Surprise results in first US primary

I haven’t been following the US Democrat presidential goings on much since they cranked up months ago, but they have got to a serious stage (still 9 months out from the election).

The first primary was held in Iowa earlier this week. The vote count was badly botched and the final results still aren’t known, but with 86% of caucus precincts counted the results are a bit surprising (all delegate numbers are estimates).

  • Pete Buttigieg – 11 delegates (26.5% of the votes)
  • Bernie Sanders – 11 delegates (25.6%)
  • Elizabeth Warren – 5 delegates (18.3%)
  • Joe Biden – 0 delegates (15.9%)
  • Amy Klobuchar – 0 delegates (12.1%)

This must severely dent Joe Biden’s chances. I thought he was too old and uninspiring to make a decent candidate anyway.

Sanders is up there for now but I don’t see him having wide appeal. He seems old enough to have red Das Kapital when it was first published.

I think that the Democrats would benefit if they manage to avoid a battle of geriatrics.

A big surprise to see Buttigieg heading the votes. I know very little about him, but he must have something going for him to get this sort of result.

Previous Post
Leave a comment


  1. Duker

     /  6th February 2020

    Because Iowa is a ‘caucus’ state , only a tiny proportion of registered democrats get to vote compared to most other states that have a standard voting primary. As well they vote for ‘delegates’ not candidates directly for a winner. Too weird.
    Back in 2012 the Republicans had a major stuff up in their candidate count – and didnt even use apps. Nearly 3 weeks later they reversed the result to have a different winner, but wer’nt sure really who had the lead.
    As for Biden too old – do you know the age of Sanders or Warren , they too are in their 70s.

  2. Duker

     /  6th February 2020

    I see you say Sanders is old too
    “A big surprise to see Buttigieg heading the votes. I know very little about him, but he must have something going for him to get this sort of result.”
    Not a surprise , hes not from Iowa but the next best thing , a small town South Bend Indiana.

  3. Duker

     /  6th February 2020

    looking at a normal primary in a state with a bit more population than Iowa, Connecticut with 3.5 mill , back in 2016 had 322,000 democratic voters in primary.
    Iowa this time has , say around 16,000 attend its caucus.
    Explaining the system is far too complicated even for people who follow such things.
    It makes the absurd Electoral College system for President a a marvel of democracy

    • Duker

       /  7th February 2020

      Correct my assumption of real voters attending Democratic caucus , NY Times says it in the region of 170,000 not my number of 16,000
      Obama primary in 2008 had 240,000 which seemed to be a real surge

  4. artcroft

     /  6th February 2020

    538 still gives Buttigieg next to no chance of being the candidate. His odds rose from 4% before the primary to just 6% after.

    • Duker

       /  6th February 2020

      That’s those absurd computer simulations again…they gave Clinton was it 85% chance of winning the day before she lost.
      Monte Carlo simulations can’t get a win at a casino either. The electoral college is a complicated system of a 50 different states winner (mostly) takes all, but it presumes a state is homogenous. They are just as bad for UK house of commons predictions with 650 separate elections.

  5. Duker

     /  6th February 2020

    Buttigeig took advantage of the convoluted voting system and the wide spread of viable candidates, by wiinging in most counties but not most voters
    Map shows how he did it


Leave a Reply to Duker Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: