What If No One Wins?

What if, Adam Nagourney asks, Iowa settles nothing for the Democrats?

Indeed, what if, on Thursday night, the Iowa Democratic Party announces their state delegate equivalents as follows:
:
Obama: 29.43%
Edwards: 29.2%
Clinton: 28.7%.

Who won?

Did anyone win? What’s a winner? Did anyone lose?

It is entirely possible that the candidate who manages to turn out the largest number of supporters to the caucuses, or the candidate who manages to form the largest preference groups, winds up receiving fewer “state delegate equivalents” than the runner-up. Why? The principles of one-person, one vote do not apply.

A preference group of 10 in one precinct may be worth more than a preference group of 10 in another. And in tiny precincts, it might not even matter who has the largest preference group. If they’re of similar sizes, everyone, depending on the number of delegates awarded, could get one. Or – a candidate’s preference group could be almost twice the size of the next largest group and get the same number of delegates. (Ask me to explain the “highest fractional remainder” concept if you want to tear your hair out.)

In 2004, John Edwards received a disproportionately high number of state delegates because he managed to win lots of rural precincts; John Kerry’s margin of victory was enough to prevent the nightmare scenario described above, but he received fewer delegates than his entrance poll strength would have predicted.

In this scenario, should the media report that Obama won the caucuses? Or should we report that the results are, essentially, a tie; that the contest moves to New Hampshire; that it’s impossible to know precisely how many people actually caucused for Obama. I suspect that if the delegate results are this close, the results of the entrance poll won’t be too helpful.

Now – if several points separate first from second from third, then the media can declare a winner.

And here are two caveats:

(1) If Hillary Clinton places third, the media will be tempted to declare her vanquished.
(2) If John Edwards doesn't finish first, the media will be tempted to write him off for New Hampshire...

.... even if the margins are that close.

Comments

All that matters is the official count. You ought to realize that, Marc.

Posted by Petey | January 1, 2008 9:55 AM

Okay. Go ahead and explain it. I'll go bald eventually, so I might as well get it over with.

Posted by Dustin | January 1, 2008 9:55 AM

"Or should we report that the results are, essentially, a tie; that the contest moves to New Hampshire; that it’s impossible to know precisely how many people actually caucused for Obama"

The mythical "raw vote totals" are irrelevant here.

If Chris Dodd has the most caucusers, (which no one can ever verify), but Joe Biden wins the official delegate count, then Joe Biden wins Iowa.

If Iowa wanted to hold a primary, they'd hold a primary. They're holding a caucus instead, and the media should and will report who wins the caucus.

The caucus rules with their viability requirements are designed to find a consensus candidate, which is why they've been a good predictor of who's going to be the Democratic nominee over the decades.

Posted by Petey | January 1, 2008 10:02 AM

"John Kerry’s margin of victory was enough to prevent the nightmare scenario described above, but he received fewer delegates than his entrance poll strength would have predicted."

As stated above, factually wrong!

2004 Fox Entrance Poll

Kerry 29
Edwards 23
Dean 21
Geppy 16

2004 CNN Entrance Poll

Kerry 35
Edwards 26
Dean 20
Geppy 11

2004 Actual Caucus Results

Kerry 38
Edwards 32
Dean 18
Geppy 11

All that matters is the official caucus results.

Posted by Petey | January 1, 2008 10:11 AM

Spend the next couple of days figuring this shit out, Marc. It's your job.

Posted by Petey | January 1, 2008 10:13 AM

Spend the next couple of days figuring this shit out, Marc. It's your job.

...and you keep spamming for Edwards. That's your job.

Posted by goethean | January 1, 2008 10:30 AM

"...and you keep spamming for Edwards. That's your job."

No, it's not my job. I'm an amateur, not a professional.

And as far as spamming goes, do you think what I'm saying on this thread is somehow incorrect or off-topic?

Marc has his caucus mechanics and caucus history wrong. He ought to get them right by Thursday.

Posted by Petey | January 1, 2008 10:43 AM

I consider NYT/PBS/CNN/NPR criminally negligent. They have given male Clinton and female Clinton a free pass. Because they need tv shows, paper columns, access to White House.

Here is a story:

Bill or Male Clinton was chasing Register Female Editors (all three) constantly calling them. They were overwhelmed and they bought his story of his wife's - Female Clinton - (false/invisible) experience.

The Clinton Attack Machine is bad. The US Press is responsible. They are guilty of high crime and misdemor. They allowed the Clintons to escape their bad behavior (e.g., Bill on Rose lying).

That said: The race will be:

McCain and Kay Bailey
versus
Clinton and Richardson

The victory will be McCain.

The theme will be Character and Integrity.

Both of which Clinton lacks, but Obama has.

For Democrats to win, the ticket should have been (assuming the Press was like an Umpire):

Obama and Biden

McCain will be the next President. He will demolish Clinton. I will cheer for him all the way. All the way, even though I am a Democrat.

Posted by eorse | January 1, 2008 11:57 AM

I've been thinking about this for a week. What if the spread between first place and third place is 3 points? It probably marginally benefits the winner of the popular vote and perhaps Edwards if he finishes second but wins the delegate count. Nagourney's scenario doesn't include switchers from non-viable candidates. The winner is probably going to need 33-34% to win.

Posted by Ben | January 1, 2008 1:05 PM

"and perhaps Edwards if he finishes second but wins the delegate count"

As stated, there is only going to be the delegate count.

No one will ever know who had the most caucusers statewide, since this number is not counted.

Posted by Petey | January 1, 2008 1:14 PM

Edwards supporters should be prepared to push back against this horse-pucky. The entrance poll is not an official Iowa Dem Party event. IT DOES NOT MATTER. If the media makes it seem as though the poll accurately counts initial preferences, and that initial preferences matter, that will be biased, false spin intended to bring down whoever came in first in Iowa state delegates but "failed" to come in first in the meaningless entrance poll.

Each state party gets to decide how to choose delegates to the national convention and the media should report the facts of who won delegates to the Iowa conventions which ultimately pick those national convention delegates.

Posted by Steve-o | January 1, 2008 1:30 PM

"2) If John Edwards doesn't finish first, the media will be tempted to write him off for New Hampshire"

Er... and that would be wrong... why?

Edwards has consistently polled under 20% in NH. He needs a bounce to contend in that state. A tie doesn't get him a bounce. The only non-win scenario where he might benefit is if he's a strong second to Hillary and Obma tanks to a clear third. Then MAYBE some of the anti-Hillary vote migrates to him. I don't see this scenario as likely.

If John doesn't win IA, he's best off skipping NH and trying his luck in NV or MI where his message might resonate better.

Posted by howlless | January 1, 2008 7:08 PM

Given those hypothetical results, I'd guess the narrative would boil down to something like "Obama and Edwards tie, Clinton doesn't win".

Posted by DTM | January 1, 2008 8:55 PM