2020 Iowa Democratic presidential caucuses: Difference between revisions
Undid revision 939472274 by Danish Expert (talk) These are not misleading. There are what are reported by mainstream press. Please seek consensus for elevating Green Papers over established sources. |
Undid revision 939473934 by MrX (talk): This is not to provoke or editwar. Just think its best to keep my change in the article, at least until I recieve your considered reply - provided you still think its a bad idea to use The Green Papers source after reading my reply to you posted 2.5 hours ago at the talkpage |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| next_year = 2024 |
| next_year = 2024 |
||
| election_date = February 3, 2020 |
| election_date = February 3, 2020 |
||
| votes_for_election = 49 delegates (41 pledged, 8 unpledged) |
| votes_for_election = 49 delegates (41 pledged, 8 unpledged)<br>{{small|(5 of 41 national pledged delegates not yet won by any candidate)<ref name="GP"/>}} |
||
| 1blank = <abbr title="State Delegate Equivalents">SDEs</abbr> |
| 1blank = <abbr title="State Delegate Equivalents">SDEs</abbr> |
||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
| popular_vote1 = 42,235 |
| popular_vote1 = 42,235 |
||
| percentage1 = |
| percentage1 = |
||
| delegate_count1 = |
| delegate_count1 = 13<ref name="GP"/> |
||
| 1data1 = 550 |
| 1data1 = 550 |
||
| 2data1 = 25.0% |
| 2data1 = 25.0% |
||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
| popular_vote2 = 44,753 |
| popular_vote2 = 44,753 |
||
| percentage2 = |
| percentage2 = |
||
| delegate_count2 = 11 |
| delegate_count2 = 11<ref name="GP"/> |
||
| 1data2 = 547 |
| 1data2 = 547 |
||
| 2data2 = 26.5% |
| 2data2 = 26.5% |
||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
| popular_vote3 = 34,312 |
| popular_vote3 = 34,312 |
||
| percentage3 = |
| percentage3 = |
||
| delegate_count3 = |
| delegate_count3 = 7<ref name="GP"/> |
||
| 1data3 = 381 |
| 1data3 = 381 |
||
| 2data3 = 20.4% |
| 2data3 = 20.4% |
||
| Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
| popular_vote4 = 23,051 |
| popular_vote4 = 23,051 |
||
| percentage4 = |
| percentage4 = |
||
| delegate_count4 = |
| delegate_count4 = 5<ref name="GP"/> |
||
| 1data4 = 331 |
| 1data4 = 331 |
||
| 2data4 = 13.7% |
| 2data4 = 13.7% |
||
Revision as of 18:06, 6 February 2020
 | This article documents a current election. Information may change rapidly as the election progresses until official results have been published. Initial news reports may be unreliable, and the last updates to this article may not reflect the most current information. |
 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
49 delegates (41 pledged, 8 unpledged) (5 of 41 national pledged delegates not yet won by any candidate)[1] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reporting | 97% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
,_2020.svg) Election results by county (popular vote in final round)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
.jpg)
| Elections in Iowa |
|---|
 |
The 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses took place in Iowa, United States, on Monday, February 3, 2020. These caucuses are the first nominating contest in the Democratic Party primaries for the 2020 presidential election. The Iowa caucuses are a closed caucus, with Iowa awarding 49 delegates, of which 41 are pledged delegates allocated on the basis of the results of the caucuses.
The caucus is the subject of controversy due to a delay in reporting the results, which stemmed in part from the Iowa Democratic Party's decision to use an untested and inexpensive mobile application for results reporting. Additionally, the application was criticized for its lack of user-friendliness, openness to potential hacks and data intercepts, and its conflict of interest due to connections with former staffers for Hillary Clinton, Pete Buttigieg and Joe Biden.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][excessive citations]
The next primary contest is the 2020 New Hampshire Democratic primary, to be held February 11.[9]
Procedure
Absentee voting (i.e. by mail) or proxy voting was not allowed in the closed 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses, where only registered Democratic Iowans (who meet the requirement of being minimum 18 years old by November 3, 2020) could vote by their physical presence at their designated precinct caucus site. Iowans who did not register as Democrats before the caucus day could still register as such on caucus night itself at their designated precinct, and thereby gain full voting rights at the event.[10]
1,678 Iowa precinct caucuses plus 99 satellite caucuses around the world (organized as alternative voting sites for registered Democratic Iowans who are prevented from voting locally at their precinct caucus) will all be held with doors being closed at 7:00 p.m. CST on February 3, 2020, in order to elect precinct delegates for the subsequent county conventions and allocate the state's 41 pledged national delegates based upon the proportional accumulative result of all the precincts.[10]
In all precinct caucuses, the presidential candidates must meet a viability threshold within the individual precinct in order to qualify as a viable candidate:[1]
- minimum of 15% for the majority of precincts with more than three delegates
- minimum of 16.67% for small precincts electing only three delegates
- minimum of 25% for smaller precincts electing only two delegates
- minimum of 50% for the smallest precincts electing only one delegate
