# 2016 Iowa Democratic presidential caucuses

Elections in Iowa :
Federal government
U.S. Presidential elections
1848
1852
1856
1860
1864
1868
1872
1876
1880
1884
1888
1892
1896
1900
1904
1908
1912
1916
1920
1924
1928
1932
1936
1940
1944
1948
1952
1956
1960
1964
1968
1972
1976
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
2000
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024
Presidential caucuses
Democratic
1976
1980
1984
1992
2000
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024
Republican
1980
1996
2000
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024
U.S. Senate elections
1848
1849
1852
1855
1857 sp
1858
1860
1864
1866
1866 sp
1870
1870 sp
1872
1878
1882
1882 sp
1884
1888
1890
1894
1896
1900
1902
1902 sp
1907
1908
1908 sp
1909
1911 sp
1913
1914
1918
1920
1922 sp
1924
1926
1926 sp
1930
1932
1936
1936 sp
1938
1942
1944
1948
1950
1954
1956
1960
1962
1966
1968
1972
1974
1978
1980
1984
1986
1990
1992
1996
1998
2002
2004
2008
2010
2014
2016
2020
2022
2026
2028
U.S. House of Representatives elections
1846
1847
1848
1850
1st sp
1852
1854
1856
1858
1860
1861
1st sp
1862
1864
1866
1868
1870
2nd sp
1872
1874
1876
1878
1879
5th sp
1880
1882
1883
6th sp
1884
7th sp
1886
1888
1890
7th sp
1892
1894
1896
1898
1900
10th sp
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1911
9th sp
1912
11th sp
1914
2nd sp
1916
1918
1920
1921
5th sp
1922
1923
8th sp
1924
1926
1928
9th sp
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1940
6th sp
1942
9th sp
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1959
4th sp
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024 :
State government
General elections
2009
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
Gubernatorial elections
1846
1850
1854
1857
1859
1861
1863
1865
1867
1869
1871
1873
1875
1877
1879
1881
1883
1885
1887
1889
1891
1893
1895
1897
1899
1901
1903
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
2026
Secretary of State elections
2022
Attorney General elections
2014
2018
2022
Senate elections
1846
1848
1850
1852
1854
1856
1857
1859
1861
1863
1865
1867
1869
1871
1873
1875
1877
1879
1881
1883
1885
1887
1889
1891
1893
1895
1897
1899
1901
1903
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
Specials
House of Representatives elections
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
Territorial Council elections
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845 :
Ballot measures
2020
Question 1
2022
Amendment 1 :
Cedar Rapids
Mayoral elections
2021 :
Des Moines
Mayoral elections
1997 sp
1999
2003
2007
2011
2015
2019
2023 :
vte :
The 2016 Iowa Democratic presidential caucuses were held on Monday February 1 in Iowa, as usual marking the Democratic Party's first nominating contest in their series of presidential primaries ahead of the 2016 presidential election.
The Republican Party held its own Iowa caucuses on the same day.
Despite a close challenge, Hillary Clinton was able to defeat Bernie Sanders in the first-in-the-nation Iowa Caucus by the closest margin in the history of the contest: 49.8% to 49.6% (Clinton collected 700.47 state delegate equivalents to Sanders' 696.92, a difference of one quarter of a percentage point). The victory, which was projected to award her 23 pledged national convention delegates (two more than Sanders), made Clinton the first woman to win the Caucus and marked a clear difference from 2008, where she finished in third place behind Obama and John Edwards. Martin O'Malley suspended his campaign after a disappointing third-place finish with only 0.5% of the state delegate equivalents awarded, leaving Clinton and Sanders the only two major candidates in the race. 171,517 people participated in the 2016 Iowa Democratic caucuses.

## Procedure

There was no ballot; instead, a unique form of debate and groupings chose delegates to county conventions supporting Hillary Clinton, Martin O'Malley, and Bernie Sanders. The Iowa Democratic Party did not release vote counts or the numbers of these delegates. Instead, they released the estimated amount of state delegates supporting each candidate. The county conventions selected delegates to district and state conventions, which in turn selected the delegates to the Democratic National Convention. The delegates at the county, district and state conventions were not pledged and were allowed to change their preference, meaning that the final result of the state delegates could have been different from what was estimated at the Iowa precinct caucuses.
Delegates to the 2016 Democratic National Convention were selected at district and state conventions. The First and Second congressional districts received 8 district delegates, the Third received 7 and the Fourth received 6. These district delegates were elected at the District Conventions based on the result in each Congressional District.
At the State Convention, the 15 statewide pledged delegates were elected based on the statewide results. 9 of these delegates were At-Large and 6 were Party Leaders and Elected Officials (PLEO) who were pledged based on the proportion of At-Large delegates supporting candidates. The Iowa delegation also included 8 superdelegates who were not pledged based on the result of the caucus process, which included 1 U.S. Representative and 7 Democratic National Committee members.

