Updates
Later, 12:21 p.m. ET: news anchors now suggesting that if democrats can't even manage a "primary" in Iowa, how in the world does one think they can run the country.
Later, 12:17 p.m. ET: no reports yet. This is a huge disaster for Iowa.
Later, 11:32 p.m. ET: precinct chairman for precinct 11 (Ames, Iowa) -- on the first vote, twice as many caucus-goers in his corner than the second candidate -- by the time the final vote came in, precinct 11: Biden, 2 delegates; Sanders, 2 delegates; Buttigieg, 2 delegates.
Later, 11:00 p.m. ET: still no results. Nada. Nil. Zilch. None.
Later, 10:00 p.m. ET: at this time four years ago, 80% of votes had been reported. So far tonight, not one precinct has reported. Television news outlets are trying to figure out what to talk about. Again, by this time, they thought it would be pretty much over.
Original Post
Because I'm driving Olivia to soccer practice -- to and from -- I will miss some of the breaking news.
One of a gazillion sites is this New York Times site.
This was my prediction posted yesterday.
February 2, 2020, day 396: based on the most recent Iowa poll (the Emerson, 1/31 - 2/2) this is my prediction (remember, a viable candidate must receive a minimum of 15% of the votes). In the Emerson poll, the non-viable candidates polled a combined 22%. So, here's my predication:From The New York Times:
- Sanders (28%) will get 2% from the non-viable camp: 30%
- Biden (21%) will get most of Klobuchar's voters (7%%): 28%
- Buttigieg (15%) will get some of Klobuchar's voters; all of Yang's (8%): 23%
- Pocahontas (14%) will get 5% from the non-viable candidates: 19%
- mostly likely only four "tickets" will come out of Iowa with delegates
- multiple candidates might declare victory: there will be four sets of results
- Biden: 22%
- Sanders: 22%
- Buttigieg: 18%
- Pocahontas: 15%
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.