Supporters of viable candidates after the first initial voting will have their vote locked to their chosen presidential candidate. Supporters of non-viable candidates having received a result below the viability threshold in the first preliminary vote, however, are allowed to vote a final second time, where they can either choose to transfer their vote to one of the already established viable candidates or alternatively merge their non-viable group with another non-viable group in order to create a big enough group to qualify as a viable candidate.[1]
11,402 county convention delegates are awarded proportionally on the basis of the results of the 1,678 precinct caucuses and 99 satellite caucuses, and they will go to their local county convention on March 21, 2020, to choose 2,107 District and State Delegates (SDE) for the district conventions on April 25 (selecting the 27 pledged congressional district delegates) and state Democratic convention on June 13 (selecting the remaining nine pledged at-large delegates and five pledged PLEO delegates). In total, 41 pledged delegates will be elected for the 2020 Democratic National Convention on the basis of the State Delegate Equivalents (SDE).[1]
| Delegate allocation[1] | |
|---|---|
| Type | Del. |
| CD1 | 7 |
| CD2 | 7 |
| CD3 | 8 |
| CD4 | 5 |
| PLEO | 5 |
| At-large | 9 |
| Pledged total | 41 |
The reported precinct results of the caucus nights were previously (last time in 2016) used to compute the expected number of pledged national delegates according to the state delegate equivalents for each presidential candidate, meaning that the campaigns after the precinct caucuses still needed to hold onto their computed expected pledged national delegates as their support were locked to the candidate only at the final step of the selection process (i.e at the state convention in June).[11] This has changed in the 2020 caucuses, where the computed final number of pledged national delegates will be locked to the candidates already when the result of the precinct caucuses are known.[12][13]
The 41 pledged delegates Iowa sends to the national convention will be joined by eight unpledged PLEO delegates: five members of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and three members of Congress, of which all three are U.S. Representatives.[1]
On February 11, 2019, the Iowa Democratic Party proposed several changes to the procedures used in the previous caucuses, including the addition of a period for "virtual caucuses" from January 29 to February 3, 2020, which would allow participants unable to physically attend the precinct caucuses to join in an online virtual caucus or teleconference in which they will be given the opportunity to rank candidate preferences, with support for non-viable candidates redistributed to viable ones.[1] This process would continue until no non-viable choices remained, and the results would be aggregated with congressional districts for the purposes of delegate allocation but limited to 10 percent of state delegate equivalents, regardless of the number of those using the virtual caucus option. The results of both the virtual and precinct caucuses will be released on the night of February 3, and as a result of rules changes by the national party, raw vote totals for the first and second alignment periods of the caucuses will be published.[14]
In late August 2019, the DNC ordered both the Iowa and Nevada Democratic state parties to scrap their plans for "virtual caucuses" because of security concerns.[15]
On September 20, 2019, the DNC conditionally approved a plan for "satellite caucus sites" that will allow Iowa Democrats to participate if they are working or going to college outside of the state on February 3, 2020.[16] Eleven of those 87 sites will have Spanish translation services. Latinos make up 6% of the population and 3.4% of registered voters.[17]
The party announced in late January 2020 that a "raw vote count" both for the "first initial alignment" and "second final alignment" for each precinct caucuses will be reported (along with the computed State Delegate Equivalents and Nationally pledged delegates), for the first time in the history of the caucuses. In previous years, the reported result of the precinct caucuses comprised only the final computed State Delegate Equivalents and expected number of Nationally pledged delegates.[18][12][13]
Polling
| Polling Aggregation | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Source of poll aggregation | Date updated |
Dates polled |
Bernie Sanders |
Joe Biden |
Pete Buttigieg |
Elizabeth Warren |
Amy Klobuchar |
Andrew Yang |
Tom Steyer |
Other | Un- decided[a] |
| 270 to Win | Feb 3, 2020 | Jan 22–Feb 2, 2020 | 22.6% | 18.2% | 15.2% | 15.6% | 11.8% | 3.8% | 3.6% | 3.6%[b] | 5.6% |
| RealClear Politics | Feb 3, 2020 | Jan 20–Feb 2, 2020 | 23.0% | 19.3% | 16.8% | 15.5% | 9.0% | 3.3% | 3.0% | 2.5%[c] | 7.6% |
| FiveThirtyEight | Feb 3, 2020 | until Feb 2, 2020[d] | 22.2% | 20.7% | 15.7% | 14.5% | 10.1% | 3.7% | 3.6% | 2.9%[e] | 6.6% |
| Average | 22.6% | 19.4% | 15.9% | 15.2% | 10.3% | 3.6% | 3.4% | 3.0%[f] | 6.6% | ||
The results of a final poll from The Des Moines Register were not released as scheduled on February 1, after an interviewee complained that Pete Buttigieg was not given as a poll option during their interview, with the omission reportedly attributed to human error. As the polling firm was unable to determine whether the mistake was an isolated incident or not, pollster Ann Selzer decided to withhold the results of the poll altogether, marking the first time in 76 years that the final pre-caucus poll was not released by the Register.[19][20] The poll was later leaked on Twitter, with results confirmed by FiveThirtyEight showing Sanders in the lead with 22%, followed by Warren with 18%, Buttigieg with 16% and Biden with 13%.[21]
