Here are the official Iowa Caucus rules for assigning delegates. Read them and weep.

And ask yourself why this incredibly complicated system is still hung onto anywhere.

Here's a snippet from the rules -- STEP 6.

And remember -- it is usually party volunteers who are trying to figure all this out, many for the first time.

PS. I didn't insert exclamation points or frowning faces -- though the rules deserved them. That was the computer.

http://iowademocrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/IDP-Caucus-Math-One-Pager.pdf

Step 6: After rounding, total up the delegates awarded to each preference group and compare that number to the total number of delegates assigned to be elected at the precinct.
•! If the numbers match, move on to election of delegates.
•! If the total number of delegates is FEWER than the number to be elected, an additional delegate will be awarded to the
group(s) with the highest decimal below 0.5.
•! If the total number of delegates is GREATER than the number to be elected, a delegate will be subtracted from the
preference group(s) with the lowest decimal above 0.5. Note: a group cannot lose its only delegate.
Example: Precinct Alpha is to elect a total of 7 delegates. There are 100 eligible caucus attendees at the precinct. Five viable preference groups form. Group A has 20 members; group B has 18 members; group C has 27 members; group D has 19 members and Group E has 16 members. Here is how the delegates would be awarded:
Original
•! GroupA 20x7)÷ 100=1.40 roundto1
•! GroupB 18x7)÷ 100=1.26 roundto1
•! GroupC 27x7)÷ 100=1.89 roundto2
•! GroupD 19x7)÷ 100=1.33 roundto1
•! GroupE 16x7)÷ 100=1.12 roundto1
•! TOTAL = 6*
Adjusted
•! GroupA 20x7)÷ 100=1.40 roundto2* •! GroupB 18x7)÷ 100=1.26 roundto1 •! GroupC 27x7)÷ 100=1.89 roundto2 •! GroupD 19x7)÷ 100=1.33 roundto1 •! GroupE 16x7)÷ 100=1.12 roundto1 •! TOTAL = 7

Now do you believe me? The caucus system is a very messy process --

in Iowa and in all the other states that still rely on this antiquated system -- and should be replaced everywhere by primaries.

We have them in my state and I've hated them since the first time I attended one. On top of the problems we saw demonstrated last night, they are non-inclusive, non-representative, and have no secret ballots.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511102254



http://time.com/4172793/hillary-clinton-iowa-caucus-bernie-sanders/

The complicated rules of the caucus process are inherently tilted toward equalizing the strength of candidates, especially in a two person race. Only the number of delegates awarded in each precinct will be published on caucus night, which means there will be no official record of the candidate’s share of the voters at the caucuses—a figure that will likely more closely mirror the pre-caucus polls.

As a result, Clinton will be at the mercy of a process little changed over generations, in which candidates can tie the delegate count, even if Clinton has far more support inside the room. If Sanders surprises with an upset, by bringing more caucus goers out, he will face a similar result, which looks more like a draw.

Here’s how it works: Each of 1,681 precincts in the state is assigned a delegate count based on its relative strength of Democratic Party within that part of the state. To earn delegates, candidates are required to meet a threshold—25% in two-delegate precincts to 15% in precincts with four or more delegates—in order to earn any delegates from each precinct. (The vast majority of precincts have four or more delegates, requiring the 15% threshold.)

For the large number of precincts with an even number of delegates, however, Clinton would have to win by large majorities in order to net more total delegates than Sanders. In odd-numbered-delegate precincts, barring a blowout, Sanders would still pick up several delegates.

SNIP

NPR: Clinton edges Sanders

Official statement from Iowa Democratic Party:

CNN just called it for Hillary.

And 5 minutes later, said they weren't officially calling it. Whatever.

Based on the official state figures, she will have 24 delegates and Bernie will have 21.

PLUS her super-delegates.

There is still one precinct in Polk county that hasn't reported, but even if Bernie got every vote there it wouldn't be enough to put him over the top.

. . . But CNN just now added that their prediction is unofficial, because they're going to wait for that last precinct to finish.

ON EDIT:

This is the statement from the Democratic Party's official website that they felt supported their initial idea that Hillary has won.

http://iowademocrats.org/statement-from-idp-chair-on-tonights-historically-close-caucus-results/#more-14967

99.94% reporting, 49.89 Hillary, 49.54 Bernie. Only POLK County left.

And Hillary's leading there.

http://www.usatoday.com/pages/interactives/elections-results-primaries-2016/#d-ia

In Iowa, the 8 super-delegates may be the tiebreakers.

Iowa will choose ~ 44 delegates tonight, and in addition has 8 super-delegates, who are free to support whomever they wish.

