There's not going to be a 'revolution' at the voting booth for Bernie

[Lexblues]

We've been hearing for months from the likes of Michael Moore and AOC that there all these 18-24 yr olds are going to flood the polls for Bernie cause they're so enthused to vote him. We've been hearing about how there's no need to go after moderate voters cause the young will come out and overwhelm the voting booths. Well what happened in Iowa? Bernie did worse this year than he did 2016.

My point is that if we as a party depend on this mythical youth and previous non-voters turnout to overwhelm the polls in order to beat Trump, then we will lose 40 states. The truth is we need to reach out to swing voters as well.

[Squinch]

1. Got HALF the votes he got last time. So you are clearly right.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

2. You do realize that "last time" was a two person race.

There are a lot more running this time.

But, yeah, if it helps your narrative that someone Sanders and progressives lost Iowa, keep at it.

[Squinch]

7. Yes. And BS lost half of his Iowa votes to the new guys. He needs more this time, not fewer.

[bluewater]

8. pssst. It's a distraction.

I think most people realize last time was a 2 person race, but saying Sanders support was "cut in half" draws attention away from Joe Biden's disappointing 4th place finish in Iowa.

[Squinch]

12. No. It's simply a statement of fact. If it distracts you from being happy about Joe's showing,

that's on you.

BS DID get half the number of Iowa voters. His voters from last time did not stick with him. They voted for someone else.

He lost last time. This time he needs MORE votes. See how that works?

[HarlanPepper]

19. That doesn't account for the flat turnout relative to 2016

Doesn’t feel too revolution-y

[Blue_true]

45. Doesn't matter. Half his 16 voters chose "another".

That is in line with what he is doing nationally.

[bluewater]

4. And yet Sanders clobbered Biden in Iowa !!1!!1!

Inexplicable, eh?

And Joe is out frontrunner in all the polls too.

Go figure.

[Squinch]

15. Doesn't change that half his 2016 voters abandoned him. But I guess that isn't something

you care to address. You seem too stuck on whataboutisms about Biden.

[bluewater]

21. It does seem meaningless. Like comparing apples and oranges.

Maybe you can explain how Sanders clobbered Biden in Iowa after "losing half his support"?



maybe, just maybe, 2020 is a brand new primary race and you can't compare it to past years? Seems so.

Otherwise, Joe should have beaten Bernie, right?



As the field narrows, if it ever does, guess what happens? EVERYONE's support goes back up to the 2 person race levels of past years.

Think about it.

[Squinch]

22. You seem to need to talk about Joe. I haven't brought him up. Joe's showing is not

what we are talking about. BS's showing is what we are talking about.

BS got half the voter support he got last time.

BS lost last time.

If BS is to win this time, he will need MORE voter support than he got last time.

So far, he isn't doing that.

[bluewater]

24. As the field NARROWS, everyone's support goes back up.

It's that simple.

You cant' compare a 2 person contest to a multiple person contest as you are trying to do.

Get back to us when the race narrows to 2 people and we will see how much support each candidate has.

In the meantime, Sanders had a very strong showing in a close race in Iowa. He's STILL in the top 2, even though "his support was cut in half". See how silly saying that is?

People need LESS support to win a race that has several strong contenders than in a 2 person race. You seem to be really misunderstanding that point. More people are dividing up the pie, hence the winner can win with a small size slice of voters than in a 2 person race.

I think I cannot be clearer than that, so, thanks for the Discussion!

Cheers!

[Squinch]

25. Sure. Half your voters have decided they don't want to vote for you any more. Total victory.

[bluewater]

26. lol I think someone might be pulling my leg now.

[LanternWaste]

69. I dig how you move the goalposts so quickly and without shame.

[bluewater]

71. An observation

I notice a tendency in more ad hominem responses lately. And the prose, well, the prose seems to lack pithiness and nuance.

Do the rhetorical batteries need to be re-charged?

Perhaps.