## Debates and forums
### November 2015 debate in Des Moines

On November 14, 2015, the Democratic Party held a second presidential debate at the Sheslow Auditorium at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa. Hosted by CBS News Political Director John Dickerson, it aired on CBS News and was also broadcast by KCCI and The Des Moines Register. With the remaining candidates Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Martin O'Malley participating, it was the first debate to be broadcast over nationwide network television, the previous debate having gone over cable.
As the day before the debate, November 13, was the day of the November 2015 Paris attacks, CBS announced that the debate would focus on foreign policy and terrorism. In addition, a moment of silence was held at the beginning of the debate in memory of the victims.

### January 2016 forum in Des Moines

On January 11, 2016 the "Black and Brown" forum was held at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa. Focusing on minority issues, it aired on Fusion.

## Opinion polling

| Poll source | Date | 1st | 2nd | Other |
| Caucus results | February 1, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 49.9% | Bernie Sanders 49.6% | Martin O'Malley 0.6% |
| Emerson College Margin of error: ± 5.6% Sample size: 300 | January 29–31, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 51% | Bernie Sanders 43% | Martin O'Malley 4% Undecided 2% |
| Quinnipiac University Margin of error: ± 3.2% Sample size: 919 | January 25–31, 2016 | Bernie Sanders 49% | Hillary Clinton 46% | Martin O'Malley 3% Undecided 2% |
| Des Moines Register– Bloomberg–Selzer Margin of error: ± 4% Sample size: 602 | January 26–29, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 45% | Bernie Sanders 42% | Martin O'Malley 3% Undecided or Not Committed 9% |
| Public Policy Polling Margin of error ± 3.4% Sample size: 851 | January 26–27, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 48% | Bernie Sanders 40% | Martin O'Malley 7% No preference 5% |
| Gravis Marketing Margin of error ± 3% Sample size: 810 | January 26–27, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 53% | Bernie Sanders 42% | Martin O'Malley 5% No preference 0% |
| Monmouth University Margin of error ± 4.4% Sample size: 504 | January 23–26, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 47% | Bernie Sanders 42% | Martin O'Malley 6% Undecided 5% |
| American Research Group Margin of error ± 5.0% Sample size: 400 | January 21–24, 2016 | Bernie Sanders 48% | Hillary Clinton 45% | Martin O'Malley 3% No preference 4% |
| Quinnipiac University Margin of error: ± 4% Sample size: 606 | January 18–24, 2016 | Bernie Sanders 49% | Hillary Clinton 45% | Martin O'Malley 4% Undecided 2% |
| ISU/WHO-HD Margin of error: ± Sample size: 356 | January 5–22, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 47% | Bernie Sanders 45% | Martin O'Malley <1% Undecided 7% |
| Fox News Margin of error ± 4.5% Sample size: 432 | January 18–21, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 48% | Bernie Sanders 42% | Martin O'Malley 3% No preference 7% |
| YouGov/CBS News Margin of error ± 8.9% Sample size: 906 | January 17–21, 2016 | Bernie Sanders 47% | Hillary Clinton 46% | Martin O'Malley 5% No preference 2% |
| Emerson College Polling Society Margin of error: ± 5.9% Sample size: 271 | January 18–20, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 52% | Bernie Sanders 43% | Martin O'Malley 3% Undecided 2% |
| CNN/ORC Margin of error: ± 6% Sample size: 280 | January 15–20, 2016 | Bernie Sanders 51% | Hillary Clinton 43% | Martin O'Malley 4% Undecided 2% |
| Monmouth College/KBUR Margin of error: ± 4.1% Sample size: 500 | January 18–19, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 47.7% | Bernie Sanders 39.3% | Martin O'Malley 7.4% Undecided 5% |
| Loras College Margin of error: ± 4.4% Sample size: 580 | January 8–10, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 46% | Bernie Sanders 40% | Martin O'Malley 8% Undecided 5% |
