The last Iowa poll of the caucus season will be released Feb. 1

Caucuses have always favored Bernie. Would not be surprised if he wins. Thank god it's only one though. He needs to win a lot more to become the nominee.

Drama ten minutes before the poll is scheduled to be released...

[quote]News: The @DMRegister is weighing whether to release their @jaselzer poll as planned tonight after @PeteButtigieg camp complained that his name was left off at least one survey questionnaire

Nate Silver...

[quote]I have also heard this. [about Selzer poll leaving Pete out]

[quote] in conjunction with a live reveal on CNN.

CNN is so fuck'n cheesy.

[quote]Confirmed: @cnn has cancelled their presentation of the @DMRegister poll that had been slated for 8 Central.

I'm surprised they didn't plan an unboxing on YouTube as well

If CNN didn't have a count down clock to the release of this poll it couldn't have been that important. Only important things get a count down clock.

It's been pulled from the front page of the Des Moines Register print edition. In other words, the poll has been scrapped.

And by the way, this isn't the last Iowa poll, just the last Selzer gold standard poll. We're getting two Iowa polls tomorrow - Emerson and Fox.

Now it will get even MORE attention.

r10 It won't be released unless someone hacks the DMR or CNN website, where there might be some digital trace of it left.

While we're waiting...

NOT HAPPENING. EVER.

I wonder how Pete found out his name was left out. An insider in the pollster?

in r13 link

[quote]Today, a respondent raised an issue with the way the survey was administered, which could have compromised the results of the poll. It appears a candidate’s name was omitted in at least one interview in which the respondent was asked to name their preferred candidate.

[quote]While this appears to be isolated to one surveyor, we cannot confirm that with certainty. Therefore, the partners made the difficult decision to not to move forward with releasing the Iowa Poll.

r14 A Pete supporter who got polled contacted the campaign. He said they omitted Pete's name and when he told them that, they came up with a correct list and then mispronounced his name.

But now there's talk that it has happened several times (because they're all reading off the same script), so they pulled it.

[quote]Iowa City man reported to Team Buttigieg that the poll taker who called him didn’t name Buttigieg in the list of candidates, and told him her computer was glitching.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the Bros have been convinced that this is a plot by the DNC establishment.

Pete runs for President ONCE and this happens... ICONIC

r19 Yes, the Bros on Twitter are convinced that Benrie must have crushed it and the Yang Gangers are saying Yang gets left out of articles all the time, so this shouldn't be an issue. 🤦‍♂️

Tomorrow's shitty Emerson poll with a hard Bernie bias should only confirm their conspiracy theories.

Some on Twitter are saying the poll has been suppressed by CNN because Sanders's results would be too high.

Don’t be so stupid and gullible to believe every internet conspiracy theory, fool!

Computer glitch could be some hanky panky from the you-know-whos.

They've been doing this to Pete for a while so they can boost Warren and Biden. They just got busted that's all.

Font sizes to blame!

[quote]More on Iowa Poll problems:

[quote]Poll operators read off a list of candidates' names to voters. One operator enlarged the font size on their screen, perhaps cutting off Mr. Buttigieg's name from the menu of options, per person familiar. The candidate list is randomized after every call, so Pete may not have been uniquely affected, if this was indeed an ongoing problem. But it was enough to rattle confidence in the results, per person familiar.

Good - they should have canceled since it appears to not be just an isolated incident and could have potentially affected other candidates too, not just Pete.

Fuck CNN for even trying to make some prime time tv spectacle out of a single poll and fuck all the Bernie Bros on Twitter crying “conspiracy by the DNC/Pete!!!”

And props to Ana Cabrera for using her words in a pinch!

Can't wait for Super Tuesday. Sick of hearing of these two small states.

Imagine if it were revealed Bernie's name was left out instead... Twitter would melt down.

Caucuses always favor loud screaming abrasive men who no one else wants to be near.

If Bernie's name had been left off a list, heads would be rolling at the Des Moines Register. Literally. The Bros would come with pitchforks.

Good for Pete's team for bringing this to Selzer's attention. Selzer would not have cancelled the poll if they were not able to confirm the issue. And I'm sure they suspect it's bigger than just one person (or they would have removed that questioner's surveys and ran with it).

Oh, and Pete is legendary. The Register ran this poll for 76 years, and it took Pete to call shenanigans.