[Cha]

83. I don't.

[ChubbyStar]

28. Give it to you, bernie lost half of his support

What happened to Joe's support? Let's talk about that. He had ZERO support. Oh I know he wasn't in Iowa to win it, as so many are pointing out, he was just getting started..REALLY? No candidate goes to ANY race saying "yes if we lose I still won."

[Squinch]

30. You guys keep saying that. But it doesn't change the fact that BS lost half his support.

Man, this isn't that difficult a concept.

And it has nothing to do with Joe's showing.

[ChubbyStar]

32. Sorry fourth place Joe is stll in fourth place

I don't give a shit where Bernie finished, he did beat Joe though right?

[Squinch]

33. Wow. I guess any raft to cling to. When your candidate loses half his support.

Have a lovely evening.

[ChubbyStar]

35. He beat Joe

Now it looks really shitty, you are claiming Bernie and his supporters are clinging to a raft that beat fourth place Joe and that is horrible, so where does that leave Joe?

[krissey]

42. Actually, BS support likes caucus. Biden's support don't participate in caucus.

Iowa is simply skewed. A lot of people were not able to participate in the vote. Just keeping our feet to the ground, a little here. It is not like there are not a lot of people in Iowa that would vote Biden. I think he would perform well in the state with a regular vote.

[Blue_true]

46. And Pete beat Sanders. nt

[bluewater]

47. Has he yet? I don't think any results are finalized.

Time will tell.

[Blue_true]

48. Pete's chances of winning were at 82% and change today,

Sanders at 27% and change. Buttigieg has actually GAINED ground on Sander since that prediction.

[bluewater]

51. So Pete has not beat Sanders as of now. OK. Thanks.

I am sure we both want to see the finalized results.

[Blue_true]

53. The probability is that Pete will beat Bernie in the final count. nt

[bluewater]

55. Uh huh. Time will tell.

We can discuss it when results are finalized!


Cheers!

[TexasTowelie]

64. I thought that Warren was supposed to have the best organization in Iowa

and she came in third. I believe that she may be in the lead in Massachusetts and Minnesota (based on some old polls from last year). Do you still see a pathway for her to win?

[bluewater]

65. Warren's widespread organization saved her from a Biden-like disaster

She did well in the popular vote, but only won a single county. Her widespread organization statewide did get her enough votes to get a medium-level 3rd place finish. But overall, she underperformed in my mind.

Warren needs a 2nd place finish in NH.

Biden needs to beat Pete.

[TexasTowelie]

66. I don't believe that Biden needs to outperform Buttigieg in New Hampshire.

The Biden campaign has been completely aware that the initial contests prior to Super Tuesday were not likely to lead to strong finishes. I also doubt that the voters throughout the South are going to abandon Biden because of who voters in Iowa and New Hampshire pick.

After the first four states are done, only 3% of the delegates will have been awarded. There are nearly 600 delegates available in southern states on Super Tuesday and Biden is considered to be a favorite. Biden will also pick up a reasonable share of votes in other states such as California on Super Tuesday even if he isn't favored to win. Biden also appears to have an advantage in the remaining contests during March. Unless the other candidates strengthen their standing with POC, I expect that Biden will be leading the delegate count. Biden may not have a majority by the time of the convention, but I think he will be several hundred delegates ahead of his nearest rival. If it goes to a second ballot at the convention, I doubt that the superdelegates are going to align with Bernie since he has bernt his bridges with them a long time ago.

[bluewater]

67. Interesting points.

You put your finger on it, where will minority voters end up is the question.

Thanks for the discussion.

[Pololv]

57. Boy, just how dense does one have to be to not understand the main point.

You have pointed out a comparison that isn't part of this conversation, but happily throw in similar shit when it shows Bernie losing. And you wonder why we will never forgive or forget what Bernie is and does.

[ChubbyStar]

58. The post you replied to said this

Has he yet? I don't think any results are finalized.
Time will tell.

Exactly WTF are you talking about?

