(Doom & gloom warning) if you aren't terrified by our turnout numbers so far, you should be

[Recursion]

It's early in the season, but this is scaring the hell out of me.

We had lower absolute turnout in both Iowa and New Hampshire than in 2008, despite there being more Democrats in both states now than in 2008. We had lower turnout than the Republicans this year in both the caucus and the primary.

This should be what the party is talking about, and the only thing it's talking about, until we fix it.

I absolutely grant that the Sanders campaign's accomplishments in IA and NH have been phenomenal, and have gone a long way towards answering my own questions about his viability as a candidate. And, to put cards on the table, I'll be voting in the Democrats Abroad primary on Super Tuesday and if it were held today I'd vote for Sanders.

But these are appallingly bad turnout numbers for the early contests. Yes, I know that Sanders got more votes in New Hampshire than any candidate in the primary's history: but the party got fewer than it got in 2008, and Sanders got fewer than the GOP, and the party as a whole got fewer than the GOP. The exit polling suggests Sanders' lead was largely from independents, whom I don't trust to vote for us in the general and I especially don't trust to vote for us down-ballot in the general (in fact I pretty much expect them to split tickets in the general because they've shown time and time again that they like to do that).

I have no idea how we wound up with the two candidates who seem most able to destroy our coalition, but here we are. This is not a good situation, and we need to fix it, yesterday.

[SamKnause]

1. I know how we wound up with two candidates.

If we lose this thing I know exactly who I will place the blame on.

[Recursion]

2. She stole it from Dean's playbook, though

That was his whole thing: he swept up a ton of institutional support before Iowa. It's just that nobody has been able to do it at this large a scale before.

[RiverLover]

4. The Hillary coronation was not wise.

But this whole thing has been illuminating. Our party has gone rogue & the leaders are all about money, not people.

Really sad to see.

[SamKnause]

8. We fellow political junkies have known for quite sometime.

I think it is the in your face blatant corruption that is soul crushing.

When Hillary praised President Obama for reining in Wall Street

I felt like barfing.

[RiverLover]

9. I had several of those moments!

So many will buy right into it. That's what makes me noxious.

[Recursion]

12. It was not just unwise, it was fucking disastrous

Castro. Villaraigosa. Gillebrand. Schweitzer. Tester. Booker. Patrick. Sinema. Graham. Gregoire. Locke. Duckworth. Rendell.

That's a huge bench of the people from multiple backgrounds and ideologies who could have run this year (not counting O'Malley who -- to his credit -- actually did run), and they couldn't because Clinton sucked up literally every single ounce of institutional support from the beginning. I am fucking furious at this point.

[RiverLover]

19. Me too Recursion.

Me too.

[delrem]

81. It was nevertheless exactly where the Dem party was at.

It was to be a coronation. Polls said she had 85% support, and our noses got shoved in it.
As if nobody had a choice.

[TCJ70]

3. I wonder if more candidates increases turnout...

...since each candidate will have their own supporters who they appeal to. This would be especially true if independents are the largest voting block, in my opinion.

[Recursion]

7. Not necessarily "more"

Right now we have two candidates who seem to face an historic inability to actually get Democrats to the polls. Can we agree that that's a bad sign?

[TCJ70]

13. We can...

...I just think having 7-8 candidates working to get out the vote would naturally increase the number of voters in a primary.

[mythology]

26. Except that isn't entirely true

Look at Iowa in 2008 as compared to 2016. Yes Obama's total would have won in 2016, proving Obama was a unique candidate.

But assuming a roughly equal divide among caucus goers, both Clinton and Sanders in 2016 won about 10,000 more votes than John Edwards did in 2008. Sure the turnout numbers so far don't match 2008, but the Republicans have had a small bus load of people running and they've been out of the presidency for 8 years.

Then look at New Hampshire. Trump was the Republican winner by a 20 point margin. All that, and he got 4,500 more votes than Clinton who lost the Democratic primary by 22 points. Trump got 47,000 fewer votes than Sanders did. I'm not saying this is any evidence how either would do against Trump in a general election, but it shows that there is passion on the Democratic side and that while neither candidate is Obama, they are both pretty good at getting their supporters out to vote.

[Cosmocat]

38. It shows

that there was functionally two democratic candidates splitting up the votes vs six or seven republicans splitting up the votes ...

