Check out that post-heart attack surge for Bernie. Sorry, I really need to stop.

We'll see what polls look like in January, but it's looking increasingly possible that Biden will finish 4th in Iowa behind (in whatever order) Warren, Sanders, and Buttigieg. That would marginalize Biden before he even got to his South Carolina firewall. That prospect will make Warren and Buttigieg natural allies at the Iowa caucus - their supporters may help each other out to make sure both reach the 15% threshold for delegates at the caucus meetings.

Such weird coalitions in the top 4. Young people like the old guy and old people like the young guy. Biden and Buttigieg are "moderates" and Warren and Sanders are "liberals", but Warren and Buttigieg are the candidates for wealthier educated whites while Biden and Bernie are the candidates for the less educated, poorer and minorities.

I don't think Sanders will have any more appeal among minorities than he did in 2016, which is to say not much. If Biden falters, I expect Warren would get the biggest share of minority votes by default.

...generate relative excitement there, than is Elizabeth Warren. Congratulations. The proximity of the word excitement to Elizabeth Warren in your comment is the closest she’s been to that word...ever.

We have our first poll showing Buttigieg ahead. I don't think he has been considered a threat until now (and winning Iowa doesn't necessarily make him a threat to win the nomination), but what if that calculus changes? The game theory gets very interesting: - Will the other candidates team up against Buttigieg and try to knock him out of the race? (benefiting Warren and Biden most likely) - Will Biden supporters shift to Buttigieg in the caucus to try to keep Warren from running away with it? - Will Sanders supporters (gasp) shift to Warren in a liberal vs moderate fight? - Will Warren still consider Buttigieg to not be a threat even if he were to win Iowa and actually help him meet the 15% caucus thresholds to marginalize Biden?

The article that goes with the poll has lots of other juicy tidbits for political junkies: https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_ia_111219/ The poll asked voters to name a second choice candidate. When first and second choices are combined Buttigieg (37%) and Warren (35%) are the leading picks. They are followed by Biden (29%) and Sanders (25%), along with Klobuchar (14%), Harris (9%), Steyer (6%), Booker (4%), Yang (4%), and Gabbard (3%). Among Buttigieg voters, the top second choices are Warren (21%), Biden (20%), and Klobuchar (15%). Among Biden voters, the second slot goes to Buttigieg (22%), Warren (20%), and Klobuchar (17%). Among Warren voters, it’s Sanders (33%), Buttigieg (26%), and Biden (16%). Among Sanders voters, Warren stands alone in second place (46%). Among voters who are currently supporting a candidate not in the top tier – and thus may be more likely to realign on caucus night – second choices include Buttigieg (28%), Sanders (16%), and Warren (15%). Bloomberg's favorability rating among Iowa Democrats is 17% favorable / 48% unfavorable. Ouch.

in the future, every candidate will have their 15 minutes of fame in Iowa

I thought that was the Republican caucus in 2012?

We never entered any state-level races showing delegate results, did we?

Weird question...but the winner here is the one that comes away with the most of the 49 pledged delegates, right?

Meaning, we are not picking first or final alignment - just delegates.

Weird question...but the winner here is the one that comes away with the most of the 49 pledged delegates, right? Technically, yes. But the party is releasing raw vote totals, second choice totals, and delegate allotments. If a split occurs, which will the press spin?

in the past (2004) we've had a separate race for the popular vote totals from the Caucuses https://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=278710

in the past (2004) we've had a separate race for the popular vote totals from the Caucuses https://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=278710 True, is that what was done in 2016 too? I'm not sure what these totals represent. https://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=744527 As Kyle points out there could be several "winners" as the Democratic Party will be releasing totals for: 1. First Alignment (First delegate vote totals) 2. Final Alignment (End raw vote totals) 3. Delegate Count Several outlets reporting this scenario and that several candidates could declare victory. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/16/iowa-caucus-vote-totals-change-099519 https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2020-01-16/ap-explains-new-rules-could-muddle-results-of-iowa-caucuses Suggesting that we agree on what "winner" of this race pertains to before the caucus as several people have already placed lean predictions. And well,if there is more than 1 winner, given the passions for some of the candidates here I can see there being passionate debate about this particular race if we don't clear it up. If there is agreement, maybe we should create 3 races for the Caucus Results? Thoughts?

If Biden isn't the winner, a split outcome is his next best option. If someone else sweeps all three (particularly Bernie), he is in deep trouble. Nate Silver said his chances are 80% with a win, but only 20% with a loss

Second choice voters lean heavily moderate "Of those who choose another candidate, Biden received 24 percent support, Buttigieg received 21 percent, Warren received 16 percent, Klobuchar received 7 percent, and Sanders received 6 percent."

The polls here reflect non-thresholded popular vote.

I messed up, please remove Stacey Abrams from the Des Moines Register's endorsement if possible.

https://twitter.com/dmregister/status/1223788937547743232

My favorite part of this whole DMR debacle is all the Bernie bros who have managed to turn this into a conspiracy theory, despite the fact that every day there are polls released (most of which are quite good for Bernie, including the last DMD poll) 😂

Clearly the poll showed something significantly different than other polls are showing and they got cold feet.

Or they had a complaint over an issue they felt compromised the poll and, like good analysts, chose not to publish.

Or they had a complaint over an issue they felt compromised the poll and, like good analysts, chose not to publish. They could have published the poll with a warning of the issues Pete has with it.

They could have published the poll with a warning of the issues Pete has with it. I'm sure if Bernie had been left off the poll by some callers you would want that instead of whining about how unfair it is and saying it was a plot by the establishment.