Relatedly, although he made a lot of gains there before Iowa, Sanders's polling is pretty flat in NH *since* Iowa. More consistent with what you'd expect from what is perceived as a 2nd-place finish in Iowa rather than a tie or win.
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Because, maybe... he won
-
if you tie for delegates and get fewer votes, you at best tied and at worst lost imo.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Sanders chance of becoming nominee on 538? 1 in 2. Buttigieg? 1 in 20. But keep pretending the model is biased against Sanders if that’s what helps you sleep at night
- Show replies
-
-
-
Which is problematic cause he'll probably end up losing it in the long run.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Maybe because he was slightly ahead in the drip feeding of caucus data we got?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Your model should probably account for a national media bias against Sanders. It is completely unsurprising to me that they're spinning it as a win for Buttigieg even though it was a tie between him and Sanders.
-
I'm really enjoying the trendy nomination analysis of treating a popular vote win as equivalent to a delegate win. It is sure to matter once the nominee is in the general election… where the popular vote is irrelevant.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
My model looks at it as a loss for Pete. His delegate lead is strictly from coin tosses, not votes.
-
If Sanders wanted popular vote to matter he shouldn't have insisted that Iowa keeps its caucus.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.