From December 2019
| Poll source | Date(s) administered |
Sample size[g] |
Margin of error |
Joe Biden |
Pete Buttigieg |
Tulsi Gabbard |
Amy Klobuchar |
Bernie Sanders |
Tom Steyer |
Elizabeth Warren |
Andrew Yang |
Other | Undecided |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Emerson College | Jan 30–Feb 2, 2020 | 853 (LV) | ± 3.3% | 21% | 15% | 1% | 11% | 28% | 4% | 14% | 5% | 2% | – |
| Data for Progress [1][h] | Jan 28–Feb 2, 2020 | 2,394 (LV) | ± 1.6% | 24%[i] | 22% | – | – | 28% | – | 25% | – | – | – |
| 18% | 18% | 2% | 9% | 22% | 4% | 19% | 6% | 2%[j] | – | ||||
| YouGov/CBS News (MRP) | Jan 22–31, 2020 | 1,835 (RV) | ± 3% | 25% | 21% | [k] | 5% | 25% | [k] | 16% | [k] | [k] | [k] |
| David Binder Research/Focus on Rural America | Jan 28–30, 2020 | 300 (LV) | ± 5.7% | 46%[l] | – | – | – | 40% | – | – | – | – | 14% |
| 15% | 19% | 3% | 11% | 17% | 3% | 15% | 1% | 2%[m] | 12% | ||||
| American Research Group | Jan 27–30, 2020 | 400 (LV) | ± 4.0% | 17% | 9% | 2% | 16% | 23% | 3% | 15% | 5% | 4%[n] | 6% |
| Civiqs/Data for Progress[h] | Jan 26–29, 2020 | 615 (LV) | ± 4.7% | 20%[o] | 18% | 1% | 0% | 31% | 2% | 25% | 1% | 1%[p] | 2% |
| 15% | 15% | 2% | 8% | 28% | 2% | 21% | 5% | 0%[q] | 2% | ||||
| Park Street Strategies | Jan 24–28, 2020 | 600 (LV) | ± 3.0% | 20% | 17% | 1% | 12% | 18% | 4% | 17% | 5% | <1%[r] | 6% |
| Monmouth University | Jan 23–27, 2020 | 544 (LV) | ± 4.2% | 29%[s] | 20% | – | – | 25% | – | 19% | – | 1%[t] | 6% |
| 22%[u] | 17% | – | 12% | 22% | – | 16% | 5% | <1%[v] | 6% | ||||
| 23% | 16% | 1% | 10% | 21% | 4% | 15% | 3% | 1%[w] | 5% | ||||
| Civiqs/Iowa State University | Jan 23–27, 2020 | 655 (LV) | ± 4.8% | 15% | 17% | 2% | 11% | 24% | 4% | 19% | 5% | 2%[x] | 3%[y] |
| Emerson College | Jan 23–26, 2020 | 450 (LV) | ± 4.6% | 21% | 10% | 5% | 13% | 30% | 5% | 11% | 5% | 2%[z] | – |
| Suffolk University/USA Today | Jan 23–26, 2020 | 500 (LV) | ± 4.4% | 25.4% | 17.6% | 0.8% | 5.6% | 18.6% | 2.2% | 13.2% | 3.0% | 13.6%[aa] | – |
| Change Research/Crooked Media | Jan 22–26, 2020 | 704 (LV) | ± 3.7% | 22%[ab] | 23% | – | – | 30% | – | 20% | – | – | 5% |
| 18% | 19% | 1% | 10% | 27% | 4% | 15% | 4% | 2%[ac] | – | ||||
| Siena College/New York Times | Jan 20–23, 2020 | 584 (LV) | ± 4.8% | 23%[ad] | 23% | – | – | 30% | – | 19% | – | – | 8%[ae] |
| 17% | 18% | 1% | 8% | 25% | 3% | 15% | 3% | 1%[af] | 8% | ||||
| Morningside College | Jan 17–23, 2020 | 253 (LV) | ± 6.2% | 19% | 18% | 3% | 12% | 15% | 6% | 15% | 4% | 2%[ag] | 4% |
| YouGov/CBS News | Jan 16–23, 2020 | 1401 (RV) | ± 3.9% | 25% | 22% | 0% | 7% | 26% | 1% | 15% | 1% | 2%[ah] | 1% |
| Civiqs/Data for Progress[h] | Jan 19–21, 2020 | 590 (LV) | ± 4.8% | 17% | 19% | 2% | 6% | 24% | 3% | 19% | 5% | 0%[ai] | 5% |
| David Binder Research/Focus on Rural America | Jan 15–18, 2020 | 500 (LV) | ± 4.4% | 24% | 16% | 1% | 11% | 14% | 4% | 18% | 3% | 2%[aj] | – |
| Neighbourhood Research and Media/Breitbart | Jan 14–17, 2020 | 300 (LV) | ± 4.8% | 23% | 17% | –[ak] | 11% | 10% | 2% | 15% | 2% | 6%[al] | 13% |
| Booker withdraws from the race | |||||||||||||
| Monmouth University | Jan 9–12, 2020 | 405 (LV) | ± 4.9% | 28%[am] | 25% | – | – | 24% | – | 16% | – | 2%[an] | 4% |
| 24% | 17% | 2% | 8% | 18% | 4% | 15% | 4% | 4%[ao] | 5% | ||||
| Selzer/CNN/Des Moines Register | January 2–8, 2020 | 701 (LV) | ± 3.7% | 15% | 16% | 2% | 6% | 20% | 2% | 17% | 5% | 2%[ap] | 11% |
| YouGov/CBS News | Dec 27, 2019–Jan 3, 2020 | 953 (RV) | ± 3.8% | 23% | 23% | 1% | 7% | 23% | 2% | 16% | 2% | 2%[aq] | 1% |
| Civiqs/Iowa State University | Dec 12–16, 2019 | 632 (LV) | ± 4.9% | 15% | 24% | 3% | 4% | 21% | 2% | 18% | 3% | 4%[ar] | 4% |
| Emerson College | Dec 7–10, 2019 | 325 (LV) | ± 5.4% | 23% | 18% | 2% | 10% | 22% | 3% | 12% | 2% | 8%[as] | – |
| Harris withdraws from the race | |||||||||||||
November 2019
| Poll source | Date(s) administered |
Sample size[g] |
Margin of error |
Joe Biden |
Pete Buttigieg |
Tulsi Gabbard |
Kamala Harris |
Amy Klobuchar |
Bernie Sanders |
Tom Steyer |
Elizabeth Warren |
Andrew Yang |
Other | Undecided |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Civiqs/Iowa State University | Nov 15–19, 2019 | 614 (LV) | ± 4.9% | 12% | 26% | 2% | 2% | 5% | 18% | 2% | 19% | 4% | 6%[at] | 3% |
| Des Moines Register/CNN | Nov 8–13, 2019 | 500 (LV) | ± 4.4% | 15% | 25% | 3% | 3% | 6% | 15% | 3% | 16% | 3% | 6%[au] | 5% |
| YouGov/CBS News | Nov 6–13, 2019 | 856 (RV) | ± 4.1% | 22% | 21% | 0% | 5% | 5% | 22% | 2% | 18% | 1% | 4%[av] | – |
| Monmouth University | Nov 7–11, 2019 | 451 (LV) | ± 4.6% | 19% | 22% | 2% | 3% | 5% | 13% | 3% | 18% | 3% | 6%[aw] | 8% |
| University of Iowa | Oct 28–Nov 10, 2019 | 465 (LV) | ± 4.6% | 15% | 16% | 3% | 2% | 1% | 18% | 3% | 23% | 3% | 2%[ax] | 13% |
| Public Policy Polling | Nov 5–6, 2019 | 715 (LV) | – | 13% | 20% | – | 3% | 9% | 14% | 6% | 21% | 3% | – | 10% |
| Quinnipiac University | Oct 30–Nov 5, 2019 | 698 (LV) | ± 4.5% | 15% | 19% | 3% | 4% | 5% | 17% | 3% | 20% | 3% | 4%[ay] | 8% |
| O'Rourke withdraws from the race | ||||||||||||||
Until November 2019
| Poll source | Date(s) administered |
Sample size[g] |
Margin of error |
Joe Biden |
Cory Booker |
Pete Buttigieg |
Kamala Harris |
Amy Klobuchar |
Beto O'Rourke |
Bernie Sanders |
Elizabeth Warren |
Other | Undecided |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Siena College/New York Times | Oct 25–30, 2019 | 439 (LV) | ± 4.7% | 17% | 2% | 18% | 3% | 4% | 1% | 19% | 22% | 8%[az] | 6% |
