FiveThirtyEight reports: Sanders passes Biden

[James48]

538 is now saying Sanders chance of winning enough delegates for the nomination is now up to 37%, up from 31% before Iowa. Biden’s dismal Iowa showing drops Biden’s chances to 21%, down from 43% previously.

Details:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/our-post-iowa-primary-forecast-is-up-and-bidens-chances-are-down/

Go BERNIE!



“ The model shows former Vice President Joe Biden’s chances of winning a majority of pledged delegates being halved — from 43 percent before Iowa to 21 percent now.

Who gains from Biden’s decline? Well, a little bit of everyone. The model thinks Iowa was more good news than bad news for Sen. Bernie Sanders, although it was a somewhat close call. His chances have advanced to 37 percent, from 31 percent before Iowa, making him the most likely person to achieve that majority.”

[melman]

1. Wow

Big news. 43 to 21!

[musicblind]

2. Not the news I'd like to hear for my candidate

but not exactly crazy either.

Iowa has always mattered.

I don't think that means Biden has no chance, though.

[squirecam]

3. I think we should disregard all apps, needles and forecast models

Let’s have votes. Count them. Then declare a winner.

Iowa has been a total crap fest. Including the pundits.

[HubertHeaver]

7. especially the pundits

They were yammering on and on with no idea what they were talking about. They needed to have a string quartet standing by or, maybe an old Jackie Gleason episode or two, or three.

[Scurrilous]

16. ...

[msongs]

4. 75% of voter rejected bernie so he's now the favorite lol nt

[trueblue2007]

12. HE IS NOT THE FAVORITE

[HubertHeaver]

5. 538 is to be taken with a large grain of salt

check that--maybe a truckload

[squirecam]

6. You can add the needle too at this point

Nt

[pnwmom]

8. So, on the basis of a single non-representative caucus in a state with 3.5% black voters,

where the caucus itself appears to have been horribly mismanaged,
we're supposed to believe anyone's prediction of the eventual nominee?

[Scurrilous]

13. In which he fell behind by a handful of delegates.

[jcmaine72]

9. I'm not usually one to get down and boogie before the DJ arrives, but...

I can dig it!

[ismnotwasm]

10. ...

But the big winner is … nobody. The chance of there being no delegate majority has increased substantially, to 27 percent from 17 percent before Iowa. For reasons we’ve explained previously, the no-majority scenario isn’t quite the same thing as a contested convention, but the two concepts are closely related.

In running the model, we’re relying on Iowa results as currently reported (as of 5:15 p.m. Eastern on Wednesday afternoon) plus estimates from our friends at The Upshot on the probability that each candidate eventually wins the various vote measures that Iowa tracks. The Upshot now gives Buttigieg about a 98 percent chance of winning the most state delegate equivalents (SDEs) — the measure that the media has traditionally used to declare Iowa winners (and the only measure that Iowa has reported before this year), although it creates a bias toward candidates who perform well in rural areas.

Meanwhile, The Upshot gives Sanders a greater than 99 percent chance to win the first alignment vote — the candidate that voters initially lined up with when they entered their caucus sites. They regard the final alignment popular vote — the candidate that voters wound up with after supporters of nonviable candidates were allowed to realign — as a tossup between Buttigieg and Sanders.

As I explained on Wednesday, we hadn’t totally thought through how to handle the case where different candidates won by different metrics in Iowa. We were slightly surprised, however, at how much emphasis the media put on SDEs as opposed to the popular vote metrics. Since post-primary bounces are largely the result of media coverage, we decided that our formula for predicting bounces should reflect that.

[Scurrilous]

15. I miss smoked filled rooms.

[emmaverybo]

11. A model based on very little info that would figure in several relevant factors. A model

which outsizes Iowa’s influence on the whole shebang. Not polls even, a model. It is an Iowa-centered model. It must presume that Iowa results set off cascading events, a notion for which
we have no absolute proof. It must also ignore Sander’s lack of AA support and assume that because of Iowa that no longer matters. How would anyone know yet? Because of Iowa are CBC
members going to endorse Sanders en masse. Not so fast!

Suddenly because of Iowa Bernie has grown likable across the political spectrum, with diverse populations previously immune to his charms?

[Scurrilous]

14. Modern entrail divining.

Any port in a storm!