| Public Policy Polling Margin of error: ± 4.1% Sample size: 580 | January 8–10, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 46% | Bernie Sanders 40% | Martin O'Malley 8% Undecided 5% |
| Bloomberg/DMR Margin of error: ± 4.4% Sample size: 503 | January 7–10, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 42% | Bernie Sanders 40% | Martin O'Malley 4% Other/Undecided 14% |
| American Research Group Margin of error: ± 4.0% Sample size: 600 | January 6–10, 2016 | Bernie Sanders 47% | Hillary Clinton 44% | Martin O'Malley 3% Undecided 5% |
| Quinnipiac University Margin of error: ± 4.4% Sample size: 492 | January 5–10, 2016 | Bernie Sanders 49% | Hillary Clinton 44% | Martin O'Malley 4% Undecided 3% |
| Mason-Dixon/AARP Margin of error: ± Sample size: 503 | January 4–8, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 49% | Bernie Sanders 42% | Martin O’Malley 5% Not Reported 4% |
| NBC News/WSJ/Marist Margin of error: ± 4.8% Sample size: 422 | January 2–7, 2016 | Hillary Clinton 48% | Bernie Sanders 45% | Martin O’Malley 5% Undecided 3% |
| Poll source | Date | 1st | 2nd | Other |
| Gravis Marketing Margin of error ± 5% Sample Size: 418 | December 18–21, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 49% | Bernie Sanders 31% | Martin O'Malley 10% Unsure 10% |
| YouGov/CBS News Margin of error ± 5.3% Sample Size: 1252 | December 14–17, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 50% | Bernie Sanders 45% | Martin O'Malley 4% No preference 1% |
| Public Policy Polling Margin of error: ± 4.3% Sample Size: 526 | December 10–13, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 52% | Bernie Sanders 34% | Martin O'Malley 7% Undecided 6% |
| Quinnipiac University Margin of error: ± 3.6% Sample Size: 727 | December 4–13, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 51% | Bernie Sanders 40% | Martin O'Malley 6% Undecided 3% |
| Fox News Margin of error: ± 5.0% Sample Size: 357 | December 7–10, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 50% | Bernie Sanders 36% | Martin O'Malley 5% Other 4% Undecided 10% |
| Loras College Margin of error: ± 4.4 Sample Size: 501 | December 7–10, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 59% | Bernie Sanders 27% | Martin O'Malley 4% Undecided 10% |
| Des Moines Register/Bloomberg/Selzer Margin of error ± 4.9% Sample Size: 404 | December 7–10, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 48% | Bernie Sanders 39% | Martin O'Malley 4% Undeicded 8% |
| Monmouth Margin of error ± 4.9% Sample Size: 405 | December 3–6, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 55% | Bernie Sanders 33% | Martin O'Malley 6% |
| CNN/ORC Margin of error ± 4.5% Sample Size: 442 | November 28 – December 6, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 54% | Bernie Sanders 36% | Martin O'Malley 4% |
| Quinnipiac University Margin of error ± 4.2% Sample Size: 543 | November 16–22, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 51% | Bernie Sanders 42% | Martin O'Malley 4% Undecided 3% |
| YouGov/CBS News Margin of error ± 7.6% Sample Size: 602 | November 15–19, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 50% | Bernie Sanders 44% | Martin O'Malley 5% Undecided 1% |
| CNN/ORC Margin of error ± 4.5% Sample Size: 498 | October 29 – November 4, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 55% | Bernie Sanders 37% | Martin O'Malley 3% None 1% No Opinion 3% |
| Gravis Marketing/One America News Network Margin of error ± 3.0% Sample Size: 272 | October 30 – November 2, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 57.1% | Bernie Sanders 24.8% | Martin O'Malley 2.9% Not Sure 15.2% |
| Public Policy Polling Margin of error ± 3.9% Sample Size: 615 | October 30 – November 1, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 57% | Bernie Sanders 25% | Martin O'Malley 7% Lawrence Lessig 1% Not Sure 9% |
| KBUR-Monmouth Margin of error: ± 3.76% Sample size: 681 | October 29–31, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 45.8% | Bernie Sanders 31.7% | Martin O'Malley 5.4% Undecided 17.0% |
| Monmouth University Margin of error ± 3.76% Sample size: 681 | October 29–31, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 45.8% | Bernie Sanders 31.7% | Martin O'Malley 5.4% Undecided 17% |