| Civiqs/Iowa State University | Oct 18–22, 2019 | 598 (LV) | ± 5% | 12% | 1% | 20% | 3% | 4% | 1% | 18% | 28% | 8%[bb] | 4% |
| Suffolk University/USA Today | Oct 16–18, 2019 | 500 (LV) | ± 4.4% | 18% | 1% | 13% | 3% | 3% | 1% | 9% | 17% | 7%[bc] | 29% |
| Emerson College | Oct 13–16, 2019 | 317 (LV) | ± 5.5% | 23% | 3% | 16% | 2% | 1% | 0% | 13% | 23% | 15%[bd] | – |
| Firehouse Strategies/Øptimus | Oct 8–10, 2019 | 548 (LV) | ± 3.6% | 22% | 2% | 17% | 3% | –[be] | 1% | 5% | 25% | 26%[bf] | –[be] |
| YouGov/CBS News | Oct 3–11, 2019 | 729 (RV) | ±4.6% | 22% | 2% | 14% | 5% | 2% | 2% | 21% | 22% | 7%[bg] | – |
| Selzer/CNN/Des Moines Register [2] | Sep 14–18, 2019 | 602 (LV) | ± 4.0% | 20% | 3% | 9% | 6% | 3% | 2% | 11% | 22% | 11%[bh] | 14% |
| David Binder Research | Sep 14–17, 2019 | 500 (LV) | ± 4.4% | 25% | 2% | 12% | 5% | 8% | 1% | 9% | 23% | 9%[bi] | 6% |
| Civiqs/Iowa State University | Sep 13–17, 2019 | 572 (LV) | ± 5.2% | 16% | 2% | 13% | 5% | 3% | 2% | 16% | 24% | 11%[bj] | 8% |
| YouGov/CBS News | Aug 28–Sep 4, 2019 | 835 | ± 4.3% | 29% | 2% | 7% | 6% | 2% | 2% | 26% | 17% | 9%[bk] | – |
| Change Research | Aug 9–11, 2019 | 621 (LV) | ± 3.9% | 17% | 3% | 13% | 8% | 2% | 3% | 17% | 28% | 9%[bl] | – |
| Monmouth University | Aug 1–4, 2019 | 401 (LV) | ± 4.9% | 28% | 1% | 8% | 11% | 3% | <1% | 9% | 19% | 11%[bm] | 10% |
| Firehouse Strategies/Øptimus | Jul 23–25, 2019 | 630 | ± 3.3% | 23% | 2% | 7% | 12% | – | 2% | 11% | 23% | 4% | 16% |
| YouGov/CBS News | Jul 9–18, 2019 | 706 | ± 4.4% | 24% | 3% | 7% | 16% | 4% | 1% | 19% | 17% | 9%[bn] | – |
| Steyer announces his candidacy | |||||||||||||
| Change Research | Jun 29–Jul 4, 2019 | 420 (LV) | – | 16% | 1% | 25% | 16% | 1% | 2% | 16% | 18% | 5%[bo] | – |
| David Binder Research | Jun 29–Jul 1, 2019 | 600 | ± 4.0% | 17% | 2% | 10% | 18% | 4% | 1% | 12% | 20% | 9%[bp] | 9% |
| Suffolk University/USA Today | Jun 28–Jul 1, 2019 | 500 | ± 4.4% | 24% | 2% | 6% | 16% | 2% | 1% | 9% | 13% | 6%[bq] | 21% |
| Change Research | Jun 17–20, 2019 | 308 (LV) | – | 27% | 5% | 17% | 4% | 2% | 1% | 18% | 20% | 7%[br] | – |
| Selzer/CNN/Des Moines Register | Jun 2–5, 2019 | 600 | ± 4.0% | 24% | 1% | 14% | 7% | 2% | 2% | 16% | 15% | 6%[bs] | 6% |
| Change Research | May 15–19, 2019 | 615 (LV) | ± 3.9% | 24% | 1% | 14% | 10% | 2% | 5% | 24% | 12% | 9%[bt] | – |
| Firehouse Strategies/Øptimus | Apr 30–May 2, 2019 | 576 | ± 4.1% | 35% | 2% | 11% | 5% | 4% | 3% | 14% | 10% | – | 16% |
| Biden announces his candidacy | |||||||||||||
| Gravis Marketing | Apr 17–18, 2019 | 590 | ± 4.0% | 19% | 4% | 14% | 6% | 4% | 5% | 19% | 6% | 7%[bu] | 16% |
| Buttigieg announces his candidacy | |||||||||||||
| Monmouth University | Apr 4–9, 2019 | 351 | ± 5.2% | 27% | 3% | 9% | 7% | 4% | 6% | 16% | 7% | 7%[bv] | 12% |
| David Binder Research | Mar 21–24, 2019 | 500 | ± 4.4% | 25% | 7% | 6% | 9% | 6% | 6% | 17% | 8% | 9%[bw] | 7% |
| Emerson College | Mar 21–24, 2019 | 249 | ± 6.2% | 25% | 6% | 11% | 10% | 2% | 5% | 24% | 9% | 8%[bx] | – |
| Public Policy Polling (D)[by] | Mar 14–15, 2019 | 678 | – | 29% | 4% | – | 5% | 6% | 7% | 15% | 8% | 4% | 22% |
| O'Rourke announces his candidacy | |||||||||||||
| Selzer/CNN/Des Moines Register | Mar 3–6, 2019 | 401 | ± 4.9% | 27% | 3% | 1% | 7% | 3% | 5% | 25% | 9% | 5%[bz] | 10% |
| Sanders announces his candidacy | |||||||||||||
| Klobuchar announces her candidacy | |||||||||||||
| Warren announces her candidacy | |||||||||||||
| Firehouse Strategies/Øptimus | Jan 31–Feb 2, 2019 | 558 | ± 3.6% | 25% | 4% | – | 17% | 5% | 4% | 10% | 11% | 1%[ca] | 25% |
| Emerson College | Jan 30–Feb 2, 2019 | 260 | ± 6.0% | 29% | 4% | 0% | 18% | 3% | 6% | 15% | 11% | 15%[cb] | – |
| Booker announces his candidacy | |||||||||||||
| Harris announces her candidacy | |||||||||||||
| Gabbard announces her candidacy | |||||||||||||
| Change Research | Dec 13–17, 2018 | 1,291 (LV) | – | 20% | 4% | – | 7% | 5% | 19% | 20% | 7% | 18%[cc] | – |
| Selzer/CNN/Des Moines Register | Dec 10–13, 2018 | 455 | ± 4.6% | 32% | 4% | – | 5% | 3% | 11% | 19% | 8% | 7%[cd] | 6% |
| David Binder Research | Dec 10–11, 2018 | 500 | ± 4.4% | 30% | 6% | – | 7% | 10% | 11% | 13% | 9% | 8%[ce] | 6% |
| David Binder Research | Sep 20–23, 2018 | 500 | ± 4.4% | 37% | 8% | – | 10% | – | – | 12% | 16% | 6%[cf] | 9% |
| Yang announces his candidacy | |||||||||||||
| Public Policy Polling (D)[cg] | Mar 3–6, 2017 | 1,062 | – | – | 17% | – | 3% | 11% | – | – | – | 34%[ch] | 32% |
Results
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
The final statewide total of "initial alignment votes" and "final alignment votes" is not used to determine the statewide number of "State Delegate Equivalents" (SDEs) won; instead, a number of SDEs can be won in each of the 1,678 precinct caucuses and 99 satellite caucuses based upon the final alignment votes in each specific precinct. The final statewide total of SDEs won by each presidential candidate represents the accumulated SDE results of all precinct caucuses and satellite caucuses. The number of "national pledged delegates" is determined proportionally to the candidate's total number of SDEs won statewide and in each of the state's four congressional districts, but only for those candidates who won more than a 15.0% share of the SDE's statewide or in the specific district.[1]
| Candidate | Initial alignment |
Final alignment |
State delegate equivalents |
National pledged delegates | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Votes | %[cj] | Votes | %[ck] | Number | %[cl] | ||