[madokie]

5. So

are you saying to me that there is no use. I must just throw my hands up and vote for Hillary, is that what you're implying here? Because if it is I have this to say. I will vote for Hillary over any one of the 'CON candidates but that will be the only way. As it is now I think we can DO THIS. We can have an affordable healthcare system, we can have an affordable higher education, we can have better roads, we can have all these things that Bernie is talking about and its pretty dang simple how we pay for it. One is to cut out some of the glut in our defense/offense budget and the other is start making rich people pay their fair share of taxes. Remove the tax loop holes that the corporations use to not pay any taxes at all and in the mean time we start paying workers a livable wage and by that one thing we will be putting a lot of money back in circulation that will help in this tax category that ultimately helps to pay for all this pie in the sky you seem to be insinuating it all is.

From reading the newspaper this morning it seems that Hillary came off the rails last night. Pretty much the same as she did the last time she ran for the Presidency and we didn't just coronate her from the get go. No I'm not worried, We have a good Candidate in Bernie Sanders and his message is resonating with a lot of people, enough to ride his wave all the way to the oval office.

see that was pretty simple. No need to worry about how many chickens will actually hatch but rather take care of the ones who do.

[Recursion]

6. What a weird, weird thing to take from my OP...

And, no, that wasn't remotely what I'm saying. Did you even notice that I mentioned that if the primary were today I'd vote Sanders?

[Cosmocat]

45. Hillary has been so damaged in this primary

she has absolutely no chance in the general now because so many of the left have ginned themselves up into a republican like she is the anti-christ miindset she won't even solidify the democratic base.

So, we absolutely need Bernie to win at this point.

I still think if the Rs manage to get past their stupid (politics wise) and nominate Rubio, he will win in a landslide.

Trump and Cruz are horrible enough that it might change the dynamics.

But, the issue is a lot simpler than all this Hillary obsession stupidity.

In the last two decades plus, democrats have had two elections that they had a huge turnout - 06 and 08. Both driven by a red hot anti-bush vote, with Rs being surpressed both times because he was truly a disaster. Somehow, Ds managed to ring the bell and turnout just enough to get BHO reelected in 12.

Every other election, Rs have either won big, or won solidly. Because they are always voting against something.

The same energy that is driving Bernie for the most part - voting against something, Hillary and also the establishment to an extent, is what is driving the overall dynamics of this election.

Rs have spent 8 years in a never ending hissy fit against BHO, and are dead set on not allowing another america hating democrat into the POTUS. Democrats are doing what democrats do, being bullied into not backing a darn fine president.

We have to see how it looks if he wins the nomination and if it is Trump or Cruz. THAT is really the key.

Right now, the dynamics are exactly like 99 - a solid democrat president who had been destroyed by republicans for 8 years, with their media whores eating popcorn gleefully, so while things were better off, the country "felt" things were so horrible, and in its infinite wisdom said, "well, gee, we will elect the moron you would like to have a beer with" just to shut up republicans because he was gaggingly affable, and packaged his hard right positions into Rove's "compassionate conservatism" bullshit.

If they have a pretty face with a positive message, they win easily. But, Trump is so off the rails it probably changes the dynamics. Cruz isn't as off the rails, but has staked a lot of hard right positions publicly, and has a creep factor that might allow Bernie to get past him.

[BillZBubb]

56. There is no way Rubio wins in a landslide.

He'd be one of the better candidates for the repugs, but he is still a dimwitted empty suit. He very well could win a close election but that's about it.

[Cosmocat]

73. Rubio is BY FAR the biggest threat

He isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but the dynamics of this election are even worse than 99,. and this country is even more stupid than it was then.

Once the Rs got behind him breathlessly screaming how he was the sainted spawn of Ronald Reagen with the media crooning over him like teenage girls fainting over the Beatles, while gleefully destroying Hill or Bernie ...

It would be over before it started.

[mattclearing]

78. Christie wrote the book on that guy.

Hit him where it hurts and watch him fold.

[Cosmocat]

82. Wont matter in a general

Republicans will breathlessly scream how he is the younger, latino reincarnation of ronald reagen, and the media will treat him like teenage girls fainting over the beattles, whhle destroying hill or bernie.

[Cosmocat]

10. People here are so caught up in the hillary drama

They dont want to hear, the dynamics in this election are like 99 ...

I will expand on this again in a bit.

[Recursion]

11. Please do

I would like to hear more of your thoughts on that. (If you don't mind, PM if you post those thoughts in a different thread?)