| Monmouth University Margin of error ± 4.9% Sample size: 400 | October 22–25, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 65% | Bernie Sanders 24% | Martin O'Malley 5% Lawrence Lessig 1% Undecided 5% |
| YouGov/CBS News Margin of error ± 6.9% Sample size: 555 | October 15–22, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 46% | Bernie Sanders 43% | Martin O'Malley 3% Lincoln Chafee 1% Lawrence Lessig 0% No preference 7% |
| Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics Margin of error ± 4.9% Sample size: 402 | October 16–19, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 48% | Bernie Sanders 41% | Martin O'Malley 2% Jim Webb 1% Lincoln Chafee 1% Uncommited 3% Not Sure 4% |
| NBC News/WSJ/Marist Margin of error: ± 5.3% Sample size: 348 | September 23–30, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 33% | Bernie Sanders 28% | Joe Biden 22% Martin O'Malley 3% Jim Webb 1% Lincoln Chafee <1% Undecided 12% |
| NBC News/WSJ/Marist Margin of error: ± 5.3% Sample size: 348 | September 23–30, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 47% | Bernie Sanders 36% | Martin O'Malley 4% Jim Webb 1% Lincoln Chafee <1% Undecided 13% |
| Public Policy Polling Margin of error ± 4.4% Sample size: 494 | September 18–20, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 43% | Bernie Sanders 22% | Joe Biden 17% Martin O'Malley 3% Jim Webb 3% Lincoln Chafee 2% Lawrence Lessig 0% Undecided 9% |
| YouGov/CBS News Margin of error ± 6.6% Sample size: 646 | September 3–10, 2015 | Bernie Sanders 43% | Hillary Clinton 33% | Joe Biden 10% No preference 7% Martin O'Malley 5% Lincoln Chafee 1% Jim Webb 1% |
| Quinnipiac University Margin of error: ± 3.4% Sample size: 832 | Posted September 10, 2015 | Bernie Sanders 41% | Hillary Clinton 40% | Joe Biden 12% Martin O'Malley 3% |
| NBC News/Marist Poll Margin of error: ± 5.3% Sample size: 345 | Published September 6, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 38% | Bernie Sanders 27% | Joe Biden 20% Martin O'Malley 4% Jim Webb 2% Lincoln Chafee 1% Undecided 8% |
| NBC News/Marist Poll Margin of error: ± 5.3% Sample size: 345 | Published September 6, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 48% | Bernie Sanders 37% | Martin O'Malley 4% Jim Webb 2% Lincoln Chafee 1% Undecided 8% |
| Loras College Margin of error ± 4.37% Sample size: 502 | August 24–27, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 48.2% | Bernie Sanders 22.9% | Joe Biden 16.3% Martin O'Malley 4% Lincoln Chafee 0.6% Jim Webb 0.4% Undecided 6.4% |
| Selzer & Co. of Des Moines Margin of error: ± 4.9% Sample size: 404 | August 23–26, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 43% | Bernie Sanders 35% | Martin O'Malley 5% Jim Webb 2% Lincoln Chafee 1% Not sure 8% Uncommitted 6% |
| Selzer & Co. of Des Moines Margin of error: ± 4.9% Sample size: 404 | August 23–26, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 37% | Bernie Sanders 30% | Joe Biden 14% Martin O'Malley 3% Jim Webb 2% Lincoln Chafee 1% Not sure 8% Uncommitted 6% |
| Suffolk University Margin of error: ± 4.4% Sample size: 500 | August 20–24, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 54% | Bernie Sanders 20% | Joe Biden 11% Martin O'Malley 4% Jim Webb 1% Lincoln Chafee 0% Undecided 9% |
| CNN/ORC Margin of error: ± 4.5% Sample size: 429 | August 7–11, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 50% | Bernie Sanders 31% | Joe Biden 12% Martin O'Malley 1% Jim Webb 1% Lincoln Chafee 0% Not sure 11% |
| Public Policy Polling Margin of error: ± 4.1% Sample size: 567 | August 7–9, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 52% | Bernie Sanders 25% | Martin O'Malley 7% Jim Webb 3% Lincoln Chafee 1% Not sure 11% |
| NBC News/Marist Margin of error: ± 5.5% Sample size: 320 | July 14–21, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 49% | Bernie Sanders 25% | Joe Biden 10% Martin O'Malley 3% Jim Webb 1% Lincoln Chafee <1% Undecided 11% |
