Iowa Democratic caucuses, 2016
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Election results by county.
Hillary Clinton
Bernie Sanders
|
||||||||||||||||
The 2016 Iowa Democratic caucuses took place on February 1 in the U.S. state of Iowa, traditionally marking the Democratic Party's first nominating contest in their series of presidential primaries ahead of the 2016 presidential election.
The Republican Party held its own Iowa caucuses on the same day.
Contents
Procedure
<templatestyles src="Module:Hatnote/styles.css"></templatestyles>
There is no ballot; instead, a unique form of debate and groupings chose delegates to county conventions supporting Hillary Clinton, Martin O'Malley, and Bernie Sanders. The Iowa Democratic Party does not release vote counts or the numbers of these delegates. Instead, they release the estimated amount of state delegates supporting each candidate.[1] The county conventions select delegates to district and state conventions, which in turn select the delegates to the Democratic National Convention. The delegates at the county, district and state conventions are not pledged and are allowed to change their preference, meaning that the final result of the state delegates could be different from what was estimated at the Iowa precinct caucuses.
Delegate Allocation
The delegate allocation to the Democratic National Convention is as follows: 29 districts delegates are split up between the 4 congressional districts. The First and Second Congressional Districts received 8 district delegates, the Third Congressional District received 7 and the Forth Congressional District received 6. These district delegates are elected at the District conventions based on the result in their Congressional District, not the state-wide vote.
At the State Convention, the 15 state-wide pledged delegates are elected based on the state-wide results. 9 of these delegates were At-Large and 6 were Party Leaders and Elected Officials (PLEO) who are pledged in the same way the At-Large delegates are.[2]
The Iowa delegation also includes 8 superdelegates who are not pledged based on the result of the caucus process, which include 1 U.S. Representative and 7 Democratic National Committee members.
Debates and forums
November 2015 debate in Des Moines
<templatestyles src="Module:Hatnote/styles.css"></templatestyles>
On November 14, 2015, the Democratic Party held a second presidential debate at the Sheslow Auditorium at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa. Hosted by CBS News Political Director John Dickerson, it aired on CBS News and was also be broadcast by KCCI and The Des Moines Register. With the remaining candidates Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Martin O'Malley participating, it was the first debate to be broadcast over nationwide network television, the previous debate having gone over cable.[3]
As the day before the debate, November 13, was the day of the November 2015 Paris attacks, CBS announced that the debate would focus on foreign policy and terrorism.[4] In addition, a moment of silence was held at the beginning of the debate in memory of the victims.
January 2016 forum in Des Moines
<templatestyles src="Module:Hatnote/styles.css"></templatestyles>
On January 11, 2016 the "Black and Brown" forum was held at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa. Focusing on minority issues, it aired on Fusion.[5]
Opinion polling
<templatestyles src="Module:Hatnote/styles.css"></templatestyles>
| Poll source | Date | 1st | 2nd | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Caucus results | February 1, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 49.9% |
Bernie Sanders 49.6% |
Martin O'Malley 0.6% |
| Emerson College[6] Margin of error: ± 5.6% Sample size: 300 |
January 29–31, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 51% |
Bernie Sanders 43% |
Martin O'Malley 4% Undecided 2% |
| Quinnipiac University[7] Margin of error: ± 3.2% Sample size: 919 |
January 25–31, 2016 | Bernie Sanders 49% |
Hillary Clinton 46% |
