politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With three hours to go before the Iowa caucuses Betfair punter

Different results for Ladbrokes and Betfair looking quite possible still

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Sander 22%
Pete 21%
Biden 17%
Warren 17%
Amy 15%

On 1.36% of precincts returning...

Source?

Gabs3 said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Sander 22%
Pete 21%
Biden 17%
Warren 17%
Amy 15%

On 1.36% of precincts returning...

Source?

https://elections.ap.org/dailykos/results/2020-02-03/state/IA/race/P/raceid/17277

rpjs said:

Tim_B said:

All the beeb folks are making a big deal of a pop concert organized by Bernie's campaign on Saturday which attracted 3000 people. What they don't mention is that Trump was in Des Moines Thursday and got 9000 inside and several thousand crowded outside.

So? I don’t think anyone’s expecting Iowa to be Democratic pick-up in November.

It's a possible. The match-ups have it as close if Buttigieg is the nominee, but on-one else gets particularly close.

24 precincts reporting first alignment, 5 candidates between 15% and 22%.

rcs1000 said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Sander 22%
Pete 21%
Biden 17%
Warren 17%
Amy 15%

On 1.36% of precincts returning...

I would guess that rural will report earlier (as there are fewer people to count), so Sanders will have a late surge.

But I would also expect him not to be as transfer friendly as Buttigieg.

Those numbers are post-transfers though, right?

If the race becomes Sanders vs Buttigieg, with Biden a distant third, there will be tremendous pressure on Biden from the party establishment to drop out.

Gabs3 said:

If the race becomes Sanders vs Buttigieg, with Biden a distant third, there will be tremendous pressure on Biden from the party establishment to drop out.

Nope, as long as Biden gets third and Buttigieg wins then Biden becomes the nominee.

But if Biden comes 4th or 5th, even if Sanders loses then Biden will lose the nomination.

It's all a mess so far, especially for 3rd place.

Lol at Bloomberg slipping for the nomination on Betfair, despite the early results being as good as he could hope for (Biden 3rd or 4th, no clear winner).

The results as we approach the 2 hour mark since the caucus started:

With 1.8% in.

Sanders 25%
Warren 21%
Buttigieg 19%
Biden 14%
Klobuchar 13%

This is very very early and the count is unusually very very slow.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

speedy2 said:

The results as we approach the 2 hour mark since the caucus started:

With 1.8% in.

Sanders 25%
Warren 21%
Buttigieg 19%
Biden 14%
Klobuchar 13%

A position which changes a lot on second alignment. I think the difference will narrow though

Turnout has unexpectedly dropped since last time which is weird why it takes so long to count fewer votes.

Oh great, the Iowa Democratic Party has announced that they don't know when they will start officially publishing results.

Chameleon said:

Gabs3 said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

speedy2 said:

The results as we approach the 2 hour mark since the caucus started:

With 1.8% in.

Sanders 25%
Warren 21%
Buttigieg 19%
Biden 14%
Klobuchar 13%

A position which changes a lot on second alignment. I think the difference will narrow though

Second alignment right now.

Buttigieg, Pete 27.59%

Sanders, Bernie 23.2%

Biden, Joe 16.73%

Warren, Elizabeth 16.11%

Klobuchar, Amy 16.08%

No-one is dropping out before SC on those numbers. 6 (7 with Steyer?) candidates for Super Tuesday, and potentially the 360 delegates the week after could make this really interesting.

Forget speculating right now, we are at 1.8% In on First votes and 1.4% with Second votes.

This time in 2016 80% of the vote had already being counted, this is a logistical disaster.

At this rate it might take them until Friday to finish counting.

Gabs3 said:

speedy2 said:

Chameleon said:

Gabs3 said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

speedy2 said:

The results as we approach the 2 hour mark since the caucus started:

With 1.8% in.

Sanders 25%
Warren 21%
Buttigieg 19%
Biden 14%
Klobuchar 13%

A position which changes a lot on second alignment. I think the difference will narrow though

Second alignment right now.

Buttigieg, Pete 27.59%

Sanders, Bernie 23.2%

Biden, Joe 16.73%

Warren, Elizabeth 16.11%

Klobuchar, Amy 16.08%

No-one is dropping out before SC on those numbers. 6 (7 with Steyer?) candidates for Super Tuesday, and potentially the 360 delegates the week after could make this really interesting.

Forget speculating right now, we are at 1.8% In on First votes and 1.4% with Second votes.