Have to correct myself - Emerson and YouGov polls of Iowa come out tomorrow, not Fox. And they're both... not great pollsters of primaries, in addition to the fact that polling a large field before a caucus is a nightmare. So many people are still undecided.

[quote] And they're both... not great pollsters of primaries

They don't look so bad now after this fiasco with the "top rated" pollster.

The "fiasco" is bullshit. CNN is just tryibg to hurt Sanders because his numbers are too good.

^

Right on cue.

r35 We're something like 45 hours away from the caucuses. We'll know soon enough if Bernie's numbers are "too good." No more polls necessary.

R32 If Bernie's name had been left out - #OperationMartyrBernard would be trending on Twitter right now.

No one's name was left out.

This is fake news from CNN to sabotage Bernie.

I saw this leak

Sanders 22 Warren 18 Buttigieg 16 Biden 13

Hi Broski at R39.

where, r40?

R40, they had to make sure Warren was ahead of Pete so they left him off for some questionnaires. Busted!!

Thing is you got to add Amy's movement so that Joe makes quite a splash.

It was seen on one of those political science where the hungry junkies were circling around with their knives and forks and napkins tucked into their neck.

Butty is one of the establishment darlings - nobody would care about hurting him.

Compared to the previous Selzer poll, Butty has neither gained nor lost support.

That is an awful result for Biden, though; he lost 2 points since the last Selzer and may come out of Iowa with no delegates; so that's why CNN is hiding the poll.

R45, Yeah that's why the NYT spent their interview with him attacking him with false and insidious accusations. That's why they've been erasing him from coverage since December. That's why it's one false narrative after another about him.

Pay attention - he's going to have his delegates thanks to Amy K!

Umm, R45. That's a made up leak. R40 didn't even link to the source.

R48 I've seen th9se same numbers posted on Twitter, though.

I saw them on Twitter at cernovich, but he apparently retweeted the commonly accepted leaked numbers. They're more or less in line with what's expected and has been reported recently.

Is there a legitimate source reporting the leak? Cernovich is certainly not a trusted source.

If R40 is correct, that's devastating for Biden.

The explanation of what went wrong with the poll made sense. It’s just weird that this was not known or made public until the day the poll was supposed to have been released.

That's because Selzer was investigating to see if it could save the poll, R53. They decided today that they couldn't release it with confidence. I think this issue was brought to them in the last few days.

r40 has outed himself, unknowingly, as Not A DLer and therefore a Troll

Of course now Bernie Twitter is labeling the gay candidate “Karen/Becky” over this ...

Huh. R55?

This term "troll" is so completely overworked by now that you'll have to be a little more specific as to what your problem is? I'm simply trying to report the leaked numbers that I saw, without any particular agenda of my own personally.

I'm more interested in how R40 has "has outed himself as Not A DLer". Was it the way he typed?

Pete is a joke but y’all can pretend like he has a shot at becoming president.

No way Warren is doing that well. People now know she's a fraud and liar.

The leaks on Twitter are all fake. Listen to Nate Silver on this one...

[quote]Folks, the fact that there are completely contradictory rumors about what the DMR poll said is reason not to pay attention to those rumors.

Ignore them, the caucuses are tomorrow and we'll know soon enough anyway.

The leak isn't likely. Two weeks ago the CNN poll results were 20% Sanders 17% Warren 16% Buttiegieg and 15% Biden. You'd expect some change but for Sanders to gain 12% in such a tight pack only two weeks ago is highly unlikely, and also reeks of someone making up numbers to try to explain the conspiracy theory that the BernieBros started, and which the Trumpsters are trying to keep going.

[quote]that's why CNN is hiding the poll

To what end? It's just a poll. It's not the actual vote. It's of almost no consequence whatsoever.

And why wouldn't they quietly fudge the numbers instead of pretending they made a huge embarrassing mistake?

r62 And you'd need the second choice as well, which is an important part of the caucuses. Polls were nice last year and I posted them on DL all the time because they were indicative of a surge and thus signalled who would get attacked at the next debate, but we're so close to the actual voting now, best to just wait for the results.

They're just a distraction when there are so many candidates packed together and so many undecided voters still. ANYTHING could happen tomorrow.

CNN isn't hiding the poll. The Des Moines Register and the pollster wouldn't release it. Pretty big conspiracy. Why would the pollster care who comes first?

I'm voting for Biden. From 2021, I'd like to be able to ignore the news safely for weeks at a time.

[quote] Why would the pollster care who comes first?

There no such thing as a nonpolitical entity. The people who work there want to affect the political process and outcome just like everyone else.