Martin O'Malley 3% Undecided 2% |
| Des Moines Register– Bloomberg–Selzer[8] Margin of error: ± 4% Sample size: 602 |
January 26–29, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 45% |
Bernie Sanders 42% |
Martin O'Malley 3% Undecided or Not Committed 9% |
| Public Policy Polling[9]
Margin of error ± 3.4% |
January 26–27, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 48% |
Bernie Sanders 40% |
Martin O'Malley 7% No preference 5% |
| Gravis Marketing[10]
Margin of error ± 3% |
January 26–27, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 53% |
Bernie Sanders 42% |
Martin O'Malley 5% No preference 0% |
| Monmouth University[11]
Margin of error ± 4.4% |
January 23–26, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 47% |
Bernie Sanders 42% |
Martin O'Malley 6% Undecided 5% |
| American Research Group[12]
Margin of error ± 5.0% |
January 21–24, 2016 | Bernie Sanders 48% |
Hillary Clinton 45% |
Martin O'Malley 3% No preference 4% |
| Quinnipiac University[13]
Margin of error: ± 4% |
January 18–24, 2016 | Bernie Sanders 49% |
Hillary Clinton 45% |
Martin O'Malley 4% Undecided 2% |
| ISU/WHO-HD[14]
Margin of error: ± |
January 5–22, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 47% |
Bernie Sanders 45% |
Martin O'Malley <1% Undecided 7% |
| Fox News[15]
Margin of error ± 4.5% |
January 18–21, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 48% |
Bernie Sanders 42% |
Martin O'Malley 3% No preference 7% |
| YouGov/CBS News[16]
Margin of error ± 8.9% |
January 17–21, 2016 | Bernie Sanders 47% |
Hillary Clinton 46% |
Martin O'Malley 5% No preference 2% |
| Emerson College Polling Society[17]
Margin of error: ± 5.9% |
January 18–20, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 52% |
Bernie Sanders 43% |
Martin O'Malley 3% Undecided 2% |
| CNN/ORC[18]
Margin of error: ± 6% |
January 15–20, 2016 | Bernie Sanders 51% |
Hillary Clinton 43% |
Martin O'Malley 4% Undecided 2% |
| Monmouth College/KBUR[19]
Margin of error: ± 4.1% |
January 18–19, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 47.7% |
Bernie Sanders 39.3% |
Martin O'Malley 7.4% Undecided 5% |
| Loras College[20]
Margin of error: ± 4.4% |
January 8–10, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 46% |
Bernie Sanders 40% |
Martin O'Malley 8% Undecided 5% |
| Public Policy Polling[21]
Margin of error: ± 4.1% |
January 8–10, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 46% |
Bernie Sanders 40% |
Martin O'Malley 8% Undecided 5% |
| Bloomberg/DMR[22]
Margin of error: ± 4.4% |
January 7–10, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 42% |
Bernie Sanders 40% |
Martin O'Malley 4% Other/Undecided 14% |
| American Research Group[23]
Margin of error: ± 4.0% |
January 6–10, 2016 | Bernie Sanders 47% |
Hillary Clinton 44% |
Martin O'Malley 3% Undecided 5% |
| Quinnipiac University[24]
Margin of error: ± 4.4% |
January 5–10, 2016 | Bernie Sanders 49% |
Hillary Clinton 44% |
Martin O'Malley 4% Undecided 3% |
| Mason-Dixon/AARP[25]
Margin of error: ± |
January 4–8, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 49% |
Bernie Sanders 42% |
Martin O’Malley 5% Not Reported 4% |
| NBC News/WSJ/Marist[26]
Margin of error: ± 4.8% |
January 2–7, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 48% |
Bernie Sanders 45% |
Martin O’Malley 5% Undecided 3% |
<templatestyles src="Template:Hidden begin/styles.css"/>
| Poll source | Date | 1st | 2nd | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gravis Marketing[27]
Margin of error ± 5% |
December 18–21, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 49% |
Bernie Sanders 31% |
Martin O'Malley 10% Unsure 10% |
| YouGov/CBS News[28]
Margin of error ± 5.3% |
December 14–17, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 50% |
Bernie Sanders 45% |
Martin O'Malley 4% No preference 1% |
| Public Policy Polling[29]
Margin of error: ± 4.3% |
December 10–13, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 52% |
Bernie Sanders 34% |
Martin O'Malley 7% Undecided 6% |
| Quinnipiac University[30]
Margin of error: ± 3.6% |
