Who will win Iowa?

[Kraken]

With 73% counted, it looks like it's going to be Sanders > Buttigieg > Klobuchar > Warren > Biden. Warren and Biden might switch places, and Butti could still squeak past Bernie, but the Klob probably has a lock on third.

All I know about AZ is that it's all crime syndicates and prostitutes. Is there reason to believe that they'll overturn the current top 2?

[Isgrimnur]

And yeah, Iowa is probably done with their vaulted pole position.

Vaunted. Unless there's some track and field events of which I'm unaware.

[Jaymann]

Why do you think they use a pole?

[El Guapo]

And yeah, Iowa is probably done with their vaulted pole position.

Vaunted. Unless there's some track and field events of which I'm unaware.

Caucasus (Caucasuses?) are weird.

[Daehawk]

So anyone thinking Bernie president and Klobuchar vice p? Or maybe Bernie pres and Buttigieg vice p.

[Zarathud]

This was Bernie's strongholds. Give Pete a chance.

And why would Klobuchar want to join a ticket she finds concerning.

[Lagom Lite]

So anyone thinking Bernie president and Klobuchar vice p? Or maybe Bernie pres and Buttigieg vice p.

Neither of those scenarios are likely. Sanders will choose someone who will carry out his platform should his health fail, probably a woman. Up until recently I thought Warren was a shoe-in, but with her clumsy attacks on Bernie I don't know anymore. Maybe Nina Turner or Tulsi Gabbard.

Pete, Klobuchar, Biden and Bloomberg will probably win some, lose some, and when one drops out Bernie's support will grow a bit, when another drops out it will grow a bit more. I don't think Sanders can be stopped tbh.

The big difference from 2016 is that back then there was a clear establishment front-runner (Hillary) and Sanders came from nowhere. This time, Bernie is the frontrunner and unlike Hillary he has strong grassroots support and strong grassroots funding. I expect corporate media will go all-out on socialism fear-mongering, because honestly that's all they have. We'll see if it works.

[LawBeefaroni]

And yeah, Iowa is probably done with their vaulted pole position.

Vaunted. Unless there's some track and field events of which I'm unaware.

Autocorrect. I know English.


Though it makes a decent pun.

[Daehawk]

Im not keeping up on platform or views just who is popular. Popular wins. Ill vote for whoever is against Trump. Until then these primaries don't matter to me. Just take the 2 most popular and have them run together to grab the most votes in the end.

[LawBeefaroni]

So anyone thinking Bernie president and Klobuchar vice p? Or maybe Bernie pres and Buttigieg vice p.

Neither of those scenarios are likely. Sanders will choose someone who will carry out his platform should his health fail, probably a woman. Up until recently I thought Warren was a shoe-in, but with her clumsy attacks on Bernie I don't know anymore. Maybe Nina Turner or Tulsi Gabbard.

Political animals. Needs must as the devil drives.


I can't think of anything on the campaign trail that would preclude any matchup of the top 5. And that's probably a good thing.

Gabbard, no way. I'd like it but it's not happening.

[pr0ner]

You would seriously like Tulsi Gabbard as a Sanders VP pick? I feel like that would be a worse stunt than McCain picking Sarah Palin.

[LawBeefaroni]

You would seriously like Tulsi Gabbard as a Sanders VP pick? I feel like that would be a worse stunt than McCain picking Sarah Palin.

That's why it's not happening. But I'd still like to see it.



Also, that gave me a sad(?) thought. If McCain/Palin won in 2008 we wouldn't have Trump now. We might even be in an Obama presidency right now.

[Lagom Lite]

You would seriously like Tulsi Gabbard as a Sanders VP pick?

That's not even remotely what I wrote.

Did McCain choose Palin for the same reasons I'm suggesting?

[pr0ner]

You would seriously like Tulsi Gabbard as a Sanders VP pick?

That's not even remotely what I wrote.

Did McCain choose Palin for the same reasons I'm suggesting?

You're mighty defensive about a question asked to LawBeef, not you. However, Tulsi Gabbard remains a terrible idea, full stop.

[Jaymann]

You would seriously like Tulsi Gabbard as a Sanders VP pick? I feel like that would be a worse stunt than McCain picking Sarah Palin.

Hey at least she has read a book:

[Holman]

Regardless of the top of the ticket, I'm guessing it's about 80% likely that Stacey Abrams will be the VP pick.

She might even be Sanders' smartest choice since she is so popular with the party as a whole. A whole lot of people can say "Sanders was not my first choice, but I'm voting for Abrams."

I really don't think Sanders is going to double-down on socialism and pick a running mate as far left as he is. He's not stupid.

[Kurth]

Tulsi Gabbard? I really don't understand why anyone would want to see her as anyone's VP pick. What did I miss? I thought she was a joke.

Also, I don't get the growing sentiment that Sanders is now the heavy favorite for the nomination. In terms of delegates, he narrowly lost to Buttigeig in Iowa and tied in NH. Moreover, my understanding is that Sanders significantly underperformed in NH compared to where he was previously polling and compared to how he did there in 2016. But over on FiveThirtryEight, Nate Silver and crew are saying "Sanders Is The Front-Runner After New Hampshire, And A Contested Convention Has Become More Likely". And, by the way, the degree to which FiveThirtyEight seems to be gleeful at the thought of "chaos" and a contested convention really sucks. This isn't a fucking game, and a contested convention is the last thing this country needs.