| We Ask America Margin of error: 3.07% Sample size: 1,022 | June 27–29, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 63% | Bernie Sanders 20% | Martin O'Malley 5% Jim Webb 3% Lincoln Chafee 1% Undecided 8% |
| Quinnipiac University Margin of error: 3.6% Sample size: 761 | June 20–29, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 52% | Bernie Sanders 33% | Joe Biden 7% Martin O'Malley 3% Jim Webb 1% Lincoln Chafee 0% Undecided 5% |
| Bloomberg Margin of error: 4.9% Sample size: 401 | June 19–22, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 50% | Bernie Sanders 24% | Martin O'Malley 2% Lincoln Chafee 0% Undecided 23% |
| Morning Consult Margin of error: ? Sample size: 322 | May 31 – June 8, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 54% | Bernie Sanders 12% | Joe Biden 9% Martin O'Malley 1% Jim Webb 1% Lincoln Chafee 0% Other 3% Undecided 20% |
| Gravis Marketing Margin of error: ± 5.0% Sample size: 434 | May 28–29, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 59% | Bernie Sanders 15% | Martin O'Malley 3% Jim Webb 2% Bill DeBlasio 2% Lincoln Chafee 1% Unsure 17% |
| Bloomberg/Des Moines Margin of error: ± 4.7% Sample size: 437 | May 25–29, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 57% | Bernie Sanders 16% | Joe Biden 8% Martin O'Malley 2% Jim Webb 2% Uncommitted 6% Not sure 8% |
| Quinnipiac University Margin of error: ± 3.7% Sample size: 692 | April 25 – May 4, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 60% | Bernie Sanders 15% | Joe Biden 11% Martin O'Malley 3% Jim Webb 3% Lincoln Chafee 0% Undecided 7% |
| Public Policy Polling Margin of error: ± 4.5% Sample size: 466 | April 23–26, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 62% | Bernie Sanders 14% | Martin O'Malley 6% Jim Webb 3% Lincoln Chafee 2% Undecided 13% |
| Loras College Margin of error: ± 4.4% Sample size: 491 | April 21–23, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 57% | Elizabeth Warren 14.7% | Joe Biden 5.9% Martin O'Malley 2.4% Bernie Sanders 2% Jim Webb 1.2% Lincoln Chafee 0% Undecided 16.7% |
| Quinnipiac Margin of error: ± 3.9% Sample size: 619 | February 16–23, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 61% | Elizabeth Warren 19% | Joe Biden 7% Bernie Sanders 5% Jim Webb 2% Martin O'Malley 0% Undecided 6% |
| NBC News/Marist Margin of error: ± 5.5% Sample size: 321 | February 3–10, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 68% | Joe Biden 12% | Bernie Sanders 7% Jim Webb 1% Martin O'Malley <1% Undecided 12% |
| Selzer & Co. Margin of error: ± 4.9% Sample size: 401 | January 26–29, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 56% | Elizabeth Warren 16% | Joe Biden 9% Bernie Sanders 5% Jim Webb 3% Martin O'Malley 1% Uncommitted 4% Not sure 6% |
| Loras College Margin of error: ± 6.06% Sample size: 261 | January 21–26, 2015 | Hillary Clinton 48.3% | Elizabeth Warren 16.5% | Joe Biden 12.6% Bernie Sanders 3.8% Jim Webb 2.3% Martin O'Malley 0.4% Undecided 16.1% |
| Poll source | Date | 1st | 2nd | Other |
| Fox News Margin of error: ± 5% Sample size: 352 | October 28–30, 2014 | Hillary Clinton 62% | Elizabeth Warren 14% | Joe Biden 10% Andrew Cuomo 2% Martin O'Malley 2% Other 1% None of the above 2% Don't know 6% |
| Reuters/Ipsos Margin of error: ± ? Sample size: 552 | October 23–29, 2014 | Hillary Clinton 60% | Elizabeth Warren 17% | Joe Biden 4% Andrew Cuomo 3% Bernie Sanders 2% Kirsten Gillibrand 1% Martin O'Malley 1% Wouldn't vote 12% |
| Selzer & Co. Margin of error: ± 4.8% Sample size: 426 | October 1–7, 2014 | Hillary Clinton 53% | Elizabeth Warren 10% | Joe Biden 9% John Kerry 7% Bernie Sanders 3% Andrew Cuomo 1% Brian Schweitzer 1% Jim Webb 1% Martin O'Malley 0% Uncommitted 3% Not sure 12% |
| CNN/ORC Margin of error: ± 5.5% Sample size: 309 | September 8–10, 2014 | Hillary Clinton 53% | Joe Biden 15% | Elizabeth Warren 7% Bernie Sanders 5% Andrew Cuomo 3% Martin O'Malley 2% Deval Patrick 1% Someone else 1% None/No opinion 15% |
| Suffolk Margin of error: ± 7.09% Sample size: 191 | August 23–26, 2014 | Hillary Clinton 66.49% | Elizabeth Warren 9.95% | Joe Biden 7.85% Andrew Cuomo 4.19% Martin O'Malley 2.09% Undecided 7.85% |