[Cosmocat]

34. It's the stupid

Everyone in the country is well aware that this is a Presidential election.

I know a lot of people here have ginned themselves up in this republican like hillary is the antichrist thing, but as evil as she and DWS might be, they aren't holding people's children hostage to keep them from voting.

The overall turnout is based on the same dynamic as the energy that drives the Bernie campaign - voting against something.

SO, the energy in this election right on the democratic side is driven by that.

The larger dynamics of the election cycle are similar to 99 ...

A Democratic POTUS, who despite having a fairly successful tenure, has been attacked relentlessly for 8 years by republicans, with their whore media cheering it on, and despite things being better now than when he took office, the country "feels" that things are so horrible because of an 8 year long republican hissy fit.

Republicans are ginned up to get the white house back after 8 years of an america hating POS holding the office, democrats are doing what democrats do, running into a corner with their tails between their legs.

In the last 20 years, there have been two major turnout elections for democrats - 06 and 08, both times fueled by an anti GWB fever.

SOMEHOW, democrats managed to ring the bell and got out enough to get BHO re-elected in 12, but every other election has been either an R blowout or solid R win.

[A Simple Game]

61. As far as I am concerned you couldn't have it more wrong about Bernie and the Democrats problem with

getting out the vote.

I am excited by Bernie not because I am voting against something but because finally since President Carter was in office I have someone to actually vote for, not against.

As for previous elections much as I thought Gore was who the US and the world needed at the time for climate change and energy policy, he was not a very good candidate. Gore was also following a huge Democratic scandal. Kerry was also not a very good candidate and allowed himself to be defined and on the defensive instead of attacking what was a very poor President.

As for this election, it seems obvious to me Hillary that can not win the general election. Bernie on the other hand inspires both Democrats and a majority of unaffiliated voters. Republicans, the saner ones, will also crossover to vote for Bernie in part because he isn't, as many on DU like to point out, a real Democrat which allows them to vote against the Republican candidate and maintain a good conscience.

My views may be biased as although I am a Democrat now I haven't been in 20 years or so and only rejoined to vote for Bernie in the primary and unless Bernie wins the primaries will return to unaffiliated status. I do not consider myself a Democrat now and am an unashamed DINO from the left.

[Cosmocat]

71. That is your personal experience

people do this thing where they assume their experience is everyone's experience.

Your experience is the same as many in 08, who for their own personal reasons came back or to the party because of BHO.

There is definitely something to that, and Bernie, like BHO has a positive message to his campaign. And, that can bring some different people to the table, and lends some hope that Bernie might get past the current dynamics.

But, that is on the margins.

The point stands, and the results reflect it, over the last quarter century, the overall energy of elections is voting AGAINST something. Republicans crushed the 94 mid terms over Bill and Hillary's attempt to get health care reform done. They crushed the 10 mid terms over BHO's health care reform. Dipshit won POTUS over their throwing an 8 year hissy fit.

The only elections democrats have showed up for during that time were 06, 08 and 12. Bush was the white house for the first two.

You made my point about 99, a trumped up "scandal" that was the highlight of 8 years of republicans throwing a hissy fit over clinton.

SAME THING this go around, exactly.

Not that one singular "scandal" but the country is wore to a nub from republicans.

In fact, BHO's approval rating is LOWER than Clinton's was at this time.

People are fucking dumb, flat out. And, more dumb today than ever. This nuanced stuff that geeks like us here tune into, 90% of the country does not even have the first clue about.

[Android3.14]

14. We can thank DWS and HRC for that

They suppressed voter turnout in order to win the primaries through a series of voter forfeits.

What a horrible campaign strategy.

[Cosmocat]

30. 99% of the country does not have the first clue who DWS is

and everyone in the country is well aware that this is a Presidential election.

I know people have ginned themselves up in this republican like hillary is the antichrist thing, but as evil as she and DWS might be, they aren't holding people's children hostage to keep them from voting.

The overall turnout is based on the same dynamic as the energy that drives the Bernie campaign - voting against something.

SO, the energy in this election right on the democratic side is driven by that.

The dynamics of the election cycle are similar to 99 ...

A Democratic POTUS, who despite having a fairly successful tenure, has been attacked relentlessly for 8 years by republicans, with their whore media cheering it on, and despite things being better now than when he took office, the country "feels" that things are so horrible because of a republican hissy fit.

Republicans are ginned up to get the white house back after 8 years of an america hating POS holding the office, democrats are doing what democrats do, running into a corner with their tails between their legs.