And, I'll just repeat: If Sanders wins the nomination, we are toast. If the Dems nominate Sanders, they are all but guaranteeing four more years of Trump.

[Edited to ask: Why are we keeping the Iowa thread alive? Shouldn't talk about the current state of the race be in the thread about the most recent primary? I know everyone's in love with Iowa, but we should let it die.]

[Smoove_B]

And, I'll just repeat: If Sanders wins the nomination, we are toast. If the Dems nominate Sanders, they are all but guaranteeing four more years of Trump.

I'm 100% with you on this. I'm not even sure his pick for VP would change that either.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

Obviously it's super, super early and national polls especially mean nothing when it comes to the electoral college, but the latest Trump vs. Democratic field poll had Bernie polling 2nd highest of all the candidates. I can't remember where I saw it, but I think he was beating Trump 48 to 42. Of course, that's before the inevitable six months of "He's a socialist!" ads on TV every 30 seconds.

[Lagom Lite]

Obviously it's super, super early and national polls especially mean nothing when it comes to the electoral college, but the latest Trump vs. Democratic field poll had Bernie polling 2nd highest of all the candidates. I can't remember where I saw it, but I think he was beating Trump 48 to 42. Of course, that's before the inevitable six months of "He's a socialist!" ads on TV every 30 seconds.

I believe Sanders has just passed Biden in the polls as the most electable vs Trump.

[Lagom Lite]

You would seriously like Tulsi Gabbard as a Sanders VP pick?

That's not even remotely what I wrote.

Did McCain choose Palin for the same reasons I'm suggesting?

You're mighty defensive about a question asked to LawBeef, not you. However, Tulsi Gabbard remains a terrible idea, full stop.

Sorry, I'm in a sore mood today.

[Lagom Lite]

Regardless of the top of the ticket, I'm guessing it's about 80% likely that Stacey Abrams will be the VP pick.

She might even be Sanders' smartest choice since she is so popular with the party as a whole. A whole lot of people can say "Sanders was not my first choice, but I'm voting for Abrams."

I really don't think Sanders is going to double-down on socialism and pick a running mate as far left as he is. He's not stupid.

That makes a lot of sense, I think.

[El Guapo]

Tulsi Gabbard? I really don't understand why anyone would want to see her as anyone's VP pick. What did I miss? I thought she was a joke.

Also, I don't get the growing sentiment that Sanders is now the heavy favorite for the nomination. In terms of delegates, he narrowly lost to Buttigeig in Iowa and tied in NH. Moreover, my understanding is that Sanders significantly underperformed in NH compared to where he was previously polling and compared to how he did there in 2016. But over on FiveThirtryEight, Nate Silver and crew are saying "Sanders Is The Front-Runner After New Hampshire, And A Contested Convention Has Become More Likely". And, by the way, the degree to which FiveThirtyEight seems to be gleeful at the thought of "chaos" and a contested convention really sucks. This isn't a fucking game, and a contested convention is the last thing this country needs.

And, I'll just repeat: If Sanders wins the nomination, we are toast. If the Dems nominate Sanders, they are all but guaranteeing four more years of Trump.

[Edited to ask: Why are we keeping the Iowa thread alive? Shouldn't talk about the current state of the race be in the thread about the most recent primary? I know everyone's in love with Iowa, but we should let it die.]

I'm not sure that many people are viewing Sanders as the "heavy favorite" (which is very different from being the frontrunner, which just means that you're, uh, in front). 538's model currently gives him about a 1 in 3 chance of getting a majority of pledged delegates[/url] (and about a 51% chance of getting a "plurality").

The reason why 538 is relatively bullish on Sanders despite his failure to get out of the 20s in most polling is that he's close to consolidating the "progressive" lane, while the "moderate" lane remains divided. Combine that with the calendar - there are a few more states before Super Tuesday, when a HUGE chunk of delegates will be allocated. It seems unlikely that the field will winnow *too* much before Super Tuesday. If Sanders is going into Super Tuesday with the polling roughly like it is now (with Sanders having a plurality and the rest of the vote divided), he could win a massive chunk of delegates (especially with many of Warren / Buttigieg / Biden / Klobuchar struggling to hit the 15% delegate minimum).

At that point, even if the field winnows significantly, Sanders could well have such a large delegate lead that other candidates would not only have to beat him in following states, they would need to demolish him in order to catch up in delegates. Bearing in mind that even if the field winnowing helps other candidates more than him, it will still help him somewhat. So like, if the race develops such that it's Klobuchar vs. Sanders, and Klobuchar has a 55 - 45 polling lead, if 60% - 70% of delegates have already been allocated and Sanders won those by like 60-40, then Sanders could easily win.

[El Guapo]

I do agree that we should just consolidate all of this stuff into the 2020 thread, before this page winds up being all "Who Will Win [State]?" threads.

[Blackhawk]

Or retitle the Iowa thread to "2020 Democratic Primaries."

[Archinerd]

I do agree that we should just consolidate all of this stuff into the 2020 thread, before this page winds up being all "Who Will Win [State]?" threads.

I like the polls though.