[bluewater]

60. My main point is that no one has won Iowa yet.

That seems pretty simple?

lol

[Pololv]

62. The main truth of this OP is that bernie DID lose half his support.

All your "whataboutisms" to the contrary.

And, to your point, with each new update, Pete GAINS in support...

[Nikki28]

3. the thing is

do we even believe the results after hearing about Trumpers trapping voters to get Bernie elected so they can burn our party down. I just don't trust any polls now when it comes to Bernie after trumper tricks ;either from bots to humans.I will just wait until the actual vote is counted. I am glad for Pete though and will be happy and vote for whomever win if I think it was a legit vote.

[Squinch]

13. I didn't hear about Trumpers trapping voters. And I think it's probably bullshit. Care to

provide a link to where you got that information?

[texasfiddler]

5. Amen

The purist voters will unwittingly re-elect the orange asshole. 2020 is not like 2016. We have witnessed a “disrupter” in action for 3+ years.

[Fiendish Thingy]

6. Youth turnout in Iowa was up to 27%, from 18% in 2016

There were more 18-27 year olds than over 65 voters at the caucus.

Reminder: the election in November isn’t a caucus...

[JudyM]

34. Interesting, I hadn't seen the demographics. Is the raw # up?

Or just the percentage relative to the decline in older voters?

[Fiendish Thingy]

39. Those are SteveKornacki's numbers from NBC's entrance polls

You can extrapolate from the raw totals of all voters the state has released.

[HarlanPepper]

9. I think we would have seen it in Iowa

What we saw was a flat turnout. When the French decided to come for Louis’ head they came in large numbers.

[Kaiserguy]

10. We can't afford to overlook any potential voter

Beating Trump is job one. Regaining the Senate is job two. If we can't beat Trump then retaking the Senate is a must

[Still In Wisconsin]

14. I'm starting to think that beating Trump looks pretty unlikely.

Reason: I believe Biden will be trounced by Bernie in New Hampshire, then once the race gets to states where Biden should be strongest, he will be an afterthought. I could be wrong. But if I'm not... I really can't see Mayor Pete or Warren beating Trump. Klobuchar is already too far back. Sanders vs. Trump would be a bloodbath in favor of Trump. I'm one who has believed for a long time that Biden's our best bet, but he's just not generating any excitement among anyone. It doesn't look like the "safe choice" is what primary voters want. We will see, obviously.

But the Senate is another story. I can see several scenarios where Trump wins the Presidency again but Republicans lose the Senate. That would be hugely important, if for no other reason than to take away the Republicans' ability to use the "nuclear option" to ram judges through.

[Cornell Engineer]

37. Good analysis

but I disagree on one point. I think if Fuhrer Drumpf wins the GOP keeps the Senate.

The Democrats need 3 seats to gain control of the Senate with a Dem VP. They'll probably lose at least one seat (most likely Jones in Alafuckinbama). If they have to win 4 seats (if not 5 or 6 should they lose 1 or 2 other seats) they'd have to essentially run the table and I don't see that happening.

Biden is still our best bet at the moment. Buttigieg is a wild card right now. Bloomberg would be the break-the-glass nominee. Here in Arizona I'm pretty sure Biden would beat Trump (and help Commander Kelly win another Senate seat for the Dems) but Bernie would get his ass kicked and McSally would likely win riding Drumpf's corrupt coattails.

[emmaverybo]

102. I believe Biden is still our best bet. And until Iowa, he had a great chance. Unfortunately, Iowa,

and the upcoming race in another tiny white state, have changed everything because, as in the stock market, premature panic snowballing.

The news gets full of PB’s surge, Bernie‘s strength, Biden’s death, and seemingly overnight the best qualified, most broadly appealing candidate who has held the lead for a year is yesterday’s onions, not so great a fit in the first place they now say.

I believe viewing the results of these two states as predictive, thus making them so, will prove a fatal mistake. I hope not. I hope to God not.