In the last 20 years, there have been two major turnout elections for democrats - 06 and 08, both times fueled by an anti GWB fever. SOMEHOW, democrats managed to ring the bell and got out enough to get BHO re-elected in 12, but every other election has been either an R blowout or solid R wins.

[Android3.14]

46. Correct data, but wrong conclusion

Why do we keep running on the "I'm not a Republican" platform? Because leadership makes that decision. They make that decision because someone with influence benefits from that platform. And that means Hillary Clinton and Debbie Downer.

They may not be holding people's children hostage to keep them from voting, but they have crushed any hope in their followers of any actual change (while lining their coffers with millions upon millions of dollars in corporate influence and bribes-as-speaking-fees), and they have dominated the election cycle with that defeatist message up until a month ago, pushing that attitude.

HRC and DWS may not be the antichrist, but they certainly are lousy leaders.

[Cosmocat]

50. Sorry

But, you are guilty of your title ...

And, guilty of the point I made, getting so caught up in the Hillary anti-christ, DWS thing you can't see straight.

You WANT to believe that these two evil people somehow have the capacity to keep people from voting.

If you don't get how bizarre that is, this is going nowhere.

DWS is most certainly worthless, and is a Hillary backer, but was not even in congress when this shit started, christ she might have still have been in college.

And, as horrible as Hillary may be, she has no single handidly held back democrats from turning out to vote for going on a quarter century.

The point stands, the dynamics are the dynamics. This country's elections are driven by voting AGAINST something. You can ball around about Hlllary and DWS, and I have posted countless times how worthless democratic leadership is at DU, but the greatest energy in elections in this country is driven by voting against something.

You want to think people in this country are as thoughtful about this as you and I.

They aren't.

The overwhelming majority of people in this country don't tune in nearly enough to be all supressed by the things you are stuck on. These things don't even register for most people.

This cycle is set by the republican's 8 year red hot hissy fit over a democrat being in office, their troops hair is on fire to get POTUS back, and democrats are the spineless wimps they are hiding in a corner to let them do it.

That is what it is now.

MAYBE if it breaks right, Bernie will look good compared to Trump or Cruz. But, we are just hoping to catch a break and hold the white house, he will have a republican majority in the House and likely senate to deal with.

[Arazi]

52. This is an interesting post, definitely something to mull over eom

[Android3.14]

65. Unfortunately, it appears we are not communicating

You are making assumptions about me, my desires, my thoughts and opinions which are incorrect, arrogant and foolish.

Add to that an incorrect presumption of what motivates people to vote combined with a defeatist message and I can only conclude you have nothing constructive to add.

Until you can have a conversation devoid of that sort of unhelpful arrogance, I see no reason to continue this discussion.

Good luck.

[Cosmocat]

72. I will concede

that your arrogance trumps my arrogance.

Pretty nice gig when you get to "conclude" things about someone while chastising that person for their "assumptions."

[RiverLover]

70. Capitulating to the repubs, rather than being their opposition party, isn't inspiring citizens

to bother.

I agree with everything you say here, & you say it well. I wish people paid attention to what's really going on.

If both parties are corrupt, and essentially the same, the motivation to vote is gone. Democratic leaders aren't representing their base. They just want to pander to their Moneyed campaign donors.

But corporate media plays along with the sham. They're the worst offenders here, I think.

[mmonk]

16. The Sanders campaign is about coming together

so our government works for all of us.

[Recursion]

17. Awesome. And Democratic turnout fell in IA and NH from 2008.

And that's counting all the indies Sanders roped in, who I don't trust for a second to vote for us in the general.

We can't do anything unless we fix that.

[virtualobserver]

18. I have a different analysis,Bernie got 30% more votes in New Hampshire than any candidate in history

Bernie got 30% more votes in New Hampshire than any candidate in either party in NH primary history.... There is no way that this is a bad sign.

The fact that Bernie appeals to independents so strongly is a fantastic sign. Only 29% of Americans call themselves Democrats these day.

Bernie is going to form a new coalition, but ultimately it will be larger.

[Recursion]

20. And yet, this new coalition was *smaller* than Obama's in 2008

As of right now people in general are less motivated to vote for either candidate than they were in 2008. This is not good.

[virtualobserver]

21. no, much larger. Bernie got 40,000+ more votes than Obama did in 2008

[Recursion]

22. And *the party* got 20,000 fewer

And that's what we need to win the general.