December 4–13, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 51% |
Bernie Sanders 40% |
Martin O'Malley 6% Undecided 3% |
| Fox News[31]
Margin of error: ± 5.0% |
December 7–10, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 50% |
Bernie Sanders 36% |
Martin O'Malley 5% Other 4% Undecided 10% |
| Loras College[32]
Margin of error: ± 4.4 |
December 7–10, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 59% |
Bernie Sanders 27% |
Martin O'Malley 4% Undecided 10% |
| Des Moines Register/Bloomberg/Selzer[33]
Margin of error ± 4.9% |
December 7–10, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 48% |
Bernie Sanders 39% |
Martin O'Malley 4% Undeicded 8% |
| Monmouth[34] Margin of error ± 4.9%
Sample Size: 405 |
December 3–6, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 55% |
Bernie Sanders 33% |
Martin O'Malley 6% |
| CNN/ORC[34] Margin of error ± 4.5%
|
November 28 – December 6, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 54% |
Bernie Sanders 36% |
Martin O'Malley 4% |
| Quinnipiac University[35]
Margin of error ± 4.2% |
November 16–22, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 51% |
Bernie Sanders 42% |
Martin O'Malley 4% Undecided 3% |
| YouGov/CBS News[36]
Margin of error ± 7.6% |
November 15–19, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 50% |
Bernie Sanders 44% |
Martin O'Malley 5% Undecided 1% |
| CNN/ORC[37]
Margin of error ± 4.5% |
October 29 – November 4, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 55% |
Bernie Sanders 37% |
Martin O'Malley 3% None 1% No Opinion 3% |
| Gravis Marketing/One America News Network[38]
Margin of error ± 3.0% |
October 30 – November 2, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 57.1% |
Bernie Sanders 24.8% |
Martin O'Malley 2.9% Not Sure 15.2% |
| Public Policy Polling[39]
Margin of error ± 3.9% |
October 30 – November 1, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 57% |
Bernie Sanders 25% |
Martin O'Malley 7% Lawrence Lessig 1% Not Sure 9% |
| KBUR-Monmouth[40]
Margin of error: ± 3.76% |
October 29–31, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 45.8% |
Bernie Sanders 31.7% |
Martin O'Malley 5.4% Undecided 17.0% |
| Monmouth University[41]
Margin of error ± 3.76% |
October 29–31, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 45.8% |
Bernie Sanders 31.7% |
Martin O'Malley 5.4% Undecided 17% |
| Monmouth University[42]
Margin of error ± 4.9% |
October 22–25, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 65% |
Bernie Sanders 24% |
Martin O'Malley 5% Lawrence Lessig 1% Undecided 5% |
| YouGov/CBS News[43]
Margin of error ± 6.9% |
October 15–22, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 46% |
Bernie Sanders 43% |
Martin O'Malley 3% Lincoln Chafee 1% Lawrence Lessig 0% No preference 7% |
| Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics[44]
Margin of error ± 4.9% |
October 16–19, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 48% |
Bernie Sanders 41% |
Martin O'Malley 2% Jim Webb 1% Lincoln Chafee 1% Uncommited 3% Not Sure 4% |
| NBC News/WSJ/Marist[45]
Margin of error: ± 5.3% |
September 23–30, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 33% |
Bernie Sanders 28% |
Joe Biden 22% Martin O'Malley 3% Jim Webb 1% Lincoln Chafee <1% Undecided 12% |
| Hillary Clinton 47% |
Bernie Sanders 36% |
Martin O'Malley 4% Jim Webb 1% Lincoln Chafee <1% Undecided 13% |
||
| Public Policy Polling[46]
Margin of error ± 4.4% |
September 18–20, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 43% |
Bernie Sanders 22% |
Joe Biden 17% Martin O'Malley 3% Jim Webb 3% Lincoln Chafee 2% Lawrence Lessig 0% Undecided 9% |
| YouGov/CBS News[47]
Margin of error ± 6.6% |
September 3–10, 2015 | Bernie Sanders 43% |
Hillary Clinton 33% |
Joe Biden 10% No preference 7% Martin O'Malley 5% Lincoln Chafee 1% Jim Webb 1% |
| Quinnipiac University[48]
Margin of error: ± 3.4% |
Posted September 10, 2015 | Bernie Sanders 41% |
Hillary Clinton 40% |
Joe Biden 12% Martin O'Malley 3% |
| NBC News/Marist Poll[49]
Margin of error: ± 5.3% |
Published September 6, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 38% |