[Still In Wisconsin]

11. In my opinion, if we nominate Bernie, Trump will win with somewhere around 350 electoral votes.

I voted for Bernie in the primary last time around so it's not like I don't agree with a lot, or even most of what he says. But his appeal outside of the very progressive end of the political spectrum is almost nil. The country simply does not, as a whole, want anyone who would be classified as extremely liberal and who characterizes himself as a Democratic Socialist. There simply aren't that many fire-in-the-belly progressives in rust belt or other swing states to make that work.

[texasfiddler]

16. Thank you for pointing this out!

I am a very pragmatic person and would love to vote for Bernie in the primary if I thought he was viable. I can always change as a staunch Democrat, but I will choose the candidate that I think has the best shot to eliminate trump .

[people]

20. In My Opinion

I don't think the words "socialist" or "democratic socialist" are as frightening to people under 65 years old as they are to those older than 65. We may find that more people just want a break from big money running and funding everything and that that's more important than these labels.

[Squinch]

23. I don't think I'll base my one chance to get rid of Filthy Donny on your opinion.

[Kentonio]

85. As long as you don't expect your opinion to matter to anyone else either, that's fine.

[Squinch]

88. Sanders supporters? No. I don't expect them to be influenced by anything but their own opinions.

[Kentonio]

89. Maybe check a mirror

[Squinch]

90. Ahh! The "I know you are but what am I" defense! Interesting choice.

[Kentonio]

91. No, more just tired of you being hostile and rude to people

While showing a staggering lack of self awareness. Everyone here has an opinion, and they all have equal worth. Someone disagreeing with you is no reason to talk to them impolitely.

[Squinch]

92. Got it. My stating an opinion is rude and hostile. You or the

other poster stating an opinion is not to be questioned.

[Kentonio]

93. My opinions are always up for questioning.

But read back to yourself your earlier post to the other poster, and ask yourself whether it sounds friendly or not.

Not trying to attack you, but sometime in the heat of primary season it’s easy to get swept up in the heat of things, and forget we’re all a lot more similar than we are different.

[Squinch]

94. Lol! "Not trying to attack you." If that is the case you need to

not try to attack a little harder. And watch that projection thing.

Bye.

[NurseJackie]

95. I have a feeling that you get the last word.

[Squinch]

96. SMDH. Can't make this stuff up.

[Squinch]

97. Oh! But I see what you mean! How did that happen?

[NurseJackie]

99. I don't know... I just say "Thank ya Jesus" and move on!

[Squinch]

100. You made me smile.

[JudyM]

36. What are you basing your opinion on? "Facts" that you read around here? Sanders beats trump

consistently in the polls, and that margin will increase if he’s the candidate if we Dems get stronger with our messaging.

There are some here who are trying to “establish the fact” that Sanders won’t beat trump.

[Still In Wisconsin]

38. What matters is individual states, not popular vote totals. This should be obvious now.

Sanders vs. Trump in CA, NY, MA? Sanders probably wins by 15 % or more.

Sanders vs. Trump in Wisconsin? That's a Trump win. Ditto for Iowa and quite possibly Michigan and Pennsylvania. Sanders vs. Trump in Florida? That's a Trump win. Sanders vs. Trump in Ohio? Forget about it.

[JudyM]

40. Sanders wins MI and probably WI. He took both states last time around & trump won there because of

white workers, according to post-election analysis, and then very narrowly. Plus this time around MI’s being run by Dems so there won’t be the rampant voter suppression that strangled us last time.

[Still In Wisconsin]

54. No, Sanders won the DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY in Wisconsin.

Wisconsin is on a knife edge. There's a hardcore conservative base here, and also a reliably Democratic base. They're about the same size. Nobody wins Wisconsin, though, by running as a real or perceived ultra-liberal, at least in a statewide election. You HAVE to get some of the middle if you're going to win this state, and Sanders won't. I don't live in Michigan, obviously, but given trends and vote totals over the last few elections, I doubt it's much different.