This time in 2016 80% of the vote had already being counted, this is a logistical disaster.

At this rate it might take them until Friday to finish counting.

Because they didn't report first preferences last time. This will all come in suddenly.

But they dud have to *count* first preferences last time.

These will come at once because the earlier results are effectively being held back

speedy2 said:

Sums up my feelings right now:
https://twitter.com/TimAlberta/status/1224512561883893762

Maybe another country should invade to spread democracy to the state...

(Sorry, it's been a long night already.)

Warren goes into third...

I've now been watching CNN for 2 hours and the main thing I've learned is I should talk to my doctor about a new skin cream which offers unparalleled results for a variety of conditions...

So I guess for people who were wondering how the Dems are going to manage to lose to a criminal reality TV star who is clearly mentally unwell, the answer seems to be: They're going to have a nominee supported by like 30% of their voters, and the other 70% are going to think they were cheated.

edmundintokyo said:

So I guess for people who were wondering how the Dems are going to manage to lose to a criminal reality TV star who is clearly mentally unwell, the answer seems to be: They're going to have a nominee supported by like 30% of their voters, and the other 70% are going to think they were cheated.

Precisely.

After another 30 minutes we have another precinct.

After almost 3 hours 1.9% is in.

Sanders 26%
Warren 22%
Buttigieg 18%
Klobuchar 14%
Biden 13%

So, it looks like Sanders from Biden, but on a pretty low vote share.

With the same 34 Precincts reporting the difference between the First and Second votes are:

Sanders +2
Warren +3
Buttigieg +6
Klobuchar -2
Biden -2

speedy2 said:

Rumours going around that the caucus will have to be repeated again Tommorow because the results cant be processed.

What a complete shitshow

speedy2 said:

Rumours going around that the caucus will have to be repeated again Tommorow because the results cant be processed.

I don't believe they'd do that. The accusations of bias against whoever looked to have won tonight, plus the results do exist since the physical caucusing went mostly normal. It may take all day tomorrow but they can surely get the results from the precinct people.

Klobuchar doing the smart thing and just giving a speech anyway. Give a positive speech, no-one can prove you haven't outperformed expectations, and get a few hours sleep.

MikeSmithson said:

I'm off to bed. What a waste of time

I'll probably do the same before 5am.

Quincel said:

MikeSmithson said:

I'm off to bed. What a waste of time

I'll probably do the same before 5am.

I've got to get up at 5am

https://www.twitter.com/JordanUhl/status/1224547363194273799

OK so

https://twitter.com/Clay_Masters/status/1224550601146740741?s=19

This sounds fair enough, since at least one nation state with excellent hackers definitely does want to screw things up for them.

rcs1000 said:

edmundintokyo said:

OK so

https://twitter.com/Clay_Masters/status/1224550601146740741?s=19

This sounds fair enough, since at least one nation state with excellent hackers definitely does want to screw things up for them.

The Republicans are already claiming this is the Democrats trying to rig things so that Sanders is not the nominee

The combination of this and that poll being cancelled is fodder for the conspiracy theorists.

Daniel arap Moi has died. Probably lost the will, whilst waiting for the Iowa results.

rcs1000 said:

edmundintokyo said:

OK so

https://twitter.com/Clay_Masters/status/1224550601146740741?s=19

This sounds fair enough, since at least one nation state with excellent hackers definitely does want to screw things up for them.

The Republicans are already claiming this is the Democrats trying to rig things so that Sanders is not the nominee

Yup, it's bad, but not as bad as "precinct organizer swears he reported X for Bernie, state party reported X - 3"

And all the votes went poof:

https://twitter.com/SabrinaSiddiqui/status/1224554657315524609

Lesson: Always have a paper copy.

I'm too tired of original thinking right now but this sums it up:
https://twitter.com/DouthatNYT/status/1224553569317281792
Have a good rest.

speedy2 said:

Quincel said:

speedy2 said:

Rumours going around that the caucus will have to be repeated again Tommorow because the results cant be processed.

I don't believe they'd do that. The accusations of bias against whoever looked to have won tonight, plus the results do exist since the physical caucusing went mostly normal. It may take all day tomorrow but they can surely get the results from the precinct people.

Well what is going around, and there is a lot of conflicting information, is that the Mobile Phone App for the Caucus they used crashed and the results were either gone or corrupted.

A new angle for the forthcoming pb thread, Electronic Voting: what could go wrong? Spoiler: everything.