| NBC News/Marist Margin of error: ± 4.2% Sample size: 539 | July 7–13, 2014 | Hillary Clinton 70% | Joe Biden 20% | Undecided 10% |
| Vox Populi Polling Margin of error: ± 6.6% Sample size: 223 | June 4–5, 2014 | Hillary Clinton 65% | Joe Biden 18% | Elizabeth Warren 12% Andrew Cuomo 3% Martin O'Malley 2% |
| Public Policy Polling Margin of error: ±5.2% Sample size: 356 | May 15–19, 2014 | Hillary Clinton 59% | Joe Biden 12% | Elizabeth Warren 11% Cory Booker 3% Andrew Cuomo 3% Mark Warner 2% Kirsten Gillibrand 1% Martin O'Malley 1% Brian Schweitzer 1% Someone else/Not sure 8% |
| Public Policy Polling Margin of error: ±5.2% Sample size: 356 | May 15–19, 2014 | Joe Biden 34% | Elizabeth Warren 22% | Andrew Cuomo 7% Cory Booker 4% Kirsten Gillibrand 3% Martin O'Malley 2% Brian Schweitzer 1% Mark Warner 1% Someone else/Not sure 26% |
| Public Policy Polling Margin of error: ±5.2% Sample size: 356 | May 15–19, 2014 | Elizabeth Warren 31% | Andrew Cuomo 14% | Cory Booker 9% Kirsten Gillibrand 5% Martin O'Malley 2% Mark Warner 2% Brian Schweitzer 1% Someone else/Not sure 36% |
| Suffolk Margin of error: ± 8.4% Sample size: 135 | April 3–8, 2014 | Hillary Clinton 62.96% | Elizabeth Warren 11.85% | Joe Biden 9.63% Mark Warner 1.48% Andrew Cuomo 0.74% Deval Patrick 0.74% Cory Booker 0% Undecided 11.85% |
| Public Policy Polling Margin of error: ±5.4% Sample size: 335 | February 20–23, 2014 | Hillary Clinton 67% | Joe Biden 12% | Elizabeth Warren 5% Mark Warner 3% Andrew Cuomo 2% Cory Booker 1% Kirsten Gillibrand 0% Martin O'Malley 0% Brian Schweitzer 0% Someone Else/Undecided 10% |
| Public Policy Polling Margin of error: ±5.4% Sample size: 335 | February 20–23, 2014 | Joe Biden 40% | Elizabeth Warren 13% | Andrew Cuomo 8% Martin O'Malley 5% Cory Booker 2% Kirsten Gillibrand 2% Mark Warner 2% Brian Schweitzer 1% Someone Else/Undecided 28% |
| Public Policy Polling Margin of error: ±5.4% Sample size: 335 | February 20–23, 2014 | Elizabeth Warren 21% | Andrew Cuomo 11% | Cory Booker 8% Martin O'Malley 6% Kirsten Gillibrand 3% Brian Schweitzer 2% Mark Warner 2% Someone Else/Undecided 47% |
| Poll source | Date | 1st | 2nd | Other |
| Cygnal Margin of error: ±2.1% Sample size: 2,175 | July 10–12, 2013 | Hillary Clinton 55.6% | Joe Biden 7.8% | Elizabeth Warren 5% Andrew Cuomo 1.1% Kirsten Gillibrand 0.5% Martin O'Malley 0.2% Unsure 29.7% |
| Public Policy Polling Margin of error: ±6.1% Sample size: 260 | July 5–7, 2013 | Hillary Clinton 71% | Joe Biden 12% | Elizabeth Warren 5% Kirsten Gillibrand 2% Mark Warner 2% Cory Booker 1% Andrew Cuomo 1% Martin O'Malley 1% Brian Schweitzer 0% Someone Else/Undecided 5% |
| Public Policy Polling Margin of error: ±6.1% Sample size: 260 | July 5–7, 2013 | Joe Biden 51% | Elizabeth Warren 16% | Andrew Cuomo 9% Cory Booker 6% Kirsten Gillibrand 2% Martin O'Malley 2% Mark Warner 1% Brian Schweitzer 0% Someone Else/Undecided 13% |
| Public Policy Polling Margin of error: ±6.1% Sample size: 260 | July 5–7, 2013 | Elizabeth Warren 20% | Andrew Cuomo 18% | Cory Booker 12% Kirsten Gillibrand 7% Martin O'Malley 4% Brian Schweitzer 3% Mark Warner 2% Someone Else/Undecided 33% |
| Public Policy Polling Margin of error: ±5.5% Sample size: 313 | February 1–3, 2013 | Hillary Clinton 68% | Joe Biden 21% | Andrew Cuomo 2% Mark Warner 2% Elizabeth Warren 2% Deval Patrick 1% Kirsten Gillibrand 0% Martin O'Malley 0% Brian Schweitzer 0% Someone Else/Undecided 3% |
| Public Policy Polling Margin of error: ±5.5% Sample size: 313 | February 1–3, 2013 | Joe Biden 58% | Andrew Cuomo 13% | Elizabeth Warren 7% Kirsten Gillibrand 6% Deval Patrick 3% Mark Warner 2% Brian Schweitzer 1% Martin O'Malley 0% Someone Else/Undecided 11% |
| Public Policy Polling Margin of error: ±5.5% Sample size: 313 | February 1–3, 2013 | Andrew Cuomo 26% | Elizabeth Warren 17% | Martin O'Malley 8% Kirsten Gillibrand 5% Deval Patrick 3% Brian Schweitzer 2% Mark Warner 2% Someone Else/Undecided 37% |
| Harper Polling Margin of error: Sample size: 183 | January 29, 2013 | Hillary Clinton 65.38% | Joe Biden 13.74% | Andrew Cuomo 3.85% Undecided 17.03% |