| Pete Buttigieg | 36,718 | 21.3 | 42,235 | 25.0 | 550 | 26.2 | 13 |
| Bernie Sanders | 42,672 | 24.7 | 44,753 | 26.5 | 547 | 26.1 | 11 |
| Elizabeth Warren | 32,007 | 18.6 | 34,312 | 20.3 | 381 | 18.2 | 7 |
| Joe Biden | 25,699 | 14.9 | 23,051 | 13.7 | 331 | 15.8 | 5 |
| Amy Klobuchar | 21,896 | 12.7 | 20,525 | 12.2 | 255 | 12.2 | TBD |
| Andrew Yang | 8,660 | 5.0 | 1,752 | 1.0 | 22 | 1.0 | 0 |
| Tom Steyer | 3,001 | 1.7 | 407 | 0.2 | 7 | 0.3 | 0 |
| Michael Bloomberg | 214 | 0.1 | 20 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |
| Tulsi Gabbard | 326 | 0.2 | 15 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |
| Michael Bennet | 146 | 0.1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |
| Deval Patrick | 49 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Uncommitted | 955 | 0.6 | 1,410 | 0.8 | 4 | 0.2 | 0 |
| Other | 167 | 0.1 | 204 | 0.1 | 1 | 0.0 | 0 |
| Totals | 172,510[ci] | 100%[ci] | 168,685[ci] | 100%[ci] | 2,098[cm] | 100%[ci] | 36 of 41[cn] |
| Last updated: February 5, 11:37 pm (UTC–6) | |||||||
Participation in the 2020 caucuses (172,510 votes after counting the results from 97% of the precincts) was only slightly higher compared to the 171,517 people who participated in the 2016 Iowa Democratic caucuses.[26]
Delay in final results
Up until February 4 at 4:00 p.m. local time, the Iowa Democratic Party (IDP) had not reported any final results due to what a party spokesperson described as "quality checks".[27] According to The New York Times, a new app-based reporting system may have been responsible for the delay, with Sean Bagniewski, the Polk County Democratic Party chairman, reporting that only "20% of his 177 precinct chairs" could access the app.[28] In a statement released on February 3 at 10:30 p.m. local time, IDP communications director Mandy McClure stated that "inconsistencies" had been found in the three sets of results. However, McClure also assured that the delay was not the result of a "hack or intrusion" and that the overall results are "sound".[29] During the delay in the release of final results, the campaigns of Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders both released incomplete results taken by their respective precinct captains, respectively showing the two candidates as having won the caucus. Also during the delay, Amy Klobuchar's campaign manager, Justin Buoen, claimed that Klobuchar either exceeded or equaled the number of votes that Joe Biden received.[30]
Problems encountered included usage and interface failures of an app designed to report final vote tallies for Iowa precinct captains; a backlog of phone calls to the state vote-reporting hotline, including at least one case of a precinct captain being placed off of an hour-long hold only for the hotline attendant to immediately hang up on him; confusion about coin flips to decide delegates; the need to use backup paper ballots to verify the results; and discrepancies between backup paper ballots and tallies by precinct captains.[31] Data had to be entered manually, which took longer than expected.[32]
The morning after the caucus, Iowa Democratic Party Chair Troy Price issued a clarifying statement, reiterating that he did not believe there was a "cyber security intrusion", and that "data collected via the app was sound". Rather, due to a "coding issue in the reporting system", the app was reporting out only "partial data" from what had been recorded. This flaw was verified by comparison to the paper vote records and examination of the underlying data recorded by the app.[33] The Iowa Democratic Party said in a statement that it planned to release partial results at 4:00 p.m. local time on Tuesday, nearly a full day after caucuses began.[34]
Voting app
The app was developed by Shadow Inc.; according to New York magazine and The Washington Post, the company received money from the Biden, Buttigieg and Kirsten Gillibrand campaigns.[35][36] Biden's campaign paid the firm $1,225 for text messaging, Buttigieg's campaign paid $42,500 for software service and Gillibrand's campaign paid $37,400 for software, text and fundraising services.[35]
Kasra Rahjerdi, an app development expert, analysed the app and said "the app was clearly done by someone following a tutorial. It’s similar to projects I do with my mentees who are learning how to code". A team of researchers at Stanford University, including former Facebook chief security officer Alex Stamos, said that while analyzing the app, they found potentially concerning code within it, including hard-coded API keys.[37]
Inconsistencies in votes
During the initial release of the results, it was noted that some of the data being reported was inconsistent, flawed or entirely impossible. According to The New York Times, more than 100 precincts reported incorrect results. Most common errors included wrong number of delegates being allotted to candidates and disparities in numbers released by the Iowa Democratic Party and those reported by precincts.[38] This quickly gave rise to a number of conspiracy theories online that were accusing the Democratic Party of corruption and cheating in favor of Buttigieg.[39] Eric Trump, Donald Trump Jr., and Sen. Lindsey Graham were some of the political figures that promoted this claim.[40]
Footnotes
- ^ Calculated by taking the difference of 100% and all other candidates combined
- ^ Gabbard with 1.8%; Bloomberg with 1.3%; Bennet with 0.5%; Patrick not reported
- ^ Gabbard with 1.5%; Bloomberg with 1.0%; Bennet and Patrick not reported
- ^ FiveThirtyEight aggregates polls with a trendline regression of polls rather than a strict average of recent polls.
