%; Bennet, de Blasio, Messam, Ryan, Sestak and Williamson with 0%
  75. ^ Gabbard with 4%; Yang with 3%; Steyer with 2%; Ryan and Williamson with 1%; Bennet, de Blasio, Bullock, Castro and Delaney with 0%
  76. ^ Steyer with 2%; Castro, de Blasio, Delaney, Gabbard and Yang with 1%; Bennet, Bullock, Messam, Ryan, Sestak and Williamson with 0%; someone else with 2%
  77. ^ Bullock, Gabbard, and Steyer with 2%; Bennet, Castro, and Yang with 1%; Delaney, Gillibrand, Hickenlooper, Messam, and Williamson with 0%
  78. ^ Steyer with 3%; Gillibrand and Yang with 2%; Bullock, Delaney, Gabbard, and Hickenlooper with 1%; Bennet, Castro, Inslee, O'Rourke, and Williamson with <1%; de Blasio, Messam, Moulton, Ryan, and Sestak with 0%
  79. ^ Castro and Steyer with 2%; Delaney, Gillibrand, Hickenlooper, and Sestak with 1%; Bennet, Bullock, de Blasio, Gabbard, Gravel, Inslee, Messam, Moulton, Ryan, Williamson, and Yang with 0%
  80. ^ Castro, Delaney, Gabbard, Gillibrand, Inslee, Swalwell, and Yang with 1%; Bennet, Bullock, Gravel, Hickenlooper, Moulton, Ryan, and Williamson with 0%
  81. ^ Bennet, Bullock, Castro, de Blasio, Delaney, Gabbard, Gillibrand, Williamson, and Yang with 1%; Hickenlooper, Inslee, Ryan, and Swalwell with <1%; Messam and Moulton with 0%; others with <1%
  82. ^ Bennet, Castro, Delaney, Gabbard, and Yang with 1%; Bullock, de Blasio, Gillibrand, Gravel, Hickenlooper, Inslee, Messam, Moulton, Ryan, Sestak, Swalwell, and Williamson with 0%; others with 1%
  83. ^ Delaney with 2%; Castro, Gabbard, Gravel, Moulton, and Yang with 1%; Bullock, de Blasio, Gillibrand, Hickenlooper, Inslee, Messam, Ryan, Swalwell, and Williamson with 0%
  84. ^ Bennet, Castro, Delaney, Gabbard, Inslee, and Yang with 1%; Bullock, Gillibrand, Hickenlooper, Moulton, Ryan, Swalwell, and Williamson with <1%; de Blasio and Messam with 0%
  85. ^ Yang with 2%; Abrams, Delaney, Gabbard, Gillibrand, Hickenlooper, Inslee, and Swalwell with 1%; Bennet, Bullock, Castro, Ryan, and Williamson with 0%
  86. ^ Delaney with 2%; Gabbard, Gillibrand, Gravel, Hickenlooper, and Yang with 1%; Castro and Inslee with 0%
  87. ^ Castro with 2%; Delaney, Gillibrand, Ryan, Swalwell, and Yang with 1%; Bullock, de Blasio, Gabbard, and Inslee with <1%; Bennet, Hickenlooper, McAuliffe, Messam, Moulton, and Williamson with 0%
  88. ^ Delaney with 3%; Castro, Gabbard, Gillibrand, Inslee, Swalwell, and Yang with 1%; Bullock, Hickenlooper, and Williamson with <1%; Bennet and McAuliffe with 0%; others with <1%
  89. ^ Castro, Gabbard, Hickenlooper, and Inslee with 1%; Gillibrand and Yang with 0%; others with 4%
  90. ^ Poll sponsored by End Citizens United
  91. ^ Bennet, Bullock, Castro, Delaney, and Inslee with 1%; Bloomberg, de Blasio, Gabbard, Gillibrand, Hickenlooper, Holder, Swalwell, Williamson, and Yang with <1%
  92. ^ Gillibrand with 1%
  93. ^ Brown with 4%; Castro with 2%; Delaney and Gillibrand with 1%; Gabbard and Yang with 0%; others with 8%
  94. ^ Kennedy with 5%; Clinton with 4%; Brown with 2%; Bloomberg, Castro, Cuomo, Delaney, Gillibrand, Kerry, and Swalwell with 1%; Holder, McAuliffe, Schultz, and Steyer with 0%
