The numbers the Sanders campaign reported earlier were better for Sanders and worse for Biden

[highplainsdem]

than the results the Iowa Democratic Party just reported:

Link to tweet

[Squinch]

1. LOL! Shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

[TwilightZone]

2. They were supposedly using internal numbers.

Which are unofficial. No one should be claiming victory based on numbers that are a) unofficial, and b) incomplete.

The people who predicted even before yesterday that the Sanders campaign would do exactly that were spot on.

[Mike 03]

3. Kick and Recommend

[George II]

4. I'm not surprised, and it's even worse.

Sanders' "Announcement" vs. actual:

Sanders 0.294 / .251 + 4.3
Buttigieg 0.2487 / .269 -2.0
Warren 0.2065 / .183 +2.3
Biden 0.1291 / .156 -2.7

He under reported both Buttigieg's and Biden's numbers, over reported Warren's. And that superior, smug look on Weaver's face.

[Scurrilous]

17. So Sanders Self Surged out of Second? Win!

These people need to be [redacted] out [redacted] and [redacted].

[krissey]

5. Caucus is young, white, rural. It being between Buttigeig and Sanders is no surprise.

That is their demographic. Biden and Warren have older and oldest. Biden has POC. This caucus is not their demographics. There really is no surprise here. What was it, with a caucus? A 10% turn out of the state?

[highplainsdem]

9. Thought I saw 8% turnout mentioned somewhere. And unusually high percentage of youngest voters.

24% were 17 to 29 year olds, compared to 18% in 2016.

[krissey]

10. Well, 10% was the first and only I saw then. That was a while ago. It can be more refined to 8%.

I wouldn't be surprised at all. 10 is so incredibly low, I thought I might be wrong. It is just foolish to put any stock in this kind of a selection. So many Democrats in Iowa did not get a voice. And open? right? A person could declare themselves a Democrat the day of.

[TwilightZone]

11. Early report had them at 20%

36% 65 or older (28 in 2016)
27% 45-64 (36 in 2016)
17% 30-44 (19 in 2016)
20% 17-29 (18 in 2016)

17-29 was slightly higher than 2016. I haven't seen updated numbers.

Source was MSNBC: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=469754

The predicted turnout was 8%. I haven't seen official numbers on actual, though a couple reports said it was close to or slightly lower than predicted and similar to 2016, so 8% is probably in the ballpark.

[cwydro]

6. Can't stand that guy.

Weaver, I mean.

[highplainsdem]

12. I can't either.

[HerbChestnut]

7. Everyone calm down, there's still 38% of the precincts left to report.

Who knows if the Sanders people received their information from the same precincts as what was reported today.

[bluewater]

16. We don't need no stinking facts!

So what? It's Bernie Bashing time!

[msongs]

18. how odd when statements of fact are considered to be bashing lol nt

[bluewater]

21. The fact is only 62% of the final results have been released.

Yet people are claiming Sander's skewed the numbers he released.

Some "facts", eh?

[OneMoreCupOfCoffee]

8. Yuge surprise.

All part of the same pattern.

[unc70]

13. Those could be very different caucus samples

Nothing strange

[bluewater]

15. Please. This is about bashing Bernie. Don't try to inject facts.

Everyone knows that the Iowa Democratic Party only released 62% of the total results tonight.

But why let that stop the fun?

[Cha]

14. KR!!

[bluesxtreme]

19. Depends on data

Can you prove they were looking at the same data and counties reported and therefore had different numbers. Considering still 38% out there some could overlap some could not. We don’t know.

[democrattotheend]

20. The Sanders campaign said their numbers only represented 40%

So that makes sense that it wouldn't be identical. They probably had people using the app in either the places they expected to be strongest or the places they were concerned about irregularities.

[bluewater]

22. psssst.

I suspect most of the people making accusations against Sanders here already know that.

But why pass up any opportunity to bash Bernie?