"Results from Iowa's caucuses, the first vote in the race to pick a Democratic White House candidate, have been plunged into chaos by apparent technology issues.

The state's Democratic party said it had found "inconsistencies"."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-51367291

"Iowa caucuses: 'Something has gone wrong'"

https://edition.cnn.com

https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/1224566143043674112?s=19

The path being no usable results?

Oh and by the way.

The California Primary is even worse, last time it took them weeks to count the results, and it has gotten worse since then.

Do not place bets on the California Primary, the chances that they will screw up like Iowa is very very high.

Piece on their systems from the NYT (from a few days ago):
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/31/us/politics/iowa-caucuses-hacking-security.html

Still, Iowa is taking security a step further this year, and for the first time in the state’s history caucus attendees will have to fill out a “presidential preference card” to document their choice. These cards, which will be individually numbered and have other security features, are intended to offer the caucuses some form of a “paper trail” that election security experts say is vital to protecting results.

Additionally, while the caucuses have relied on mobile apps to record and tabulate results in the past, the Iowa Democratic Party is using a new app this year that has been tested and verified by both security experts and the Department of Homeland Security. Described as a “fancy calculator,” the app will help precinct chairs tabulate results during each phase of the caucus, and then send results to the Iowa Democratic Party headquarters. (For those chairs who don’t feel comfortable with an app, the traditional phone hotline will still be operating.)

The Iowa result is far more about momentum than it is about delegates. Buttigieg is giving himself a boost until the real totals are tabulated.

After the results from the app are immediately transmitted to the party’s headquarters, a team of officials there will review them to look for possible outlier results. Each official will have a set of historical results and models that will help identify any result that looks suspicious; if a precinct has traditionally had a turnout of roughly 50 percent and results come in showing 98 percent, the team will be able to investigate.

“We knew that technology gave us some opportunities in this process, but with those opportunities came different challenges,” said Troy Price, the chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party. He said that the preference cards were a “clear way of double-checking and verifying results” and noted that the level of data preparation was more extensive than in recent years.

“We have been very diligent about doing our modeling and figuring out exactly what projected turnout could be at different levels,” Mr. Price said. “So we’ll be able to see if things look wildly incongruent from what we would expect.”

So I guess they were paranoid about hacking, so they put in a bunch of checks to detect anomalies. And either it showed some false positive or this process is always full of little screw-ups, and they detected the screw-ups and stopped the process, when normally they'd just go with whatever they'd got and worry about it later if the numbers were wrong (see Romney vs Santorum).

rcs1000 said:

https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/1224566143043674112?s=19

The path being no usable results?

The path of being useless.

And the clear winner tonight was:

Donald J. Trump.

speedy2 said:

rcs1000 said:

https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/1224566143043674112?s=19

The path being no usable results?

The path of being useless.

What the hell is new about that?

speedy2 said:

I'm too tired of original thinking right now but this sums it up:
https://twitter.com/DouthatNYT/status/1224553569317281792
Have a good rest.

It's new and cool so it must be better, right?

speedy2 said:

Buttigieg declaring himself victorious with 0% of the votes is silly from his part:

https://twitter.com/SteveKornacki/status/1224565631732809734

All the candidates have apparently claimed victory apart from Joe Biden.

Casino_Royale said:

Glad I didn't stay up then.

This is why electronic voting is a bad idea folks.

Nothing wrong with the basic idea. It's the implementation which is rubbish. Strikes me someone has been too clever by half, as the saying goes.

alex_ said:

OldKingCole said:

Casino_Royale said:

Glad I didn't stay up then.

This is why electronic voting is a bad idea folks.

Nothing wrong with the basic idea. It's the implementation which is rubbish. Strikes me someone has been too clever by half, as the saying goes.

Good ideas which have a high chance of being badly implemented are bad ideas.

It’s why conservatism (small c) is such an enduring political force.

What is really worrying is that the Democrats, who aspire to government in one of the most significant countries of the world, have made such a mess of things.

speedy2 said:

rcs1000 said:

https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/1224566143043674112?s=19

The path being no usable results?

The path of being useless.

Just draft Michelle Obama and make a contest of it.

Because, Democrats, at this point it ain't.....

Smartphones really are making people stupid aren't they.

As Dave Barry once said, if your car had broken down at the side of the road, a Republican would drive on by, because they were in a hurry to get to an ugly pants night at the country club. A Democrat would stop to help you, but you'd end up with your car on fire.