  95. ^ Bloomberg with 3%; Brown, Castro, Delaney, and Hickenlooper with 1%; Bullock, Garcetti, Gillibrand, Holder, Inslee, Steyer, Swalwell, and Yang with <1%
  96. ^ Brown with 3%; Bloomberg and Kerry with 2%; Delaney with 1%; Garcetti with 0%; others with <1%
  97. ^ Gillibrand and Holder with 2%; Avenatti and Delaney with 1%; Bullock, Garcetti, Landrieu, and Patrick with <1%; others with 1%
  98. ^ Poll sponsored by O'Say Can You See PAC, the PAC that supported O'Malley in 2016
  99. ^ O'Malley with 18%; Cuomo with 8%; Castro and Sandberg with 4%; Gillibrand with 3%; Schultz with 1%
  100. ^ Final vote after votes for candidates below the 15% viability threshold in each precinct are reallocated to other viable candidates.
  101. ^ In Iowa, the presidential caucuses only are the first determining step for the delegate distribution, the final step are the decisions on the district conventions and the much later state convention. According to the provisions set by the Iowa Democratic Party's "Delegate Selection Plan", statewide delegates preliminarily awarded to other candidates had to be reallocated at the state convention on June 13, as their pledged candidates had dropped out, while the already early decided district delegates remain fixed.
  102. ^ Per the Iowa Democratic Party official report.[3]

References

  1. ^ a b c Levy, Adam; Merica, Dan (March 1, 2020). "Iowa Democratic Party certifies Buttigieg's Iowa lead amid Sanders challenge". CNN.com. Retrieved March 1, 2020.
  2. ^ Susan Milligan, Seth Cline (January 27, 2020). "The Battleground States: Iowa Caucuses". U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved February 11, 2020.
  3. ^ a b c "IDP Caucus 2020 (100% reporting: 1765 of 1765 precincts)". Iowa Democratic Party. Retrieved February 20, 2020.
  4. ^ Astor, Maggie; Stevens, Matt (February 1, 2020). "How Will the Winner of the Iowa Caucuses Be Chosen? Here's What You Should Know". The New York Times. Retrieved February 8, 2020.
  5. ^ Rakich, Nathaniel (February 5, 2020). "Latest From Iowa: Buttigieg Still Leads On Delegates, Sanders On Votes, But It's Close". FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved February 18, 2020.
  6. ^ Maggie Astor (February 6, 2020). "The Associated Press 'is unable to declare a winner' in Iowa". The New York Times. Retrieved February 11, 2020.
  7. ^ Alexandra Jaffe (February 19, 2020). "Bernie Sanders' campaign to request recount of Iowa caucuses". AP NEWS. Associated Press. Retrieved February 19, 2020.
  8. ^ a b c Trip Gabriel (February 9, 2020). "Iowa Democrats Give Buttigieg the Most Delegates as Sanders Team Seeks Recanvass". New York Times. Retrieved February 10, 2020.
  9. ^ a b "IDP Caucus 2020 (100% reporting: 1765 of 1765 precincts)". Iowa Democratic Party. Retrieved February 9, 2020.
  10. ^ a b c Montellaro, Zach (February 10, 2020). "Sanders, Buttigieg formally request Iowa recanvass". Politico. Retrieved February 10, 2020.
  11. ^ a b Brooke Singman (February 12, 2020). "Iowa Democratic Party agrees to partial recanvass of caucuses". Fox News. Retrieved February 13, 2020.
  12. ^ a b Alexandra Jaffe (February 12, 2020). "Iowa Democratic Party Chairman Resigns After Caucus Chaos". Time. Retrieved February 13, 2020.