[virtualobserver]

25. No, what we need to win the GE is the independent vote

Democrats are becoming a smaller and smaller piece of the pie.

Party attempts to destroy the one candidate who can appeal to independents are the problem.

[ozone_man]

29. Bingo! n/t

[stillwaiting]

40. This! It is clearly obvious which of the 2 candidates gives us the best chance to win the WH.

Bernie is SOLID with independents.

They hate HRC.

This ain't rocket science. It's really super easy to figure out.

[virtualobserver]

41. yeah, if you want low turnout for the Democratic candidate in the GE....go with Hillary

[840high]

77. yes

[cali]

23. You know I agree with you

It's not a good scenario.

[Bluenorthwest]

24. Where are the numbers? I'm a word person, but this requires actual numbers.

Where can I find the figures? You describe those numbers but you do not cite them.

[Donkees]

27. "New Hampshire's Changing Electorate"

Voters in New Hampshire can conceal
their partisan identity by registering themselves
as “undeclared”; these voters are often described as
independents, but most in fact identify with one major
party or the other. For example, only 14 percent of
young voters are registered as Democrats, yet 45 percent
identify themselves as such (Figure 3). Similarly,
the 14 percent of young potential voters who have
registered as Republicans is considerably less than the
33 percent who identify as Republicans. Young voters
are the least likely to have registered (61 percent), and
among those who have, most registered as undeclared.
A matter of particular interest in the upcoming presidential
primary is the distinct differences between the
political ideologies of the three groups of voters. Young
voters are significantly more likely to have a liberal
ideology than migrants or established voters. Nearly 35
percent of young voters classify themselves as liberal,
compared to 26 percent of migrants and 23 percent of
established voters (Figure 4).

New Hampshire’s population is among
the most mobile in the nation. Only
a third of New Hampshire residents age 25 and older
were born in the state. Such migration, coupled with
the natural change in the population as young voters
come of age and older generations of voters pass
from the scene, has produced considerable turnover
in the voting population. More than 30 percent of
potential voters this year were either not old enough
to vote in 2008, or resided somewhere other than New
Hampshire. Such demographic turnover contributes
to the changing political landscape of the state, which
has important implications both for the Presidential
Primary and the November general election.

unh.edscholarsu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1263&context=carsey

[Recursion]

28. I lived briefly in a housing project in New Hampshire

Ironically (given the subtext here at DU) with my half-Puerto Rican half-black girlfriend at the time, who had a nice public housing apartment in Manchester from which I rode the damn bus down to Boston every day (that was actually kind of nice, and the regional bus service there is wonderful).

Anyways: yes, New Hampshire is a lot less lily-white than people paint it to be: but it's also absolutely weird by any US definition.

[dsc]

35. It is 93 percent white for crying out loud

No one is saying there are 0 minorities there but it is by any reasonable measure one of the least diverse states in the nation.

[yourout]

31. If Trump gets knocked off I wonder where his votes end up..

In the general?
I seriously doubt Hillary would get many but Bernie could pick up a decent chunk of them.

[Recursion]

32. It's possible, and that's why I'm probably voting Sanders (nt)

[vadermike]

33. Trump

If it's trump vs Hillary uncertain Bernie vs trump I think Bernie wins

[restorefreedom]

37. i did hear the other day

that many who have never voted before, especially not youth, have registered to vote so they can vote for trump.

amazing and scary at the same time.

[restorefreedom]

36. i don't know the answer to this,

but are there demo numbers as to WHO voted then vs who is voting now? age group, gender, race/ethnicity, income, employed/unemployed/student, marital/parental status, etc

if there needs to be a gotv effort, it could help to have that information

one thought that i had...we know the financial "recovery" has primarily helped those at the top..jobs are still hard to find, incomes are stagnant, and many are working long hours with two or even three jobs. maybe they are working too much to vote or especially caucus, or are too demoralized to believe anything will change, even with someone like bernie.

would be great to have profiles then vs now of voters.

[Recursion]

43. Incomes are up 2% since 2008 (counting inflation) and unemployment was half what it was in 2008

But, your point is valid: I can cite those numbers all day and people don't feel more secure, and that's what's important.

And that's why I think we're in for a rough election cycle.