This kind of fuckery and incompetence is why Trump will win again in 2020.

Oh, thanks, R67. I thought they just wanted to sell polling services.

Do you know what my grocery store is up to, because they seem pretty shifty.

Nate Silver basically hinted that he saw the poll and that it's not much different than the YouGov Iowa poll that was released this morning. So while I'm sure Bernie does well, he's not killing it and he's statistically tied with 2 others. Sorry Bros, there is not conspiracy.

This morning's YouGov (Iowa) poll Biden: 25 Bernie: 25 Pete: 21 Warren: 16 Amy: 5

r70 He also hinted that no one is doing particularly poorly, which seems to address Amy's 5% in the YouGov poll.

Supposed leak:

[quote]Sanders 22% (+2) Warren 18% (+1) Buttigieg 16% (=) Biden 13% (-2)

Sanders 95%

That’s already been debunked.

Oh, yeah, I see it now posted at r40. Never mind, we'll see tomorrow.

That leak seems to be the real deal, actually, or Nate wouldn't be posting things like this...

[quote]Bernie wins the popular vote and Mayor Pete wins t̶h̶e̶ ̶e̶l̶e̶c̶t̶o̶r̶a̶l̶ ̶c̶o̶l̶l̶e̶g̶e̶ state delegate equivalents is a fairly plausible scenario. Just speaking personally, I think all 3 measures of counting the vote in Iowa have something going for them and it's good to consider all of them when evaluating who did well in the state. The networks will lean into state delegate equivalents, however.

No, R76. He wouldn't say that Pete could win the most delegates if he's at 16% and Bernie at 22%. I'll wait for the official leak, not a leak from R40 or the KKK White Knight, Cernovitch.

r77 No, he WOULD be posting exactly that if he also saw the second choice numbers, which are critical in the caucus process. First choice is good for a primary like New Hampshire...

Someone said this is the first time that the initial vote counts in Iowa caucuses will be recorded and shared.

Which means SOMEONE will have a raw vote total higher than all the other candidates, and yet because of how the Iowa caucuses work, that person could end up coming in second or third in convention delegates coming out of Iowa.

It's a scenario ready-made for Berniebros to whine endlessly.

Yes, three numbers are going to be reported: first raw tally, realignment tally (only one this year, so the caucuses should be over in under two hours), and the state delegate equivalents. AP and TIME have already announced they're going to announce the delegate count as the official result (which is as it should be), but of course the network and cable news channels are going to muddy everything by declaring "the people's choice" or some similar bullshit.

The first raw rally only tells you about the enthusiasm and core support, though. I'd be much more worried if the final popular vote winner is different to the delegate winner. But seeing how Bernie relied on the caucuses to last as long as he did in 2016, his supporters can fuck right off with their bitching.

R80, if someone handed Bernie the nomination in 2016 without having the popular vote, he would've gladly taken it. And the Bros would say it's only right. They can suck it if he loses the delegate count.

They're going to whine no matter what happens.

The first round though is useful for comparing Apples to Apples with a primary result where there is no second round.

I think R76's reflects that Pete has been working the more Republican, rural and exurban parts of the state fairly hard. He may come in first in the most precincts statewide, with Sanders over performing in the more heavily liberal precincts; terrific result for The Bern in a primary, but for a caucus state not quite so much.

[quote]The explanation of what went wrong with the poll made sense.

Not really. Any pollster of reasonable intelligence would know the number of and names of candidates, especially after hundreds of calls. You'd notice if a name weren't appearing, It's not like there are dozens of people running. Also, polling software should not allow names to disappear upon the enlarging of a font. It is a flimsy excuse.

It could have been one rogue pollster and not a conspiracy or it could be an excuse to conceal the results.

LOL so much trouble caused because some dumb bitch they hired was too stupid to follow her script.

From Nate Silver's words- that Selzer's poll showed little variation from the previous poll but overall good for Bernie - it seems that Cernovich's numbers might be right after all.

There's also a new Civiqs poll - great for Bernie, awful for Biden.

scrapped

r65, they have been claiming accuracy for like 30 years but some idiot pollster didn't read all the names when she made her phone calls. The data is flawed. They don't want to be off on their record.

[quote]There's also a new Civiqs poll - great for Bernie, awful for Biden.