Bernie Sanders 27% |
Joe Biden 20% Martin O'Malley 4% Jim Webb 2% Lincoln Chafee 1% Undecided 8% |
| Hillary Clinton 48% |
Bernie Sanders 37% |
Martin O'Malley 4% Jim Webb 2% Lincoln Chafee 1% Undecided 8% |
||
| Loras College[50]
Margin of error ± 4.37% |
August 24–27, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 48.2% |
Bernie Sanders 22.9% |
Joe Biden 16.3% Martin O'Malley 4% Lincoln Chafee 0.6% Jim Webb 0.4% Undecided 6.4% |
| Selzer & Co. of Des Moines[51]
Margin of error: ± 4.9% |
August 23–26, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 43% |
Bernie Sanders 35% |
Martin O'Malley 5% Jim Webb 2% Lincoln Chafee 1% Not sure 8% Uncommitted 6% |
| Hillary Clinton 37% |
Bernie Sanders 30% |
Joe Biden 14% Martin O'Malley 3% Jim Webb 2% Lincoln Chafee 1% Not sure 8% Uncommitted 6% |
||
| Suffolk University[52]
Margin of error: ± 4.4% |
August 20–24, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 54% |
Bernie Sanders 20% |
Joe Biden 11% Martin O'Malley 4% Jim Webb 1% Lincoln Chafee 0% Undecided 9% |
| CNN/ORC[53]
Margin of error: ± 4.5% |
August 7–11, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 50% |
Bernie Sanders 31% |
Joe Biden 12% Martin O'Malley 1% Jim Webb 1% Lincoln Chafee 0% Not sure 11% |
| Public Policy Polling[54]
Margin of error: ± 4.1% |
August 7–9, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 52% |
Bernie Sanders 25% |
Martin O'Malley 7% Jim Webb 3% Lincoln Chafee 1% Not sure 11% |
| NBC News/Marist[55]
Margin of error: ± 5.5% |
July 14–21, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 49% |
Bernie Sanders 25% |
Joe Biden 10% Martin O'Malley 3% Jim Webb 1% Lincoln Chafee <1% Undecided 11% |
| We Ask America[56]
Margin of error: 3.07% |
June 27–29, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 63% |
Bernie Sanders 20% |
Martin O'Malley 5% Jim Webb 3% Lincoln Chafee 1% Undecided 8% |
| Quinnipiac University[57]
Margin of error: 3.6% |
June 20–29, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 52% |
Bernie Sanders 33% |
Joe Biden 7% Martin O'Malley 3% Jim Webb 1% Lincoln Chafee 0% Undecided 5% |
| Bloomberg
Margin of error: 4.9% |
June 19–22, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 50% |
Bernie Sanders 24% |
Martin O'Malley 2% Lincoln Chafee 0% Undecided 23% |
| Morning Consult
Margin of error: ? |
May 31 – June 8, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 54% |
Bernie Sanders 12% |
Joe Biden 9% Martin O'Malley 1% Jim Webb 1% Lincoln Chafee 0% Other 3% Undecided 20% |
| Gravis Marketing
Margin of error: ± 5.0% |
May 28–29, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 59% |
Bernie Sanders 15% |
Martin O'Malley 3% Jim Webb 2% Bill DeBlasio 2% Lincoln Chafee 1% Unsure 17% |
| Bloomberg/Des Moines
Margin of error: ± 4.7% |
May 25–29, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 57% |
Bernie Sanders 16% |
Joe Biden 8% Martin O'Malley 2% Jim Webb 2% Uncommitted 6% Not sure 8% |
| Quinnipiac University
Margin of error: ± 3.7% |
April 25 – May 4, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 60% |
Bernie Sanders 15% |
Joe Biden 11% Martin O'Malley 3% Jim Webb 3% Lincoln Chafee 0% Undecided 7% |
| Public Policy Polling
Margin of error: ± 4.5% |
April 23–26, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 62% |
Bernie Sanders 14% |
Martin O'Malley 6% Jim Webb 3% Lincoln Chafee 2% Undecided 13% |
| Loras College
Margin of error: ± 4.4% |
April 21–23, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 57% |
Elizabeth Warren 14.7% |
Joe Biden 5.9% Martin O'Malley 2.4% Bernie Sanders 2% Jim Webb 1.2% Lincoln Chafee 0% Undecided 16.7% |
| Quinnipiac
Margin of error: ± 3.9% |
February 16–23, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 61% |
Elizabeth Warren 19% |
Joe Biden 7% Bernie Sanders 5% Jim Webb 2% Martin O'Malley 0% Undecided 6% |
| NBC News/Marist
Margin of error: ± 5.5% |
February 3–10, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 68% |
Joe Biden 12% |
Bernie Sanders 7% Jim Webb 1% Martin O'Malley <1% Undecided 12% |
| Selzer & Co.