## Results

e • d 2016 Democratic Party's presidential nominating process in Iowa – Summary of results – :
| Candidate | State delegate equivalents | State delegate equivalents | Estimated delegates | Estimated delegates | Estimated delegates |
| Candidate | Count | Percentage | Pledged | Unpledged | Total |
| Hillary Clinton | 700.47 | 49.84% | 23 | 6 | 29 |
| Bernie Sanders | 696.92 | 49.59% | 21 | 0 | 21 |
| Martin O'Malley | 7.63 | 0.54% | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Uncommitted | 0.46 | 0.03% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Total | 1,405.48 | 100% | 44 | 7 | 51 |
| Source: ||||||
Iowa Democratic county conventions, March 13, 2016 :
| Candidate | State delegates | State delegates | Estimated delegates | Estimated delegates | Estimated delegates |
| Candidate | Count | Percentage | Pledged | Unpledged | Total |
| Hillary Clinton | 704 | 50.07% | 23 | 6 | 29 |
| Bernie Sanders | 700 | 49.79% | 21 | 0 | 21 |
| Martin O'Malley | 1 | 0.07% | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Uncommitted | 1 | 0.07% | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Total | 1,406 | 100% | 44 | 7 | 51 |
| Source: Iowa Democrats ||||||
Iowa Democratic District conventions, April 30, 2016 :
| Candidate | State delegates | State delegates | Estimated delegates | Estimated delegates | Estimated delegates |
| Candidate | Count | Percentage | Pledged | Unpledged | Total |
| Hillary Clinton | 697 | 50.40% | 23 | 6 | 29 |
| Bernie Sanders | 686 | 49.60% | 21 | 0 | 21 |
| Uncommitted | | | | 1 | 1 |
| Total | 1,383 | 100% | 44 | 7 | 51 |
| Source: Iowa Democrats ||||||
Iowa State Democratic Convention, June 18, 2016 :
| Candidate | State delegates | State delegates | Estimated delegates | Estimated delegates | Estimated delegates |
| Candidate | Count | Percentage | Pledged | Unpledged | Total |
| Hillary Clinton | 714 | 55.56% | 23 | 6 | 29 |
| Bernie Sanders | 571 | 44.44% | 21 | 0 | 21 |
| Uncommitted | | | | 1 | 1 |
| Total | 1,285 | 100% | 44 | 7 | 51 |
| Source: Iowa Democrats ||||||
Following a poor result in the caucuses, Martin O'Malley announced he was suspending his campaign.

## Controversy

"Organizational issues around the caucus", including difficulty identifying volunteers to "oversee individual precinct caucuses," contributed to a "disorganized process that lent itself to chaos and conspiracy theories" according to The Guardian.
   Both the Sanders and Clinton campaigns have flagged a very small number of concerns for us, and we are looking at them all on a case-by-case basis.
After initially refusing to review caucus results, Iowa Democratic Party officials did end up "making updates where discrepancies have been found." With "doubts about which Democratic candidate actually won the Iowa caucuses," there have been "fresh calls for the party to mirror the simple, secret-ballot method" the Republicans use. Stated Norm Sterzenbach, former Iowa Democratic Party executive director who oversaw five election cycles: "It's worth discussing again, but it's not as simple as it sounds." It is said that Clinton won by the thinnest margin in the history of Iowa caucuses.

### Instances

Iowa Democrats reported "discrepancies in caucus results" and confusion over the math of the delegate-awarding system. In Grinnell Ward 1, 19 delegates were awarded to Sanders and seven to Clinton on caucus night. The Iowa Democratic party later shifted one delegate from Sanders to Clinton, but did not notify the precinct secretary, who "only discovered that this happened the next day, when checking the precinct results in other parts of the county."
Other reported discrepancies included:
* the lone caucusgoer in Woodbury County No. 43, who voted for Sanders—but "final results state" Clinton won one county delegate and Sanders zero.
* in Knoxville No. 3, where the count was 58 for Sanders and 52 for Clinton—but official results showed Clinton with five county delegates and Sanders with four.
* the four delegates in Cedar Rapids No. 9 precinct who split evenly between Sanders and Clinton—but only 131 people signed in at the beginning of the caucus with two separate head counts showing 136 people voted.
In Des Moines No. 42, "after everyone had formed initial groups for their preferred candidate," a Clinton supporter addressed O'Malley supporters and undecideds, telling them "they could stay and realign or leave." Some mistakenly believed that meant voting was finished and left early without being counted. In the same precinct, votes were still missing the morning after the caucus. Democrats "from that neighborhood scrambled to find party officials" to report that Sanders won by a margin of two delegates over Clinton. This narrowed Clinton's "excruciatingly close lead" even further—bringing the tally for "delegate equivalents" at that point to Clinton 699.57, Sanders 697.77.