In what increasingly looks like a tie, the super-delegates are likely to be the tie-breakers.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/iowa-caucuses-stake-tonight/story?id=36644960

An estimated 52 delegates are to be awarded tonight -- 8 of these are super delegates, people (usually party leaders) who do not have to commit to a candidate tonight. To receive any delegates, candidates must receive at least 15 percent of the vote. If a candidate receives 15 percent support, the delegates are awarded proportionally. Democratic caucus goers do not have to support any of the three candidates -- uncommitted is an option.

Has anybody ever added up the cost of all Bernie's tax increases PUT TOGETHER?

The GOP will slaughter us in Nov. if our overriding answer to every problem is:RAISE TAXES on everybody.

But that's what Bernie's proposing. Not only small, selective, increases. And not just hefty increases on the wealthy. At least small increases on everybody, even lower income.

He wants to raise taxes to pay for:

Single-payer health care
Family and medical leave
Social Security
Free college for everyone, even Trumps' kids

And this doesn't include taxes on businesses.

Has anyone added up the cost of all these tax increases put together? If we haven't, the Repubs certainly will.

There are good, valid reasons for tax increases. I strongly support, for example, lifting the social security cap. But I don't think taxing EVERYONE so that anyone who wants to -- no matter how wealthy -- can get free college will be supported by most taxpayers. Especially when added to all the other tax increases Bernie's pushing.

Why This Millenial is Supporting Hillary Clinton (and not Bernie)

Even if the next Dem President achieves a victory as resounding as President Obama's, he will be forced to act alone.

The Rethugs in Congress will not help the new Democratic President achieve anything. Their policy is nothing but obstructionism.

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2016/1/26/berned-out-why-this-millennial-wont-be-supporting-bernie-sanders-in-the-primary-election#.Vq1oFkyl9B0.twitter

But the truth is that in order to understand politics you have to understand history, something the vast majority of millennials simply fail to grasp. It's not even "ancient history" that millennials need to understand but rather the political climate of the past seven years. That's it. Anyone who has been actively following politics since 2008 knows the kind of political climate that currently exists in Washington, D.C. After the 2010 midterm elections when Republicans took control of the House, we then had the two least productive Congresses in history, which oddly enough happened after we elected a group of politicians to government who openly stated that they hated government. With Republicans taking over control of the Senate in 2014, it has only been President Obama's veto pen that has kept the country from regressing back to pre-2008 economic and social policies.

That current political reality matters and it matters because it's what lies in the aftermath of a transformational president being elected. In 2008, Senator Barack Obama ushered in a new generation of politics in America. With the Great Recession under way, America was desperate for a candidate that would bring "hope and change" to a country that for eight years had been crushed by tax cuts for the rich, two trillion-dollar wars, a flailing auto industry, massive job losses, and staggering unemployment under the Bush/Cheney presidency. When the election night returns came in, it was a resounding victory for Senator Obama who racked up 69.4 million popular votes as well as 365 electoral votes. The American people had spoken and the newly-elected President Obama had a mandate from the American people.

Except Republican leadership didn't get this memo. In fact, rather than showing goodwill and working with the popularly-elected president, senior Republican leadership vowed to do everything in their power to make President Obama a one-term president. And so President Obama was forced to go it at alone. Even then, with a veto-proof Senate and a majority in the House of Representatives, President Obama still had to battle those within his own party who were grotesquely entrenched with their ties to special interests. At a time when affordable health care, a democratic priority since the Truman Administration, should have been a slam dunk, President Obama was forced to scale back his plan. Universal health care was never an option and even the public option was seen as "too radical" by many of those within the president's own party. In the end, it took every single ounce of support to pass the Affordable Care Act, without a single vote from Republicans in the Senate as well as 35 Democrats refusing to support it in the House. It may not have been exactly what President Obama wanted, but he made the hard decisions and was able to compromise and work with those to help achieve what many now see as a central part of his legacy.

That is why you need a pragmatist like Barack Obama in the White House.

SNIP

Bernie Sanders said he was physically nauseated by JFK's speech on Cuba.

For those who are trying to link him to the Kennedys: he didn't like them when they were alive.

He has spent much of his career criticizing Democrats. That's why he only joined the party a year ago.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ilanbenmeir/bernie-sanders-despised-democrats-in-1980s-said-a-jfk-speech#.xvY08e2jJ

Vermont senator and Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders once said that he was “physically nauseated” by a speech made by President John F. Kennedy when Sanders was a young man, because Kennedy’s “hatred for the Cuban Revolution […] was so strong.”

“Kennedy was young and appealing and ostensibly liberal,” Sanders reminisced in a 1987 interview with The Gadfly, a student newspaper at the University of Vermont. “But I think at that point, seeing through Kennedy, and what liberalism was, was probably a significant step for me to understand that conventional politics or liberalism was not what was relevant.”

In the same interview, he also criticized Jesse Jackson’s decision to try and affect change by “working within the Democratic party” and offered some pointed remarks about Walter Mondale.