Margin of error: ± 4.9% |
January 26–29, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 56% |
Elizabeth Warren 16% |
Joe Biden 9% Bernie Sanders 5% Jim Webb 3% Martin O'Malley 1% Uncommitted 4% Not sure 6% |
| Loras College
Margin of error: ± 6.06% |
January 21–26, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 48.3% |
Elizabeth Warren 16.5% |
Joe Biden 12.6% Bernie Sanders 3.8% Jim Webb 2.3% Martin O'Malley 0.4% Undecided 16.1% |
<templatestyles src="Template:Hidden begin/styles.css"/>
| Poll source | Date | 1st | 2nd | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fox News
Margin of error: ± 5% |
October 28–30, 2014 | Hillary Clinton 62% |
Elizabeth Warren 14% |
Joe Biden 10% Andrew Cuomo 2% Martin O'Malley 2% Other 1% None of the above 2% Don't know 6% |
| Reuters/Ipsos
Margin of error: ± ? |
October 23–29, 2014 | Hillary Clinton 60% |
Elizabeth Warren 17% |
Joe Biden 4% Andrew Cuomo 3% Bernie Sanders 2% Kirsten Gillibrand 1% Martin O'Malley 1% Wouldn't vote 12% |
| Selzer & Co.
Margin of error: ± 4.8% |
October 1–7, 2014 | Hillary Clinton 53% |
Elizabeth Warren 10% |
Joe Biden 9% John Kerry 7% Bernie Sanders 3% Andrew Cuomo 1% Brian Schweitzer 1% Jim Webb 1% Martin O'Malley 0% Uncommitted 3% Not sure 12% |
| CNN/ORC
Margin of error: ± 5.5% |
September 8–10, 2014 | Hillary Clinton 53% |
Joe Biden 15% |
Elizabeth Warren 7% Bernie Sanders 5% Andrew Cuomo 3% Martin O'Malley 2% Deval Patrick 1% Someone else 1% None/No opinion 15% |
| Suffolk
Margin of error: ± 7.09% |
August 23–26, 2014 | Hillary Clinton 66.49% |
Elizabeth Warren 9.95% |
Joe Biden 7.85% Andrew Cuomo 4.19% Martin O'Malley 2.09% Undecided 7.85% |
| NBC News/Marist
Margin of error: ± 4.2% |
July 7–13, 2014 | Hillary Clinton 70% |
Joe Biden 20% |
Undecided 10% |
| Vox Populi Polling
Margin of error: ± 6.6% |
June 4–5, 2014 | Hillary Clinton 65% |
Joe Biden 18% |
Elizabeth Warren 12% Andrew Cuomo 3% Martin O'Malley 2% |
| Public Policy Polling
Margin of error: ±5.2% |
May 15–19, 2014 | Hillary Clinton 59% |
Joe Biden 12% |
Elizabeth Warren 11% Cory Booker 3% Andrew Cuomo 3% Mark Warner 2% Kirsten Gillibrand 1% Martin O'Malley 1% Brian Schweitzer 1% Someone else/Not sure 8% |
| Joe Biden 34% |
Elizabeth Warren 22% |
Andrew Cuomo 7% Cory Booker 4% Kirsten Gillibrand 3% Martin O'Malley 2% Brian Schweitzer 1% Mark Warner 1% Someone else/Not sure 26% |
||
| Elizabeth Warren 31% |
Andrew Cuomo 14% |
Cory Booker 9% Kirsten Gillibrand 5% Martin O'Malley 2% Mark Warner 2% Brian Schweitzer 1% Someone else/Not sure 36% |
||
| The Daily Caller/Vox Populi Polling
Margin of error: ± 6.8% |
April 22–24, 2014 | Hillary Clinton 71% |
Joe Biden 13% |
Elizabeth Warren 10% Andrew Cuomo 3% Brian Schweitzer 2% Martin O'Malley 1% |
| Suffolk
Margin of error: ± 8.4% |
April 3–8, 2014 | Hillary Clinton 62.96% |
Elizabeth Warren 11.85% |