- ^ Gabbard and Bloomberg with 1.2%; Bennet with 0.4%; Patrick with 0.1%
- ^ Gabbard with 1.5%; Bloomberg with 1.2%; Bennet with 0.3%; Patrick with 0.0%
- ^ a b c Key: A – all adults; RV – registered voters; LV – likely voters; V – unclear.
- ^ a b c By the time of the sampling period, Data for Progress had endorsed the Elizabeth Warren 2020 presidential campaign
- ^ After reallocation of delegates from candidates estimated to not clear the viability threshold in each precinct
- ^ Bloomberg with 2%
- ^ a b c d e Data not yet released, but all other candidates each have <5%
- ^ If the contest came down to Biden and Sanders
- ^ Bloomberg and Delaney with 1%; Bennet and Patrick with 0%
- ^ Bloomberg with 2%; Bennet and Patrick with 0%; others with 2%
- ^ Re-allocating support to second choice for candidates receiving <15% of first choice votes
- ^ Bennet with 1%; Delaney with 0%
- ^ Bennet and Delaney with 0%
- ^ Bloomberg with <1%
- ^ If only the four candidates listed were viable in the voters' caucus sites
- ^ "None of these/won't caucus" with 1%
- ^ If only the six candidates listed were viable in the voters' caucus sites
- ^ "None of these/won't caucus" with <1%
- ^ Bennet with 1%; Delaney and Patrick with 0%; other with <1%; "no one" with 0%
- ^ Bloomberg and Delaney with 1%; Bennet and Patrick with 0%
- ^ Reported as "Unsure"
- ^ Delaney with 1%; Bennet and Patrick with 0%; Someone Else with 1%
- ^ Patrick with 0.2%; Bennet and Delaney with 0.0%; "Other/Please Specify" with 0.4%; "Don't Know/Refused" with 13%
- ^ If voters could choose only one of Biden, Buttigieg, Sanders or Warren
- ^ Delaney and Patrick with 1%; Bennet with 0%
- ^ If the field is narrowed to these top four candidates
- ^ Listed as "don't know/refused"
- ^ Bloomberg with 1%; Bennet, Delaney, and Patrick with 0%
- ^ Bennet, Bloomberg and Delaney with 1%; Patrick with 0%
- ^ Delaney with 1%; Bennet and Patrick with 0%; someone else with 1%
- ^ Bennet and Delaney with 0%
- ^ Bennet and Bloomberg with 1%; Delaney and Patrick with 0%
- ^ Not listed separately from "others"
- ^ Trump with 5%; "others" with 2%
- ^ If the only viable candidates to caucus for were the four listed in this poll
- ^ "None of these/wouldn't vote" with 2%
- ^ Booker with 4%, Bennet and Delaney with <1%, Patrick with 0%, Other with <1%
- ^ Booker with 3%; Bloomberg with 1%; Bennet, Castro, Delaney, Patrick and Williamson with 0%; someone else with 1%
- ^ Booker with 2%; Bennet, Castro, Delaney, Patrick and Williamson with 0%; someone else with 1%
- ^ Booker with 3%; Castro with 1%; Delaney, Bloomberg, Bennet, Williamson with 0%
- ^ Booker with 4%; Bloomberg with 2%; Bennet, Castro, Delaney, Patrick and Williamson with 0%; someone else with 2%
- ^ Bennet, Bloomberg, Booker, Bullock, Castro and Williamson with 1%; Delaney, Messam, Patrick and Sestak with 0%
- ^ Booker with 3%; Bloomberg with 2%; Bennet with 1%; Bullock, Castro, Delaney, Sestak and Williamson with 0%; none with 2%
- ^ Booker, Bullock, and Castro with 1%, Messam, Delaney, Bennet, Williamson, and Sestak with 0%, "Someone else" with 1%
- ^ Booker with 2%; Bullock and Castro with 1%; Bennet, Bloomberg, Delaney, and Williamson with <1%; Sestak with 0%
- ^ Castro with 1%; Bennet, Booker, Bullock, Delaney, O'Rourke and Ryan with 0%
- ^ Bennett, Booker, Bullock and Castro with 1%; Delaney, Messam, Sestak and Williamson with 0%
- ^ Yang with 3%; Gabbard and Steyer with 2%; Delaney with 1%; Bennet, Bullock, Castro, Messam, Sestak and Williamson with 0%
- ^ As evidenced by Sestak being listed in second choices but not first preferences and the lack of an 'other' column in the first preferences topline
- ^ Steyer with 3%; Gabbard and Yang with 2%; Bennet with 1%; Bullock, Castro, Delaney, Ryan and Williamson with 0%; Messam and Sestak with no voters[ba]
- ^ Gabbard and Steyer with 3%; Yang with 1%; Delaney, Ryan and Williamson with 0%; Bennet, Bullock, Castro, Messam and Sestak with no voters; refused with 0%
- ^ Yang with 5%; Bullock with 4%; Gabbard and Steyer with 2%; Bennet and Williamson with 1%; Castro with 0%; Delaney, Messam, Ryan and Sestak with no voters; everyone else with 4%
- ^ a b The poll did not announce this result separately; it is listed as part of 'Other'.