[JudyM]

63. I don't know if that argument holds up.

Just reviewing numbers here, not fighting about it, she lost to trump by less than half the number of votes she lost the primary. We don’t know all the specifics but it’s not entirely apples and oranges ... we can see that Sanders had 46,453 more votes and trump had just 22,748 more votes....(ugh, this hurts to look at it). The knife edge would likely have bent to bring in more than the party faithful for Sanders... others likely would’ve come out for various reasons that have been discussed in a number of analyses.

Sanders has quite a bit of crossover appeal. If the party faithful vote for him PLUS he can pull in independents and yes, even conservatives (I witnessed this up close and personal with family members), we’re looking good in WI with him. Let’s see how the primaries go there this time around

[Bettie]

17. In a two person race

it is much easier to get half the votes.

[ehrnst]

18. We saw all this before with Nader....

On Oct. 13, 2000, 15,000 zealous progressives packed Madison Square Garden for one of Ralph Nader’s super rallies. They paid $20 each for admission, evidence of their passion, since political rallies are almost always free. That year, many on the left were disappointed with the Democratic nominee for president. Al Gore was a wonky centrist and a stilted speaker who appeared to possess few core principles. For progressives, his association with Bill Clinton, icon of triangulation and political compromise, counted against him. At a time when the left was outraged over our corrupt campaign finance system, Gore was dogged by questions about money he’d received from sketchy donors with ties to foreign governments.

At best, Gore offered progressives a continuation of politics as usual. True, the Republican in the race seemed a right-wing buffoon, but Nader told his followers to vote their hopes, not their fears, and his message about citizens banding together to overturn entrenched, amoral corporate interests spoke to many people’s deepest aspirations. Bush and Gore, he said at Madison Square Garden, are “both for cracking down on street crime but ignoring corporate crime, which takes far more lives.” In response, the crowd erupted in chants of “Let Ralph debate!” Young people flocked to Nader, and hip musicians played his rallies: The lineup in New York included Eddie Vedder, Patti Smith, and Ani DiFranco, whose ’90s cool had not yet evanesced.

Nader concluded his almost hourlong speech by calling the evening “the most memorable political rally of the year 2000.” Some who were there felt they were witnessing the flowering of an epochal social movement. “The protest movement that has been growing on a grassroots level, as evidenced by the World Trade Organization demonstrations in Seattle, reached its political coming-of-age last night,” the Village Voice wrote.

At the time, it felt like nothing short of a rebellion against consumer capitalism. Nader had made his name campaigning against the blandishments of corporations, first as a consumer advocate and then as a gadfly political candidate. “Who designed this economy, anyway?” he asked at Madison Square Garden. “I think it’s time to have it designed as if people mattered, not as if General Motors, Exxon, DuPont, and the other corporations matter!”

.....................................................

Nader’s movement never constituted a real cross section of the left; even sympathetic observers noted that it was overwhelmingly white. After attending another of Nader’s massive rallies in Chicago, Salim Muwakkil wrote in the Chicago Tribune, “This lack of racial diversity among Nader supporters is particularly striking, given the 66-year-old candidate’s progressive positions on economic democracy and social justice.” Yet plenty of people on the left saw Nader as the era’s great political hope. “Nader and the Green Party represent the best opportunity in half a century to place a progressive agenda on the national scene,” wrote Juan Gonzalez in the left-wing magazine In These Times. He added: “It has brought hundreds of thousands of white youth into electoral politics in much the same way that Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition movement brought disaffected blacks to the voting booth in the ’80s.”
......................................................

Sixteen years later, supporters of Bernie Sanders would also decry a “media blackout” on coverage of his enormous campaign events. That’s only one of the obvious and striking parallels between the Nader and Sanders campaigns. Both men were gruff, older leftists—Nader, like Sanders, didn’t like kissing strangers’ babies—who became unlikely youth culture heroes. (It helped that both called for free tuition at public colleges.) Nader and Sanders both believed a populist message could draw disaffected nonvoters into the electoral process, promising not just a challenge to the Democratic status quo but a political revolution. In a recent phone interview, Nader called the similarities of his movement and Sanders’ “uncanny.”