Joe Biden 9.63% Mark Warner 1.48% Andrew Cuomo 0.74% Deval Patrick 0.74% Cory Booker 0% Undecided 11.85% |
| Public Policy Polling
Margin of error: ±5.4% |
February 20–23, 2014 | Hillary Clinton 67% |
Joe Biden 12% |
Elizabeth Warren 5% Mark Warner 3% Andrew Cuomo 2% Cory Booker 1% Kirsten Gillibrand 0% Martin O'Malley 0% Brian Schweitzer 0% Someone Else/Undecided 10% |
| Joe Biden 40% |
Elizabeth Warren 13% |
Andrew Cuomo 8% Martin O'Malley 5% Cory Booker 2% Kirsten Gillibrand 2% Mark Warner 2% Brian Schweitzer 1% Someone Else/Undecided 28% |
||
| Elizabeth Warren 21% |
Andrew Cuomo 11% |
Cory Booker 8% Martin O'Malley 6% Kirsten Gillibrand 3% Brian Schweitzer 2% Mark Warner 2% Someone Else/Undecided 47% |
<templatestyles src="Template:Hidden begin/styles.css"/>
| Poll source | Date | 1st | 2nd | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cygnal
Margin of error: ±2.1% |
July 10–12, 2013 | Hillary Clinton 55.6% |
Joe Biden 7.8% |
Elizabeth Warren 5% Andrew Cuomo 1.1% Kirsten Gillibrand 0.5% Martin O'Malley 0.2% Unsure 29.7% |
| Public Policy Polling
Margin of error: ±6.1% |
July 5–7, 2013 | Hillary Clinton 71% |
Joe Biden 12% |
Elizabeth Warren 5% Kirsten Gillibrand 2% Mark Warner 2% Cory Booker 1% Andrew Cuomo 1% Martin O'Malley 1% Brian Schweitzer 0% Someone Else/Undecided 5% |
| Joe Biden 51% |
Elizabeth Warren 16% |
Andrew Cuomo 9% Cory Booker 6% Kirsten Gillibrand 2% Martin O'Malley 2% Mark Warner 1% Brian Schweitzer 0% Someone Else/Undecided 13% |
||
| Elizabeth Warren 20% |
Andrew Cuomo 18% |
Cory Booker 12% Kirsten Gillibrand 7% Martin O'Malley 4% Brian Schweitzer 3% Mark Warner 2% Someone Else/Undecided 33% |
||
| McKeon & Associates
Margin of error: ±3.9% |
April 18, 2013 | Hillary Clinton 43% |
Joe Biden 27% |
Andrew Cuomo 11% Other 9% Undecided 10% |
| Public Policy Polling
Margin of error: ±5.5% |
February 1–3, 2013 | Hillary Clinton 68% |
Joe Biden 21% |
Andrew Cuomo 2% Mark Warner 2% Elizabeth Warren 2% Deval Patrick 1% Kirsten Gillibrand 0% Martin O'Malley 0% Brian Schweitzer 0% Someone Else/Undecided 3% |
| Joe Biden 58% |
Andrew Cuomo 13% |
Elizabeth Warren 7% Kirsten Gillibrand 6% Deval Patrick 3% Mark Warner 2% Brian Schweitzer 1% Martin O'Malley 0% Someone Else/Undecided 11% |
||
| Andrew Cuomo 26% |
Elizabeth Warren 17% |
Martin O'Malley 8% Kirsten Gillibrand 5% Deval Patrick 3% Brian Schweitzer 2% Mark Warner 2% Someone Else/Undecided 37% |
||
| Harper Polling
Margin of error: |
January 29, 2013 | Hillary Clinton 65.38% |
Joe Biden 13.74% |
Andrew Cuomo 3.85% Undecided 17.03% |
Results
| Candidate | State delegate equivalents | Estimated delegates | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Count | Percentage | Pledged | Unpledged | Total | |
| Hillary Clinton | 700.47 | 49.84% | 23 | 7 | 30 |
| Bernie Sanders | 696.92 | 49.59% | 21 | 0 | 21 |