- ^ Yang with 1%; a different Democratic candidate, don't know, or refused with 25%
- ^ Steyer with 3%; Bennet, Gabbard, Williamson, and Ryan with 1%, Bullock, Castro, Delaney, Messam, Sestak, and Yang with 0%; "someone else" with 0%
- ^ Gabbard, Steyer, and Yang with 2%, Bullock, Castro, and Delaney with 1%, Bennet, de Blasio, Ryan, Sestak, and Williamson with 0%; "none of these" with 2%
- ^ Steyer with 3%; Yang with 2%; Bullock, Castro, Delaney and Gabbard with 1%; Bennet, de Blasio, Messam, Ryan, Sestak and Williamson with 0%
- ^ Gabbard with 4%; Yang with 3%; Steyer with 2%; Ryan and Williamson with 1%; Bennet, de Blasio, Bullock, Castro and Delaney with 0%
- ^ Steyer with 2%; Castro, de Blasio, Delaney, Gabbard and Yang with 1%; Bennet, Bullock, Messam, Ryan, Sestak and Williamson with 0%; someone else with 2%
- ^ Bullock, Gabbard, and Steyer with 2%; Bennet, Castro, and Yang with 1%; Delaney, Gillibrand, Hickenlooper, Messam, and Williamson with 0%
- ^ Steyer with 3%; Gillibrand and Yang with 2%; Bullock, Delaney, Gabbard, and Hickenlooper with 1%; Bennet, Castro, Inslee, O'Rourke, and Williamson with <1%; de Blasio, Messam, Moulton, Ryan, and Sestak with 0%
- ^ Castro and Steyer with 2%; Delaney, Gillibrand, Hickenlooper, and Sestak with 1%; Bennet, Bullock, de Blasio, Gabbard, Gravel, Inslee, Messam, Moulton, Ryan, Williamson, and Yang with 0%
- ^ Castro, Delaney, Gabbard, Gillibrand, Inslee, Swalwell, and Yang with 1%; Bennet, Bullock, Gravel, Hickenlooper, Moulton, Ryan, and Williamson with 0%
- ^ Bennet, Bullock, Castro, de Blasio, Delaney, Gabbard, Gillibrand, Williamson, and Yang with 1%; Hickenlooper, Inslee, Ryan, and Swalwell with <1%; Messam and Moulton with 0%; others with <1%
- ^ Bennet, Castro, Delaney, Gabbard, and Yang with 1%; Bullock, de Blasio, Gillibrand, Gravel, Hickenlooper, Inslee, Messam, Moulton, Ryan, Sestak, Swalwell, and Williamson with 0%; others with 1%
- ^ Delaney with 2%; Castro, Gabbard, Gravel, Moulton, and Yang with 1%; Bullock, de Blasio, Gillibrand, Hickenlooper, Inslee, Messam, Ryan, Swalwell, and Williamson with 0%
- ^ Bennet, Castro, Delaney, Gabbard, Inslee, and Yang with 1%; Bullock, Gillibrand, Hickenlooper, Moulton, Ryan, Swalwell, and Williamson with <1%; de Blasio and Messam with 0%
- ^ Yang with 2%; Abrams, Delaney, Gabbard, Gillibrand, Hickenlooper, Inslee, and Swalwell with 1%; Bennet, Bullock, Castro, Ryan, and Williamson with 0%
- ^ Delaney with 2%; Gabbard, Gillibrand, Gravel, Hickenlooper, and Yang with 1%; Castro and Inslee with 0%
- ^ Castro with 2%; Delaney, Gillibrand, Ryan, Swalwell, and Yang with 1%; Bullock, de Blasio, Gabbard, and Inslee with <1%; Bennet, Hickenlooper, McAuliffe, Messam, Moulton, and Williamson with 0%
- ^ Delaney with 3%; Castro, Gabbard, Gillibrand, Inslee, Swalwell, and Yang with 1%; Bullock, Hickenlooper, and Williamson with <1%; Bennet and McAuliffe with 0%; others with <1%
- ^ Castro, Gabbard, Hickenlooper, and Inslee with 1%; Gillibrand and Yang with 0%; others with 4%
- ^ Poll sponsored by End Citizens United
- ^ Bennet, Bullock, Castro, Delaney, and Inslee with 1%; Bloomberg, de Blasio, Gabbard, Gillibrand, Hickenlooper, Holder, Swalwell, Williamson, and Yang with <1%
- ^ Gillibrand with 1%
- ^ Brown with 4%; Castro with 2%; Delaney and Gillibrand with 1%; Gabbard and Yang with 0%; others with 8%
- ^ Kennedy with 5%; Clinton with 4%; Brown with 2%; Bloomberg, Castro, Cuomo, Delaney, Gillibrand, Kerry, and Swalwell with 1%; Holder, McAuliffe, Schultz, and Steyer with 0%
- ^ Bloomberg with 3%; Brown, Castro, Delaney, and Hickenlooper with 1%; Bullock, Garcetti, Gillibrand, Holder, Inslee, Steyer, Swalwell, and Yang with <1%
- ^ Brown with 3%; Bloomberg and Kerry with 2%; Delaney with 1%; Garcetti with 0%; others with <1%
- ^ Gillibrand and Holder with 2%; Avenatti and Delaney with 1%; Bullock, Garcetti, Landrieu, and Patrick with <1%; others with 1%
- ^ Poll sponsored by O'Say Can You See PAC, the PAC that supported O'Malley in 2016
- ^ O'Malley with 18%; Cuomo with 8%; Castro and Sandberg with 4%; Gillibrand with 3%; Schultz with 1%
- ^ a b c d e f 1,711 of 1,765 precincts reporting, or 97% of the vote.
- ^ Percentage of the vote each candidate received on initial alignment.
- ^ Percentage of the vote each candidate received after candidates below the 15% viability threshold at each precinct were removed and their voters realigned into viable groups.
- ^ Percentage of state delegate equivalents reported so far that was earned by each candidate.
- ^ Total reported out of 2,107
- ^ 5 out of 41 national pledged delegates were not yet won by any candidate, still awaiting the final results of the remaining 3% of precincts.[1]
References
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m "Iowa Democratic Delegation 2020". The Green Papers. February 6, 2020. Retrieved February 6, 2020.
- ^ Partz, Helen (February 5, 2020). "App Used in Iowa Caucus Isn't Mobile Voting, Blockchain Voting App Says". Cointelegraph. Retrieved February 5, 2020.
- ^ Jeff Bercovici, Suhuana Hussain (February 4, 2020). "App made by Clinton campaign veterans' firm is behind Iowa caucuses debacle". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved February 5, 2020.
- ^ Moore, Mark; Jacobs, Emily (February 5, 2020). "Biden's campaign also was client of tech company behind glitchy Iowa voting app". New York Post. Retrieved February 5, 2020.