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/09/ralph-nader-and-the-tragedy-of-voter-as-consumer-politics.html

[Gothmog]

50. Rove funded Nader

I will never forgive nader Rove funded Nader in 2000 and 2004 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html

Furthermore, Karl Rove and the Republican Party knew this, and so they nurtured and crucially assisted Nader’s campaigns, both in 2000 and in 2004. On 27 October 2000, the AP’s Laura Meckler headlined “GOP Group To Air Pro-Nader TV Ads.” She opened: “Hoping to boost Ralph Nader in states where he is threatening to hurt Al Gore, a Republican group is launching TV ads featuring Nader attacking the vice president [Mr. Gore]. ... ‘Al Gore is suffering from election year delusion if he thinks his record on the environment is anything to be proud of,’ Nader says [in the commercial]. An announcer interjects: ‘What’s Al Gore’s real record?’ Nader says: ‘Eight years of principles betrayed and promises broken.’” Meckler’s report continued: “A spokeswoman for the Green Party nominee said that his campaign had no control over what other organizations do with Nader’s speeches.” Bush’s people - the group sponsoring this particular ad happened to be the Republican Leadership Council - knew exactly what they were doing, even though the liberal suckers who voted so carelessly for Ralph Nader obviously did not. Anyone who drives a car the way those liberal fools voted, faces charges of criminal negligence, at the very least. But this time, the entire nation crashed as a result; not merely a single car.....

On July 9th, the San Francisco Chronicle headlined “GOP Doners Funding Nader: Bush Supporters Give Independent’s Bid a Financial Lift,” and reported that the Nader campaign “has received a recent windfall of contributions from deep-pocketed Republicans with a history of big contributions to the party,” according to “an analysis of federal records.” Perhaps these contributors were Ambassador Egan’s other friends. Mr. Egan’s wife was now listed among the Nader contributors. Another listed was “Nijad Fares, a Houston businessman, who donated $200,000 to the Bush inaugural committee and who donated $2,000 each to the Nader effort and the Bush campaign this year.” Furthermore, Ari Berman reported 7 October 2004 at the Nation, under “Swift Boat Veterans for Nader,” that some major right-wing funders of a Republican smear campaign against Senator John Kerry’s Vietnam service contributed also $13,500 to the Nader campaign, and that “the Republican Party of Michigan gathered ninety percent of Nader’s signatures in their state” (90%!) to place Nader on the ballot so Bush could win that swing state’s 17 electoral votes. Clearly, the word had gone out to Bush’s big contributors: Help Ralphie boy! In fact, on 15 September 2005, John DiStaso of the Manchester Union-Leader, reported that, “A year ago, as the Presidential general election campaign raged in battleground state New Hampshire, consumer advocate Ralph Nader found his way onto the ballot, with the help of veteran Republican strategist David Carney and the Carney-owned Norway Hill Associates consulting firm.”

It was obvious, based upon the 2000 election results, that a dollar contributed to Nader in the 2004 contest would probably be a more effective way to achieve a Bush win against Kerry in the U.S. Presidential election than were perhaps even ten dollars contributed to Bush. This was a way of peeling crucial votes off from Bush’s real opponent - votes that otherwise would have gone to the Democrat. That’s why the smartest Republican money in the 2004 Presidential election was actually going to Nader, even more so than to Bush himself: these indirect Bush contributions provided by far the biggest bang for the right-wing buck.

[Cha]

80. thank you for that, Goth

[samnsara]

27. IF bernie wanted a 'Revolution' he would have done this in his youth..Dear Gawd how long...

....has he been in the Senate and wtf was he waiting for?

[ehrnst]

41. +1000.

[lapfog_1]

29. More important than his vote total from Iowa.

The overall turnout was lower to nearly the same as 2016.

If there really was a revolution youth vote... the Iowa total caucus should have been 15% higher than it was in 2016.