[restorefreedom]

49. especially with a truckload

of pissed off republicans

and yes,even people i know who are doing well on paper, are very unsettled.

people tend to vote if they have hope (like wih obama) or are pissed off, like with w. i think the pres. benefited to some degree from people being fed up with w.

and we know which group is fed up with obama

i do have hope that as more people learn about bernie, he can mobilize voters much more than hillary ( who will mobilize repubs to vote against her)

[stevenleser]

39. This requires a level headed analysis that I am not sure is possible in GDP right now

If there is a problem, and there very well might be one as you noted, it's one that all Democratic candidates who are and have run this year so far (and who didn't run but ought to have) and the party and President Obama all own.

Some or all of it may be attributable to the fact that the public simply seems to get sick of a particular party once one of its members has been in the White House for eight years. I think that's the main reason the 2000 election was anywhere close. There is no way all things being equal that Bush should have been able to get close to Gore even if Gore ran a mediocre campaign. The country simply wanted to change parties for no real ideological reason just because familiarity seems to breed contempt as far as that is concerned and that inertia was almost impossible to resist.

We are facing some of that inertia now. We will have to see how strong it is.

One thing it isn't is all Bernies or all Hillary's fault.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

48. If Hillary duplicates Gore's numbers among all groups she wins comfortably.

http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2000/



If Hillary duplicates Gore's numbers among all groups she wins comfortably, thanks to population growth among all the groups cited. She actually even wins by matching Dukakis' performance :


http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-1988/

[stevenleser]

83. Interesting stuff.

Thanks!

[GeorgeGist]

42. Chill.

[Recursion]

44. Oh, thanks, that makes it all better (nt)

[FailureToCommunicate]

47. With all the uncertainty "independents" or 'low information voters' add, the DNC and establishment

Democrats seem to be doing their darnedest to stir dissension and disinterest among the very voters that will decide this election: the passionate -"I will never vote for _____ in the general" or the independent - "Both parties candidate is politics as usual, why bother"

The Establishment elite, in their fervor to promote one candidate over another (instead of letting the electorate decide) will most certainly harm the turnout in November.

[longship]

51. Back to core principles, always a good idea.

And for the Democratic Party, core principles mean GOTV. The extent we don't do that is the extent to which the GOP wins. That is why it is so damned important that we unite, and the sooner the better.

And DWS has to get a clue about these facts.

Thank you for a well thought out and reasoned post.



R&

[joshcryer]

53. Independents are the largest and fastest growing group.

http://www.people-press.org/2012/06/04/section-9-trends-in-party-affiliation/

[Recursion]

54. That's a very cynical posture you're suggesting, but I see your point (nt)

[joshcryer]

57. Political apathy is my forte.

All that matters for the upcoming elections is party ID (which way people lean). You can expect the left to bring out as many as the right, and you can expect the spoiler parties (Libertarian, Green) to squeeze off about the same as usual (1% each, being generous). Unless, of course, the Greens or Libertarians* run a credible candidate, now that's what I'm worried about, so far Stein is a joke, and the Libertarians, if they run McAfee, will be laughable.

*I say Libertarian here because Libertarians historically get more of the vote than Greens, however, they can conceivably run a credible, historic, charismatic, (potentially woman) candidate, and leech from the Democrats.

[Recursion]

58. And Bloomberg? (nt)

[joshcryer]

64. I think we take it still.

But it'd be nasty, especially if Clinton stumps for him instead of Sanders (I think she's party loyal enough, but she could well snap if she loses this thing and Bloomberg really does jump in).

[Recursion]

66. Oy

I'm less optimistic than you, but I'll let this bouy me up for now.

[joshcryer]

67. They need 40% of the Latino vote.

That's what I repeat to myself, every night, before I lay down. (Not really, but it's my most comforting thought.)

Bloomberg doesn't change that equation very much.

But man, what a fucking ride it'd be...

[Recursion]

69. We can probably beat Cruz or Trump

Rubio is a coin toss.

Kasich is a fiasco that will set us back 30 years.

[Arazi]

55. Last night was the 1st time I had a twinge of fear

Both candidates had an excellent debate but Bernie’s got to expand his message or he's going to get a Rubiobot attack. He certainly inspires the necessary passion but his flaws as a candidate were the most apparent I've ever seen last night

Hillary’s just not exciting, she's... I dunno, clunky? (to co-opt cali's word for Jeb). She's brilliant, polished, attractive etc but I agree with cosmocat above - Dem voters gotta be inspired to come out in droves to beat the Republican hatefest that's brewing and she won't do that for us.