| Martin O'Malley | 7.63 | 0.54% | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Uncommitted | 0.46 | 0.03% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Total | 1,405.48 | 100% | 44 | 8 | 52 |
| Source: The Green Papers, Iowa Democrats | |||||
| Iowa Democratic county conventions, March 13, 2016 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Candidate | State delegates | Estimated delegates | |||
| Count | Percentage | Pledged | Unpledged | Total | |
| Hillary Clinton | 704 | 50.07% | 23 | 7 | 30 |
| Bernie Sanders | 700 | 49.79% | 21 | 0 | 21 |
| Martin O'Malley | 1 | 0.07% | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Uncommitted | 1 | 0.07% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Total | 1,406 | 100% | 44 | 8 | 52 |
| Source: Iowa Democrats | |||||
| Iowa Democratic District conventions, April 30, 2016 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Candidate | State delegates | Estimated delegates | |||
| Count | Percentage | Pledged | Unpledged | Total | |
| Hillary Clinton | 697 | 50.40% | 23 | 7 | 30 |
| Bernie Sanders | 686 | 49.60% | 21 | 0 | 21 |
| Uncommitted | 1 | 1 | |||
| Total | 1,383 | 100% | 44 | 8 | 52 |
| Source: Iowa Democrats | |||||
Controversy
"[O]rganizational issues around the caucus", including difficulty identifying volunteers to "oversee individual precinct caucuses," contributed to a "disorganized process that lent itself to chaos and conspiracy theories" according to The Guardian.[58]
<templatestyles src="Template:Blockquote/styles.css" />
Both the Sanders and Clinton campaigns have flagged a very small number of concerns for us, and we are looking at them all on a case-by-case basis.
— Sam Lau, Iowa Democratic Party
After initially refusing to review caucus results, Iowa Democratic Party officials did end up "making updates where discrepancies have been found."[59] With "doubts about which Democratic candidate actually won the Iowa caucuses," there have been "fresh calls for the party to mirror the simple, secret-ballot method" the Republicans use. Stated Norm Sterzenbach, former Iowa Democratic Party executive director who oversaw five election cycles: “It’s worth discussing again, but it’s not as simple as it sounds.”[60] It is said that Clinton won by the thinnest margin in the history of Iowa caucuses.
Instances
Iowa Democrats reported "discrepancies in caucus results" and confusion over the math of the delegate-awarding system. In Grinnell Ward 1, 19 delegates were awarded to Sanders and seven to Clinton on caucus night. The Iowa Democratic party later shifted one delegate from Sanders to Clinton, but did not notify the precinct secretary, who "only discovered that this happened the next day, when checking the precinct results in other parts of the county."[58]
Other reported discrepancies included:
- the lone caucusgoer in Woodbury County No. 43, who voted for Sanders—but "final results state" Clinton won one county delegate and Sanders zero.