Oops.

[Lexblues]

43. Exactly...there's no revolution at the ballot box

This GE will be guerilla warfare. I don't wanna hear from Michael Moore and others telling me that this mythical non-voter is going to deluge the polls and bring a wave of socialism into the WH. Utter bullshit.

[Cha]

61. Exactly.

[Kentonio]

86. The youth vote in Iowa was way up on 2016.

[uponit7771]

112. The total vote was not

[SunSeeker]

31. Yep, even if Bernie eeks out a win in Iowa, he lost. Pete won in Iowa nt

[Scurrilous]

44. It was supposed to be magic revolution, not the regular raggedy running about kind, but magic.

It could pass bills through Congress, wean Congress off its Pork habit, provide housing, jobs, medical care, and weed..for all.

That one didn't show up either.

[Gothmog]

52. This makes me smile

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

49. I have questionsw about this magical voter revolution

I have never taken sanders seriously due to a complete lack of legislative accomplishments of sanders and the fact that I do not understand sanders voter revolution The NYT also did not understand how sanders voter revolution works

Link to tweet

Like the NYT, I have questions about this voter revolution concept. I have asked sanders supporters to explain this concept to me and so far no one seems to know how this voter revolution will work in the real world https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=430371

Gothmog (78,308 posts)
64. Exactly how does sanders voter revolution work in the real world?

It is my understanding that even sanders has acknowledged that he cannot adopt his platform unless he holds rallies and this voter revolution occurs. Is this correct? How does this voter revolution work in the real world? Again as I understand this concept, so many new voters will rise up and force the GOP to be reasonable. Is this correct? How many new voters does it take to accomplish this goal and where are these voters? How will these new voters force the GOP to be reasonable when so many GOP officeholders are in gerrymandered districts? Will these new voters move to these districts in time to vote for sanders’ platform? If these new voters are real, then why are theses new voters not showing up in the polls? New voters in such large numbers so as to cause the GOP to be reasonable should show up in polling. Are these new voters waiting for something? If these new voters really exist in the real world, why has sanders not used these new voters to get some meaningful legislation passed?

I look forward to answers to these questions

sanders interview with the NYT may have gone better if he had explained how this revolution would work in the real world. I am still curious

[Laelth]

56. I'm just not worried about it, frankly.

I think that Daffy Duck could beat Trump in the 2020 presidential election, and that's with or without a surge in youth voting. Recent polls suggested that 50% of the American people wanted the Senate to remove Trump from office pursuant to the House's Articles of Impeachment.

Daffy has the right argument, and I think the American people get it.

To Trump, we say:



-Laelth

[UniteFightBack]

59. It's one thing to show up at college after class and meet your friends but quite another to go to a

poll and vote. I'm sorry but there are just not many young people who give a shit about politics. They are not paying attention. Did you at that age? I know many of you will say oh hell no.

[Tweedy]

68. We all, myself included, need to practice patience

https://mobile.twitter.com/WinWithJMC/status/1225422688996511746

Iowa turn out was high. Turn out did not reach 2008 numbers, true. Yet, it surpassed every other recorded cycle.

It was not high simply for Senator Sanders; it was high for all democratic caucus goers.

What that means for Senator Sanders revolution is yours to guess.

Nevertheless, it is excellent news for November !!

[HarlanPepper]

70. Turnout was flat relative to 2016

2008 was an unusual year in that there was a legitimate phenomenon in that race. There is no such candidate in this race. Not even close. If there were turnout would have been higher than in 2016 by a lot. Three thousand more people showing up is a huge disappointment given the context. (Trump in office, supposed Sanders Revolution).

[Tweedy]

72. No. That is yesterday's rush to news

Did you look at the link?

Iowa turnout is on track to be the second highest ever.

It has exceeded 2016 & there is still three percent to count.

Turnout was NOT flat from 2016.

You are right that it does not look like most Iowans turned out to support a revolution.

Iowans did turn out in high numbers to vote for a democrat.