  13. ^ a b Zach Montellaro (February 18, 2020). "Buttigieg, Sanders separated by thousandths of a point after Iowa recanvass". Politico. Retrieved February 19, 2020.
  14. ^ a b Zach Montellaro (February 20, 2020). "Sanders, Buttigieg request targeted recount in Iowa". Politico. Retrieved February 19, 2020.
  15. ^ a b Dan Merica; Adam Levy (February 19, 2020). "Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders call for recounts in certain Iowa precincts". CNN. Retrieved February 20, 2020.
  16. ^ a b Montellaro, Zach (February 21, 2020). "Iowa Democrats will recount more than 20 caucus precincts". Politico. Retrieved February 21, 2020.
  17. ^ a b Oates, Trevor. "Iowa Democratic Party announces results of caucus recount". KWWL. Retrieved February 28, 2020.
  18. ^ Rynard, Pat (February 27, 2020). "Final Iowa Caucus Results: Pete Buttigieg Wins". Iowa Starting Line. Retrieved February 28, 2020.
  19. ^ "Iowa Dems Certify Results of Troubled Presidential Caucuses". The New York Times. Associated Press. February 29, 2020. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved February 20, 2020.
  20. ^ "AP Explains: Why isn't there a winner of Iowa's Dem caucuses". AP. February 10, 2020.
  21. ^ Cohn, Nate; Katz, Josh; Lu, Denise; Smart, Charlie; Smithgall, Ben; Fischer, Andrew (February 6, 2020). "Iowa Caucus Results Riddled With Errors and Inconsistencies". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved February 7, 2020.
  22. ^ "NBC News review of Iowa caucus vote finds potential errors, inconsistencies". NBC News. February 7, 2020.
  23. ^ Agiesta, Jennifer; Merica, Dan (February 7, 2020). "CNN analysis shows errors in Iowa results count". CNN.
  24. ^ Opsahl, Robin; Akin, Katie (February 6, 2020). "Des Moines Register, others find inconsistencies, errors in Iowa Democratic Party caucus data". Des Moines Register.
  25. ^ Grace Panetta (February 5, 2020). "The catastrophic 2020 Iowa caucuses could be the final nail in the coffin of the storied political tradition". Business Insider. Retrieved February 7, 2020.
  26. ^ "Iowa Democratic Party chair resigns after caucus fiasco". NBC News. Retrieved February 13, 2020.
  27. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o "Iowa Delegate Selection Plan for the 2020 Democratic National Convention" (PDF). Iowa Democratic Party. April 6, 2019. Retrieved February 7, 2020.
  28. ^ a b c d e f "2020 Iowa Democratic Party Caucus: Caucus 101". Iowa Democratic Party. Retrieved January 31, 2020.
  29. ^ a b Eva Mitchell (January 3, 2020). "Delegate Apportionment (2020 Iowa Democratic Caucuses)". Iowa Democratic Party. Retrieved February 21, 2020.
  30. ^ a b c d e f g h i "2020 Iowa Democratic Party Caucus: Satellite caucuses". Iowa Democratic Party. Retrieved February 16, 2020.
  31. ^ a b c d e "Iowa Democratic Delegation 2020". The Green Papers. February 6, 2020. Retrieved February 6, 2020.
  32. ^ Detrow, Scott (June 27, 2018). "DNC Officials Vote To Scale Back Role Of 'Superdelegates' In Presidential Nomination". NPR. Retrieved May 26, 2019.
  33. ^ Putnam, Josh (May 15, 2019). "Magic Number? Determining the Winning Number of Democratic Delegates Will Be Tougher in 2020". Frontloading HQ. Retrieved May 22, 2019.
  34. ^ Domenico Montanaro (January 30, 2020). "How The Iowa Caucuses Work—And Why They're Important". NPR. Retrieved January 30, 2020.
  35. ^ a b "Iowa Caucuses: Key changes" (PDF). Iowa Democratic Party. January 8, 2020. Retrieved January 31, 2020.
  36. ^ Pfannenstiel, Brianne (February 11, 2019). "How Democrats hope to let Iowans participate in the caucuses without showing up in person". The Des Moines Register. Retrieved April 12, 2019.