This is a good OP. I hope more DUers chime in because I agree, we have a problem

[Recursion]

59. Yes, exactly right. I can't articulate the factor that makes JEB! and Clinton wrong, but we all

see it.

And "clunky" is as good a word for it as I can think of.

[Bluenorthwest]

60. I'm going to ask again for the raw data you are looking at, I'm not finding it and would like to....

nt

[Recursion]

62. You can check the various states' election sites if that helps

Not sure where else to point you other than, you know, half of GDP OPs lately.

[Bluenorthwest]

63. I assumed you had a good source at hand, what I've been finding is very raw and

I'd just like to see turnout figures in both States for both Parties. I usually find such things easily, this I'm not finding so I asked.
Sorry.

[Recursion]

68. Sorry. We've had a fraught posting history and I get needlessly churlish

I have a lot of exit results. What exactly are we looking for? High turnout of I's or low turnout of D's? I'll do my best.

[Arazi]

74. Mulling over your post and wondering how a VP pick figures in

say it's Sanders - whose campaigning "against" the Establishment, the billionaires/oligarchs, and the status quo so he meets the requirement of energizing people to vote because they're voting "against something"

I'm wondering if a pick like, say, Tammy Duckworth would also attract back the disillusioned HRC supporters (female), the minority indies (she's a minority), the patriotic indies that usually lean right (she's a vet), she knows how to win (hand selected and groomed by Rahm Emmanual FFS)....

Paired with Sanders they might be a team (for example) that could overcome.

Do you see any hope in a careful VP selection for Sanders or Clinton? (Frankly other than Julian Castro or Cory Booker I can't see anyone that can energize her campaign. Duckworth doesn't work with HRC imo).

[Arazi]

75. pm kick! eom

[CoffeeCat]

76. Iowa caucus turnout was the 2nd highest in caucus history...plus, other stuff!

Hi there!

Just thought I'd let you know that Iowa turnout was considered extremely successful this year. Even if the caucuses were a laughing stock with coin flips, a Dem Chair who probably stole the whole thing for Hillary and 100+ unstaffed precincts--it was well attended.

You've just gotta love a silver lining. ....But I digress.

But seriously. Turnout was the second highest in Iowa Caucus History. You can't compare 2016 to 2008. That was a flipping juggernaut attendance that could be a once-in-a-lifetime situation. Our turnout numbers were great.

Please remember---only 30 percent of registered Democrats attend the caucuses. Many Iowa voters will vote, but they don't caucus. We're still working on dispelling the notion that our caucuses are complicated and strange.

The GE should garner a big turnout in Iowa. Don't worry about that.

Also remember---2008 brought so many Democrats into the system. Democrats will reap the benefits of that 2008 influx, in 2016.

[Jarqui]

79. Can't put my fingers on the television times quickly

but Trump and most of the GOP candidates got much more mainstream TV air time & mainstream media coverage than Sanders. Hillary was behind Trump and maybe others.

It's a little like reality TV. Trump was a ratings hit so the hell with balance - show the guy who brings in the ratings. Then they rattled through the contenders Bush, then Carson, etc. More debates at better times.

That generates interest.

As far as the average viewer, they saw some of Hillary but that was about it. Sanders was almost non-existent. Part of the reason kids like him is because they're on the net all the time doing social media -unlike the older folks. So the kids got Sanders exposure online while many others didn't have a clue who he was.

Other than what happened online, the mainstream media ignored Sanders and discouraged interest. That's the way Hillary wanted it. If it hadn't been for the internet, Sanders candidacy would already be over because the mainstream media kept his campaign almost as a secret.

That discourages interest.

It's not all as simple as that. There are other factors mentioned above but the mainstream media blacking out Sanders is a big reason turnout is down. Maybe with the recent fuss, it will pick up.

[Springslips]

80. The numbers are a worry.

It could simply be the number of candidates. More candidates more gotv operations, more handshakes and visits that are important in a retail state like NH. But still, the comparisons of 2000 are apt, though the electorate is different than 2000; our demographic advantages unfortunately don’t mean beans if we don't GOTV. ( lets also remember we won the popular vote in 2000, and the dems won the popular vote in every election save one since 1992.)

Ominously, history show that in times of economic struggle and political unresponsiveness people back hardliners because they instinctively believe the problem is weakness in our government. This is Trumps motive operandi. The uptake in republican votes may be attributed to him. I don't know, but it is a challenge I think whoever the nominee is has to face.