- in Knoxville No. 3, where the count was 58 for Sanders and 52 for Clinton—but official results showed Clinton with five county delegates and Sanders with four.
- the four delegates in Cedar Rapids No. 9 precinct who split evenly between Sanders and Clinton—but only 131 people signed in at the beginning of the caucus with two separate head counts showing 136 people voted.
In Des Moines No. 42, "after everyone had formed initial groups for their preferred candidate," a Clinton supporter addressed O'Malley supporters and undecideds, telling them "they could stay and realign or leave.” Some mistakenly believed that meant voting was finished and left early without being counted.[61] In the same precinct, votes were still missing the morning after the caucus. Democrats "from that neighborhood scrambled to find party officials" to report that Sanders won by a margin of two delegates over Clinton. This narrowed Clinton's "excruciatingly close lead" even further—bringing the tally for "delegate equivalents" at that point to Clinton 699.57, Sanders 697.77.[62]
Coin tosses
The Des Moines Register reported "an unknown number" of county delegates awarded "after the flip of a coin." Sam Lau, a spokesman for the Iowa Democratic Party, said seven coin flips were reported through "the party's smartphone app"—but officials who reported county delegate totals via the app "weren't required to signify if the win was the result of a coin toss." Lau said Bernie Sanders won six of these. The paper identified "six coin flips through social media and one in an interview with a caucus participant"—with Clinton the apparent winner of six of these seven. Any overlap, or its impact on results, between the coin flips identified by the Register and those the party confirmed was not known.[63]
An Iowa Democratic Party official told NPR there were "at least a dozen tiebreakers" decided by a coin toss— and that "Sen. Sanders won at least a handful."[64]
<templatestyles src="Template:Blockquote/styles.css" />
Gone unmentioned so far is that even if Clinton won that Miracle Six — and there were no other coin tosses — it would make little difference in the outcome. That is, in part, because of the complicated way Iowa Democrats allocate their delegates — and what was being reported on election night and what wasn't.[65]
— Domenico Montanaro, NPR
Review
Sanders' campaign "launched" a review of the results of the caucuses, citing as "complicating factors" the "razor-thin margin", the "arcane" caucusing rules, the reporting delays from some precincts, and the reporting technology used. The campaign is rechecking results precinct-by-precinct, reviewing "math sheets or other paperwork" precinct chairs used and were supposed to return to party officials—then comparing these with results entered into the party's Microsoft app. Rania Batrice, a Sanders spokeswoman, challenged: “Let’s compare notes. Let’s see if they match."[66]
In an editorial, The Des Moines Register called for an audit of the results, declaring “What happened Monday night at the Democratic caucuses was a debacle, period."[66] First noting that only two-tenths of a percent separated Sanders and Clinton and "much larger margins trigger automatic recounts in other states," they stated:
Too many accounts have arisen of inconsistent counts, untrained and overwhelmed volunteers, confused voters, cramped precinct locations, a lack of voter registration forms and other problems. Too many of us, including members of the Register editorial board who were observing caucuses, saw opportunities for error amid Monday night’s chaos.[66]
In lieu of "official paper records" the party had "declined to provide the campaign"—which would show individual precinct vote tallies before they were entered into the party's app the night of the caucuses—the Sanders' campaign was contacting each of its own precinct captains to reconstruct caucus results.[67] Sanders' campaign manager Jeff Weaver said: "I think everybody has an interest in making it as accurate as possible", though "[a]s an empirical matter, we're not likely to ever know what the actual result was".[68] <templatestyles src="Template:Blockquote/styles.css" />
Let’s not blow this out of proportion. This is not the biggest deal in the world. We think, by the way, based on talking to our precinct captains, we may have at least two more delegates.”[69]
— Bernie Sanders
References
- ↑ http://iowademocrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2016-IDP-Final-Precinct-Caucus-Results-PrecinctCandidateResults1.pdf
- ↑ http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/IA-D
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ 34.0 34.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ 58.0 58.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ 66.0 66.1 66.2 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
- ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