  37. ^ Natasha Korecki (August 30, 2019). "DNC throws Iowa, Nevada caucuses into confusion". Politico. Retrieved January 21, 2020.
  38. ^ Natasha Korecki (September 20, 2019). "Iowa Dems pitch out-of-state caucuses". Politico. Retrieved January 21, 2020.
  39. ^ Suzanne Gamboa (January 30, 2020). "In a nod to Spanish-speaking Latino voters, Iowa caucus will feature bilingual sites". NBC News.
  40. ^ Natasha Korecki; Steven Shepard (January 16, 2020). "The caucus change that has Iowa bracing for a hot mess". Politico. Retrieved January 21, 2020.
  41. ^ Shepard, Steven; Schneider, Elena (February 1, 2020). "Des Moines Register poll scrapped after apparent mishap". Politico. Archived from the original on February 2, 2020. Retrieved February 1, 2020.
  42. ^ Lerer, Lisa; Martin, Jonathan; Grynbaum, Michael M. (February 1, 2020). "Des Moines Register Poll of Iowa Caucusgoers Abruptly Shelved". The New York Times. Archived from the original on February 2, 2020. Retrieved February 2, 2020.
  43. ^ Clare Malone [@ClareMalone] (February 4, 2020). "We can confirm the final results of the unreleased Iowa Poll: Sanders 22% Warren 18% Buttigieg 16% Biden 13%" (Tweet) – via Twitter.
  44. ^ Bowden, Ebony (February 6, 2020). "Iowa Democratic Party chair ignores DNC calls for recount of caucus". New York Post. Retrieved February 7, 2020.
  45. ^ Blitzer, Ronn (February 6, 2020). "DNC chairman calls for recanvass of Iowa caucuses". Fox News. Retrieved February 7, 2020.
  46. ^ Helsel, Phil. "DNC chair calls for Iowa to recanvass caucus vote, says 'enough is enough'". NBC News. Retrieved February 7, 2020.
  47. ^ "Iowa caucus results: Buttigieg, Sanders in a near tie, with 100% of results published". USA TODAY. February 6, 2020. Retrieved February 7, 2020.
  48. ^ Dan Merica; Jeff Zeleny; Adam Levy (February 7, 2020). "Pete Buttigieg keeps narrow lead in Iowa caucus with 100% of precincts reporting". CNN. Retrieved February 7, 2020.
  49. ^ Adam Levy; Dan Merica (February 7, 2020). "Iowa Democratic Party extends deadline for campaigns to ask for recanvass or recount". CNN. Retrieved February 7, 2020.
  50. ^ Sides, Sam (February 25, 2020). "Iowa Democratic Party begins recount". WOI-DT. Retrieved February 26, 2020.
  51. ^ "Live: Iowa Caucus Results 2020". The New York Times. Retrieved February 27, 2020.
  52. ^ a b c d e "2020 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses, and Conventions: Iowa Democrat". The Green Papers. Retrieved July 4, 2020.
  53. ^ a b c d "Iowa Democratic Party Announces Delegation to National Convention". iowademocrats.org. June 13, 2020. Retrieved August 20, 2020.
  54. ^ Statement from IDP Chair on Tonight's Historically Close Caucus Results Iowa Democratic Party. February 2, 2016.
  55. ^ Martelle, Scott (January 4, 2008). "Hunger for the White House energizes Democrats". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved May 5, 2010.
  56. ^ "Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders are fighting for first place in the protracted Iowa caucus count". Politico. February 6, 2020. Retrieved February 7, 2020.
  57. ^ "Biden vows to press on despite Iowa 'gut punch". BBC. February 6, 2020. Retrieved February 7, 2020.
  58. ^ Rodriguez, Barbara (February 5, 2020). "Pete Buttigieg made history in the Iowa caucuses whatever the final results show". Des Moines Register. Retrieved February 10, 2020.