Worth noting this one - as opposed to the previous one released on January 29th - was sponsored by a left-wing organisation, not Iowa State University, as is usually the case. So I'm not surprised by those numbers at all.

r84, the person probably started reading Pete's name going, BUTT-ey-jig, BUTT-ey -gooblegook, BUTT-in-gay and then said fuck it and skipped him. Then went to Klobewhatchamacalit, and skipped her too.

Ann Selzer was against her poll being scrapped, but the sponsors at CNN and DMR decided differently. Nate Silver is now also convinced this error is something that often happens in polls with 500 sample size, and so it's not a big deal and should have been included. That's why he basically revealed the numbers in the tweet at r76.

I think the story is that the screen that she was reading names from somehow didn't include all the names so that his got cut off. In other words she asked the person if the election were held today who is your most likely candidate, reading all the names on her screen and then pausing, without mentioning him.

R89 That's ridiculous, pollsters that are invested in their reputation don't cook their numbers depending on their sponsors. Sorry that your favorite candidate did badly on it though.

And fwiw, Data for Progress endorsed Warren, not Sanders.

r60, everyone I spoke to like Warren as their first choice.

NO ONE wants Bernie. I don't know a single person who wants to vote for him. So what is up with that.

Although my mother (in NY) recently said she is willing to look at her old mayor. She doesn't like the old men, thinks a women can win, and said at least Bloomberg knows what he is doing.

She likes Warren the best. Why can't people vote for who they want to win and not who they think can win. If we didn't learn from 2016 - let's learn it now. Polls are wrong.

Yes, she enlarged the screen and didn't see the name. They couldn't determine how many times it happened and so they scrapped it.

r93 No, you're completely wrong. And you have nothing to have to be sorry about.... because you're wrong.

Civiqs is an unrated pollster. Iowa State University - who isn't simply a sponsor in this case - is rated B/C by 538. Meaning Civiqs actually conducted this new poll (not just got the money from) with that left-winger organisation. Ergo, different results.

R94 Your sample is biased. Just check the size of Bernie's rallies and compare them to that of other candidates. Plenty want Bernie.

Kathy Tur notes the large turnout for Trump in Iowa's 7,000-capacity arena at Drake University

The MAGAs are gaga, what's the story here?

Shitty Emerson poll of Iowa is out...

Sanders 28% (-2 since Jan. 26)

Biden 21% (-)

Pete 15% (+5)

Warren 14% (+3)

Klobuchar 11% (-2)

Yang 5% (-)

Steyer 4% (-1)

Gabbard 1% (-4)

Emerson has an A- rating on the 538 website.

Yes, it has an A- rating because of the House races in 2018. It sucks when it comes to primaries and has an additional new online methodology now. Nate doesn't take it seriously...

Klobmentum found dead in a ditch. And not a moment too soon. Jesus Christ, talking about a complete media creation...

*talk about

[quote]And in the fourth district, Sanders leads with 36%, followed by Biden at 21% and no other candidate reaches 15%.

Sanders leading in the most rural district. Yeah, okay, let's go with that. Guess we'll see tomorrow.

R105 Why the skepticism? In NY Bernie won the rural hinterland while Hillary won in NYC.

That was a two-person race and him winning the rural parts of Iowa had more to do with those people repudiating Hillary than supporting Bernie.

[quote]Ann Selzer was against her poll being scrapped

One imagines she'd like to be paid.

Pretty sure she got paid regardless.

The Civiqs poll has all the hallmarks of an outlier. Warren in a robust second? Not reality.

R107 Not really. Bernie nas very Hugh favirables in 2016 - he drew people to his side even eitjout having to make a contrast with Hillary.

In addition, all Democrats but Sanders are running very Hillary-an campaigns.

There's the "let's not dream too big" part of her message, which is being reiterated by Klobuchar, Biden, and Buttigieg. And there's the "vote for me because I'm a woman - and a victim", which is being copied by Warren.

[Quote]Bernie nas very Hugh favirable

* had high favorables

This ham-handed shenanigan is going to fire up Sanders’ supporters to caucus. It will be impossible to trace it back to Hillary.

So many new polls.

How was Nate Silver able to see the unreleased poll?

I see in the new NH poll Tulsi got 7% — means she hit one of the polling thresholds for the next debate. One more and she's in.

R115, he knows Anne what's her name - the one who runs the poll. Ann Seltzer? I think that's her name. See today's podcast.

The only accurate polls are exit polls. The rest of this crap is just jerking off and grifters at work.

Are there actually [italic]more[/italic] debates? Dear God in heaven!