I'm mystified that Buttigieg declared victory with 0% of precincts reporting, then justified doing so by releasing ONLY the data for HIS campaign with 75% of precincts reporting. He may or may not be right that he won 25% of the vote, but how would he know that was enough to win?
PS/ I think we have to be careful not to change history here. Buttigieg didn't just come out last night and declare that he had a good night. He said that his campaign was emerging from Iowa "victorious." I watched him do it. The man *definitely* declared himself the Iowa winner.
PS2/ I suspect what Pete's saying is that his campaign believes he won 28% of state delegate equivalents, and that he's reasonably sure no one could have won 29% of state delegate equivalents or higher given that it looks like 5 candidates were in double figures. Still a stretch.
PS3/ All I know is I'm seeing a lot of Buttigieg folks on here this morning telling everyone he *didn't* declare victory when not only did I watch him do so last night and have *no* doubt that that's what he was doing, but CNN and MSNBC came away with the *exact same conclusion*.
PS4/ Anyway, it'd be nice if people who *didn't* stay up as I did until 4AM last night watching news coverage and *didn't* see both CNN and MSNBC hear Pete's speech the same way I did—as a victory speech—*didn't* condescendingly explain to me that I didn't see what I know I saw.