  59. ^ "Results in Iowa Caucuses Are Delayed: Live Updates". The New York Times. February 4, 2020. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved February 4, 2020.
  60. ^ Corasaniti, Nick; Frenkel, Sheera (February 3, 2020). "User-Error Problems With Mobile App for Iowa Caucuses Prompt Online Confusion". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved February 4, 2020.
  61. ^ Meg Magner, Amanda Wills (February 3, 2020). "Iowa Democrats say there are "inconsistencies in the reporting" of results". CNN. Retrieved February 4, 2020.
  62. ^ Forgey, Quint (February 4, 2020). "Bernie and Buttigieg elbow each other trying to declare victory in Iowa". Politico. Retrieved February 4, 2020.
  63. ^ Evon, Dan (February 10, 2020). "Did Trolls Try to Clog Phone Lines After Iowa Caucuses?". Snopes. Retrieved February 12, 2020.
  64. ^ Raffa, Greg A. (February 4, 2020). "Iowa caucus vote totals delayed amid 'inconsistencies'; campaigns lash out at 'crazy' state party". Fox News. Retrieved February 4, 2020.
  65. ^ "Confusion and embarrassment in Iowa: What went wrong, and what happens next?". www.cbsnews.com. Retrieved February 9, 2020.
  66. ^ Murphy, Erin (February 4, 2020). "Iowa precinct leaders describe issues reporting caucus results". Sioux City Journal. Retrieved February 9, 2020.
  67. ^ Ben Collins; Maura Barrett; Vaughn Hillyard (February 6, 2020). "'Clog the lines': Internet trolls deliberately disrupted the Iowa caucuses hotline for reporting results". NBC News.
  68. ^ Relman, Eliza; Frias, Lauren. "Trump supporters intentionally swarmed the Iowa caucus phone lines to delay the results". Business Insider. Retrieved February 9, 2020.
  69. ^ Tyler Pager; Jennifer Epstein (February 7, 2020). "Trump Fans Flooded Iowa Caucus Hotline, Democrats Say". Bloomberg News. Retrieved February 7, 2020.
  70. ^ Raymond, Adam K. (February 6, 2020). "Iowa Dems: Pro-Trump Trolls Clogged Phones Lines, Worsening Caucus Debacle". Intelligencer. Retrieved February 9, 2020.
  71. ^ Quinn Scanlan; Kendall Karson; Meg Cunningham. "Iowa caucus: What we know and what went wrong". ABC News. Retrieved February 4, 2020.
  72. ^ "READ: Iowa Democratic Party statement on caucus reporting". CNN. February 4, 2020. Retrieved February 4, 2020.
  73. ^ "Iowa Democratic Party Says 'Coding Issue' Delayed Results: Live Updates". The New York Times. February 4, 2020. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved February 4, 2020.
  74. ^ a b Brody Wooddell (February 5, 2020). "Voters say the Iowa caucus numbers don't add up and Twitter is freaking out". WQAD. Retrieved February 7, 2020.
  75. ^ Nick Statt (February 5, 2020). "Motherboard just published the terrible app that caused chaos at the Iowa caucuses". The Verge. Retrieved February 6, 2020.
  76. ^ Eric Newcomer , Joshua Green , Joshua Brustein , and William Turton (February 4, 2020). "Startup Behind Faulty Iowa Election App Linked to Top Democrats". Bloomberg News. Retrieved May 14, 2020.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  77. ^ "About ACRONYM". February 4, 2020. Archived from the original on February 4, 2020. Retrieved May 14, 2020.
  78. ^ a b Ye Hee Lee, Michelle (February 4, 2020). "Shadow Inc., which built the Iowa caucus app, received money from Buttigieg and Biden campaigns". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 4, 2020.
  79. ^ Matt Stieb (February 4, 2020). "Iowa Results 2020: Live Updates". New York Magazine. Retrieved February 4, 2020.
  80. ^ Amanda Seitz (February 5, 2020). "Pete Buttigieg campaign did not pay for Iowa Caucus app". Associated Press. Retrieved February 7, 2020.
