Thread by @Nate_Cohn

Most of you know that there are *four* different sets of results this year.
They could all split.
nytimes.com/2020/02/03/ups…

Some of the splits are obvious: second choices could break one way, shifting the result from first to final alignment.
And the tabulated vote counts and pledged delegates have split before (NV '08, for ex.) and could again under some fairly unlikely and arcane circumstances

The split between the final alignment and state delegate equivalency, however, is unique to Iowa and worth some discussion.

Basically, SDEs are allocated based on average Dem vote in '16 and '18.
If the caucus turnout is different than avg Dem vote in '16/18, then there's the potential for a SDE-Second alignment split

In particular, a candidate who fares well among young and well-educated voters could do much worse in SDEs than final alignment.
Why? The caucus electorate is younger and better educated than the average 16/18 Dem voter, and those precincts will be underrepresented in SDEs

This is true in our poll, as you know. It's also plainly true in the '16 turnout by precinct. Young/well educ. precincts were highly underrepresneted in SDEs, since those precincts represented a higher share of the caucus electorate than typical Dem general elections

Here, for instance, the voters per SDE by pct under age 24 in a precinct.
In precincts with many young voters, 200 votes in 2016 = 1 SDE in 2020.
In old precincts, often < 100 caucusgoer per SDE

Here, 2016 caucus goers per 2020 SDE by college grads. A clear pattern here again

I would note, BTW, that this data is highly consistent with the electorate in our poll, which is younger and better educated than the typical D voter in '16 and '18. Doesn't prove it, but it strongly suggests caucus electorates are fundamentally different

My strong prior is that this cost Bernie the 2016 caucus. Assuming we've matched up the data right, Sanders probably lost a point or two on SDEs compared to the final alignment results.