Nate Cohn

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

RT @Neil_Irwin: Look at that prime age EPOP go! Highest since June 2001. https://t.co/7NoZ2MrdI8 — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

FWIW, the Suffolk poll, which shows Buttigieg surging to a dead heat in New Hampshire, was pretty off in Iowa and it's been pretty different on the president/general election nationwide too Iowa's caucus creates unique challenges, but still of note https://t.co/0mVJzB5b6S — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

And some of these pollsters were calling nowhere near 85% of the electorate. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

As an aside, I do think poll aggregators could have excluded some of these polls who didn't call the full universe of eligible voters, and we'd be better off. It's not like they'd add a poll of "White Wisconsin voters" to the average, even if they're >85% of the electorate — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

As an aside, I do think poll aggregator could have excluded some of these polls who didn't call the full universe of respondents, and we'd be better off. It's not like they'd add a poll of "White Wisconsin voters" to the average, even if they're >85% of the electorate — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

A clear pattern, I suppose: online & live interview with full universe doing well; live phone with a constrained universe of voters (like last two primaries, in case of neighborhood research). — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

A look at how the final polls fared, with all the vote in and... roughly counted. I can think of plenty of ways to measure pollster error in a multi-candidate race, and it's possible other measures are subtly different, but here taking the rmse of the Sanders - rest of top 4. https://t.co/JKDiuRHmsg — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

Or, I should say, I can’t ignore that. You can, and that’s totally justifiable. But I’m covering someone else’s contest here, I’m not an organizer, participant or a contestant. And I really don’t believe I can come in and judge by my own measure, whatever the merits of the game — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

And look, I literally can’t explain to you why they did it, other than inertia. It made no sense once they reported a pop vote and bound pledged delegates to precinct caucuses. But the whole game was played assuming this was the goal and you can’t ignore that — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

The Iowa Democrats decided not to use it. It's not my place to say someone 'won' the Iowa Dems' game by any measure other than the rules they set for it, whatever I may think of those rules https://t.co/KOrWw2IgXB — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

So not only does Sanders do worse in SDEs than votes, he also does worse at converting his SDEs to pledged delegates, since he only leads in one CD: IA-2 Seems like a fitting way to cap this off — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

If the results stay the same--and they very well might not--it seems Buttigieg comes out ahead in pledged delegates, 14 to 12 over Sanders. If Sanders were to take the lead in SDEs, you'd be back at 13-13 — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

Indeed. This was the key, at least with the set of rules they're using https://t.co/bFuq1EBACs — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

To steal/paraphrase from @wilsonandrews, this caucus was basically just The Purge for Yang supporters https://t.co/MIMclsLq6A — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@coooleboyy lol welcome to american politics and... no — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

I suspect I can say this without crossing the line into opinion: this is the worst conceived and executed electoral contest I have ever seen — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

As an aside, we've given them a full list of the precincts involved here and they're still putting it out — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

On quick examination, all of my 'favorite'--forgive me--possible/likely errors are still there — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

(that the networks make a call) — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

No chance https://t.co/YXxCDQVmOo — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

With 100% counted, it's Buttigieg by a mere 1.5 SDE according to the IDP. It includes the satellite rule in favor of Sanders, worth >3 dels, but also dozens of irregular, inconsistent or impossible precincts in need of verification before a projection we might never get — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

RT @Taniel: 🚨IOWA UPDATE, with 100% of precincts according to the IDP. Buttigieg is AHEAD of Sanders in SDE count by 1.51 SDE (that's less… — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

Same — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

RT @Redistrict: Iowa should be proud of having one of the fairest, least politicized approaches to redistricting in the country. But the I… — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

And recall that Biden led among a likely Dem primary electorate in our poll, even as he trailed Sanders by 8 in the likely caucus electorate (and 11 points among almost certain caucusgoers) https://t.co/YpaHfuW6NN — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

Yeah, at the moment it's hard to see a path to a victory for anyone beyond the margin-of-totally-messed-up-results https://t.co/1mBBtxWm67 — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

Well, in the end, we're not sure we were wrong here. And since we're not clear on the rules, we're not going to upd… https://t.co/IjkgCHutxc — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

And the delegate selection plan, as I understand it, is the controlling plan that the IADP submitted to the DNC. Th… https://t.co/CPVpKjA7mL — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@SeanTrende ...i'd think the problem is that the results are wrong/contested/don't make sense, not that they don't have them — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

There's some room for debate in the text of the delegate selection plan, just bc it's arcane junk. But the example at the end is clear. https://t.co/uut78dv8gT — PolitiTweet.org