  81. ^ Jeff Bercovici, Suhuana Hussain (February 4, 2020). "App made by Clinton campaign veterans' firm is behind Iowa caucuses debacle". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved February 5, 2020.
  82. ^ Glazer, Emily; Seetharaman, Deepa; Corse, Alexa (February 6, 2020). "The Shoestring App Developer Behind the Iowa Caucus Debacle". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved February 6, 2020.
  83. ^ Marantz, Andrew (February 6, 2020). "Inside Acronym, the Tech Consultancy Behind the Disastrous Iowa-Caucus App". The New Yorker. Retrieved February 6, 2020.
  84. ^ Garrison, Joey. "Bernie Sanders declares 'decisive victory' in Iowa caucuses, rips results reporting 'screw-up'". USA TODAY. Retrieved February 6, 2020.
  85. ^ Jason Koebler; Joseph Cox; Emanuel Maiberg (February 5, 2020). "An 'Off-the-Shelf, Skeleton Project': Experts Analyze the App That Broke Iowa". Motherboard. Retrieved February 6, 2020.
  86. ^ Jack Gillum, Jessica Huseman (February 5, 2020). "The Iowa Caucuses App Had Another Problem: It Could Have Been Hacked". ProPublica. Retrieved February 5, 2020.
  87. ^ Cohn, Nate; Katz, Josh; Lu, Denise; Smart, Charles; Smithgall, Ben; Fischer, Andrew (February 6, 2020). "Iowa Caucus Results Riddled With Errors and Inconsistencies". The New York Times. Retrieved February 6, 2020.
  88. ^ Brianne Pfannenstiel; Tim Webber; Barbara Rodriguez (February 5, 2020). "Iowa Democratic Party releases 85% of caucus results but an error forces correction". Des Moines Register. Retrieved February 7, 2020.
  89. ^ Seitz, Amanda; Klepper, David (February 5, 2020). "Online conspiracy theories flourish after Iowa caucus fiasco". The Associated Press. Retrieved February 6, 2020.
  90. ^ Stanley-Becker, Issac (February 6, 2020). "DNC chair calls for recanvass in Iowa". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 6, 2020.
  91. ^ Merica, Dan; Zeleny, Jeff; Levy, Adam (February 6, 2020). "DNC chair calls for a recanvass in Iowa as chaos ensues". CNN. Retrieved February 6, 2020.
  92. ^ Epstein, Reid J.; Corasaniti, Nick (February 6, 2020). "Tom Perez, D.N.C. chair, calls for 'recanvass' in Iowa". The New York Times. Retrieved February 6, 2020.
  93. ^ Johnson, Jake. "'Beyond Absurd': DNC Chair Tom Perez Demands 'Recanvass' of Iowa Caucus Before Results Fully Reported". Common Dreams. Retrieved February 7, 2020.
  94. ^ Ecarma, Caleb (February 7, 2020). "The DNC's latest Iowa gambit invites more suspicion it's anti-Sanders—DNC chair Tom Perez called for recanvassing the state—right after Bernie Sanders declared victory". Vanity Fair. Retrieved February 7, 2020.
  95. ^ Gabriel, Trip. "Iowa Democrats won't correct errors on caucus tally sheets, emails show". chicagotribune.com. Retrieved February 28, 2020.
  96. ^ a b "Iowa Caucuses Results 2020". CNN. February 7, 2020. Retrieved February 8, 2020.
  97. ^ Bradner, Eric (February 7, 2020). "Joe Biden's new reality: What happens when a candidate who guarantees wins starts by losing?". CNN. Retrieved February 8, 2020.
  98. ^ "Iowa Caucus: Who Different Groups Supported". nytimes. Retrieved February 17, 2020.
  99. ^ Bernal, Rafael (February 7, 2020). "Analysis: Sanders ran the table with Latinos in Iowa". The Hill. Retrieved February 8, 2020.
  100. ^ Rakich, Nathaniel (February 7, 2020). "Election Update: Buttigieg Is Rising In New Hampshire". FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved February 8, 2020.

External links