- ^ Jack Gillum, Jessica Huseman (February 5, 2020). "The Iowa Caucuses App Had Another Problem: It Could Have Been Hacked". ProPublica. Retrieved February 5, 2020.
- ^ Statt, Nick (February 5, 2020). "Motherboard just published the terrible app that caused chaos at the Iowa caucuses". The Verge. Retrieved February 6, 2020.
- ^ Corse, Emily Glazer, Deepa Seetharaman and Alexa (February 6, 2020). "The Shoestring App Developer Behind the Iowa Caucus Debacle". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved February 6, 2020.
{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Marantz, Andrew (February 6, 2020). "Inside Acronym, the Tech Consultancy Behind the Disastrous Iowa-Caucus App". The New Yorker. Retrieved February 6, 2020.
- ^ Keller, Jon. "Exclusive NH Tracking Poll: Sanders Continues To Lead, Buttigieg Closing In". CBS News Boston. Retrieved February 5, 2020.
- ^ a b "Iowa caucuses – frequently asked questions". Iowa Democratic Party. Retrieved January 30, 2020.
- ^ Domenico Montanaro (January 30, 2020). "How The Iowa Caucuses Work — And Why They're Important". NPR. Retrieved January 30, 2020.
- ^ a b "2020 Iowa Democratic Party Caucus: Caucus 101". Iowa Democratic Party. Retrieved January 31, 2020.
- ^ a b "Iowa Caucuses: Key changes" (PDF)). Iowa Democratic Party. January 8, 2020. Retrieved January 31, 2020.
- ^ Pfannenstiel, Brianne (February 11, 2019). "How Democrats hope to let Iowans participate in the caucuses without showing up in person". The Des Moines Register. Retrieved April 12, 2019.
- ^ Natasha Korecki (August 30, 2019). "DNC throws Iowa, Nevada caucuses into confusion". Politico. Retrieved January 21, 2020.
- ^ Natasha Korecki (September 20, 2019). "Iowa Dems pitch out-of-state caucuses". Politico. Retrieved January 21, 2020.
- ^ Suzanne Gamboa (January 30, 2020). "In a nod to Spanish-speaking Latino voters, Iowa caucus will feature bilingual sites". NBC News.
- ^ Natasha Korecki; Steven Shepard (January 16, 2020). "The caucus change that has Iowa bracing for a hot mess". Politico. Retrieved January 21, 2020.
- ^ Shepard, Steven; Schneider, Elena (February 1, 2020). "Des Moines Register poll scrapped after apparent mishap". Politico. Archived from the original on February 2, 2020. Retrieved February 1, 2020.
- ^ Lerer, Lisa; Martin, Jonathan; Grynbaum, Michael M. (February 1, 2020). "Des Moines Register Poll of Iowa Caucusgoers Abruptly Shelved". The New York Times. Archived from the original on February 2, 2020. Retrieved February 2, 2020.
- ^ Clare Malone [@ClareMalone] (February 4, 2020). "We can confirm the final results of the unreleased Iowa Poll: Sanders 22% Warren 18% Buttigieg 16% Biden 13%" (Tweet) – via Twitter.
- ^ "Live: Iowa Caucus Results 2020". The New York Times. February 3, 2020. Retrieved February 5, 2020.
- ^ "Iowa Live Results: 2020 Democratic Caucuses". The Washington Post. February 4, 2020. Retrieved February 5, 2020.
- ^ "The 2020 Iowa caucuses". CNN. February 3, 2020. Retrieved February 5, 2020.
- ^ "Iowa Caucus Results 2020". NBC News. February 3, 2020. Retrieved February 5, 2020.
- ^ Statement from IDP Chair on Tonight’s Historically Close Caucus Results Iowa Democratic Party. 2 February 2016.
- ^ The New York Times (February 4, 2020). "Results in Iowa Caucuses Are Delayed: Live Updates". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved February 4, 2020.
- ^ Corasaniti, Nick; Frenkel, Sheera (February 3, 2020). "User-Error Problems With Mobile App for Iowa Caucuses Prompt Online Confusion". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved February 4, 2020.
- ^ Meg Magner, Amanda Wills (February 3, 2020). "Iowa Democrats say there are "inconsistencies in the reporting" of results". CNN. Retrieved February 4, 2020.
- ^ Forgey, Quint (February 4, 2020). "Bernie and Buttigieg elbow each other trying to declare victory in Iowa". Politico. Retrieved February 4, 2020.
- ^ Raffa, Greg A. (February 4, 2020). "Iowa caucus vote totals delayed amid 'inconsistencies'; campaigns lash out at 'crazy' state party". Fox News. Retrieved February 4, 2020.
- ^ Quinn Scanlan; Kendall Karson; Meg Cunningham. "Iowa caucus: What we know and what went wrong". ABC News. Retrieved February 4, 2020.
- ^ "READ: Iowa Democratic Party statement on caucus reporting". CNN. February 4, 2020. Retrieved February 4, 2020.
- ^ Times, The New York (February 4, 2020). "Iowa Democratic Party Says 'Coding Issue' Delayed Results: Live Updates". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved February 4, 2020.
- ^ a b Ye Hee Lee, Michelle (February 4, 2020). "Shadow Inc., which built the Iowa caucus app, received money from Buttigieg and Biden campaigns". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 4, 2020.
- ^ Matt Stieb (February 4, 2020). "Iowa Results 2020: Live Updates". New York Magazine. Retrieved February 4, 2020.
- ^ Jason Koebler; Joseph Cox; Emanuel Maiberg (February 5, 2020). "An 'Off-the-Shelf, Skeleton Project': Experts Analyze the App That Broke Iowa". Motherboard.
- ^ Cohn, Nate; Katz, Josh; Lu, Denise; Smart, Charles; Smithgall, Ben; Fischer, Andrew (February 6, 2020). "Iowa Caucus Results Riddled With Errors and Inconsistencies". The New York Times.
- ^ Seitz, Amanda; Klepper, David (February 5, 2020). "Online conspiracy theories flourish after Iowa caucus fiasco". The Associated Press. Retrieved February 6, 2020.
- ^ Smith, Allan; Pettypiece, Shannon; Collins, Ben (February 4, 2020). "Trump's campaign shouts 'rigged' as Iowa caucuses thrown into chaos". NBC News. Retrieved February 6, 2020.