### Coin tosses

The Des Moines Register reported "an unknown number" of county delegates awarded "after the flip of a coin." Sam Lau, a spokesman for the Iowa Democratic Party, said seven coin flips were reported through "the party's smartphone app"—but officials who reported county delegate totals via the app "weren't required to signify if the win was the result of a coin toss." Lau said Bernie Sanders won six of these. The paper identified "six coin flips through social media and one in an interview with a caucus participant"—with Clinton the apparent winner of six of these seven. Any overlap, or its impact on results, between the coin flips identified by the Register and those the party confirmed was not known.
An Iowa Democratic Party official told NPR there were "at least a dozen tiebreakers" decided by a coin toss— and that "Sen. Sanders won at least a handful."
   Gone unmentioned so far is that even if Clinton won that Miracle Six — and there were no other coin tosses — it would make little difference in the outcome. That is, in part, because of the complicated way Iowa Democrats allocate their delegates — and what was being reported on election night and what wasn't.

### Review

Sanders' campaign "launched" a review of the results of the caucuses, citing as "complicating factors" the "razor-thin margin", the "arcane" caucusing rules, the reporting delays from some precincts, and the reporting technology used. The campaign is rechecking results precinct-by-precinct, reviewing "math sheets or other paperwork" precinct chairs used and were supposed to return to party officials—then comparing these with results entered into the party's Microsoft app. Rania Batrice, a Sanders spokeswoman, challenged: "Let's compare notes. Let's see if they match."
In an editorial, The Des Moines Register called for an audit of the results, declaring "What happened Monday night at the Democratic caucuses was a debacle, period." First noting that only two-tenths of a percent separated Sanders and Clinton and "much larger margins trigger automatic recounts in other states," they stated:
   Too many accounts have arisen of inconsistent counts, untrained and overwhelmed volunteers, confused voters, cramped precinct locations, a lack of voter registration forms and other problems. Too many of us, including members of the Register editorial board who were observing caucuses, saw opportunities for error amid Monday night's chaos.
In lieu of "official paper records" the party had "declined to provide the campaign"—which would show individual precinct vote tallies before they were entered into the party's app the night of the caucuses—the Sanders' campaign was contacting each of its own precinct captains to reconstruct caucus results. Sanders' campaign manager Jeff Weaver said: "I think everybody has an interest in making it as accurate as possible", though "[a]s an empirical matter, we're not likely to ever know what the actual result was".
   Let's not blow this out of proportion. This is not the biggest deal in the world. We think, by the way, based on talking to our precinct captains, we may have at least two more delegates."

## Analysis

Despite a late challenge from insurgent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, whose populist economic message resonated with Iowa's progressive Democratic electorate, Clinton eked out a 0.2-percentage-point victory in the first-in-the-nation caucus, edging out Sanders by only four state delegate equivalents. As The New York Times described, Sanders' near-tie with Clinton combined with Ted Cruz's Republican victory in the caucus demonstrated how the "2016 campaign has turned to easing the palpable frustrations of a large portion of white working-class Americans who believe that the country no longer works for them."
According to entrance polls, Clinton won the white vote by a 49–46 margin against Sanders, with white voters comprising 91% of the Iowa electorate. She won non-white voters more resoundingly, 58–34. Sanders won among men, 50–44, but Clinton won women, 53-42. Sanders proved his immense strength with millennials by winning 17–29-year-olds 84-14, with Clinton winning senior citizens, 69–26. Clinton won among voters who had a high school diploma or less, and among those who had a postgraduate degree, while Sanders won voters with only a college degree. Sanders won 53-44 among voters who made an income of less than $50k per year, Clinton won more affluent voters 52-42. In terms of political party affiliation, Clinton won Democrats 56-39 but lost Independents to Bernie Sanders, 69–29.
Upon learning she had been awarded the state of Iowa after 1 P.M. the following day, Clinton told CNN's Wolf Blitzer, "My luck was not that good last time around, and it was wonderful to win the caucus, to have that experience."