Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Donkees

(32,478 posts)
6. AP decides not to declare Iowa caucus winner after recount
Thu Feb 27, 2020, 10:05 PM
Feb 2020

Feb 27, 2020

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Iowa Democratic Party on Thursday released updated results of the Iowa caucuses after the completion of a recount requested by the campaigns of Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg.

In the new results, Buttigieg has 562.954 state delegate equivalents and Sanders has 562.021 state delegate equivalents out of 2,151 counted. That is a margin of 0.04 percentage points.

The Associated Press has reviewed the updated results and will not call a winner, given remaining concerns about whether the results as reported by the party are fully accurate. The Feb. 3 caucuses were beset by technical glitches that led to a delay in reporting the results, inconsistencies in the numbers and no clear winner.

The party plans to certify the results on Saturday. At that point, the caucuses will formally end, and no further changes to the results will be made. Iowa awards 41 national delegates in its caucuses. As it stands, Buttigieg has 13 delegates and Sanders has 12.

A final delegate will be awarded to Buttigieg as the candidate with the most state delegate equivalents. The AP will update its tally of the national delegates won in Iowa with that final delegate on Saturday, once the Iowa Democratic Party formally votes to certify the results.

https://apnews.com/fc6777e93b8c50b2fd20e0d31fcc43b3

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Sanders 2020»CNN: As expected... the @...»Reply #6