This is good news 😃

[HarlanPepper]

73. LOL Three thousand more over 2016 is not significant

The goober tweeting that can spin it all he wants but given that Dump is in office, and the supposed Sanders Revolution, a mere 3 thousand more people showing up is disappointing if not irrelevant.

[Tweedy]

75. Where did you get that number?

He said 3% left to count, not 3000 extra.

The Iowa turnout was the second highest ever & youth turnout was up over 2016
(that comes from Steve Kornacki, MSNBC numbers man)

Obviously, most of these folks did not show up to support Senator Sanders' revolution or he would be way out ahead.

But the turnout was up. This is good news.

IMHO we should choose the candidate we think has the best chance to fix the GOP mess. As long as we stick together & vote, we will win no matter our nominee's name

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/06/rachel-bitecofer-profile-election-forecasting-new-theory-108944

[flamingdem]

74. How many primaries let registered repubs vote?

The r's want Bernie to run.

[redstatebluegirl]

76. When I ask serious Bernie supporters who are our students if they are registered.

they all say no, or "do I have to do something to vote".

[MFM008]

77. Sanders equal

Dukakis 1988.

[oasis]

78. +1

[OnDoutside]

79. Have read Rick Wilson's new book ? That's exactly what he said, in fact IIRC, he said the high point

for young voters was 1988, Daddy Bush v Dukakis. Election after election, Democrats have been chasing after this section of the electorate, without significantly shifting the numbers.

p.s. I stand to be corrected on the 1988, but I'm pretty sure it was that election.

[Gothmog]

81. Iowa turnout declined which means no voter revolution

[Kentonio]

87. No it didn't.

It was the second highest ever.

[AncientGeezer]

104. Yet vastly lower than 2008

[Gothmog]

105. This claim was fact checked and found to be sanders spin i.e., not true

sanders is trying to preserve the myth of his magical voter revolution and is claiming that there was increased turnout. This claim was fact checked and found to be false

Link to tweet

Sen. Bernie Sanders claimed there was a “huge voter turnout” among young caucusgoers in Iowa this year, saying the turnout was “even higher than Obama’s extraordinary victory in 2008.” In fact, about 10,300 fewer young voters turned out this year than in 2008.....

It’s true that an estimated 24% of this year’s Democratic caucusgoers in Iowa were 29 years old or younger — a higher percentage than in 2008 (22%) and 2016 (18%), according to Edison Research, which conducts entrance polls at the Iowa caucus sites for major news organizations. But far more people participated overall in 2008, including more young people.

“In 2016, participation in the Iowa caucuses was around 170,000 voters,” Edison Research said in a blog post prior to the Iowa caucus.

“But in 2008, turnout for the Democratic caucuses in Iowa reached record levels; 239,000 voters came out to participate in the caucuses that year.”

That means about 52,580 people ages 17 to 29 participated in the Iowa caucus in 2008 — which is far more than came out this year.
As the Washington Post reported, 176,000 people participated in the Democratic caucuses in Iowa, which means about 42,240 of the Democratic caucusgoers were 29 years old or younger. That’s about 11,640 more than participated in 2016 — when Sanders was also a presidential candidate — but it’s about 10,300 fewer younger voters than in 2008.

So, Sanders’ claim that young voter turnout among Iowa Democrats “was even higher than Obama’s extraordinary victory in 2008” is pure spin.

[Cha]

82. KICK

[betsuni]

84. K&R

[Malmsy]

98. I think it's clear that there is even more support for Bernie than in 2016.

That alone is revolutionary.

[Kurt V.]

101. 18 to 29 y.o. turnout is up 79% since 2014.

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2019/04/behind-2018-united-states-midterm-election-turnout.html

[Fiendish Thingy]

103. The truth is, you have no evidence to support your fear based hypothesis

Look up Rachel Bitecofer’s model, which correctly predicted the 2018 Blue Wave down to every single seat.

Bitecofer’s model asserts that it is a waste of time and resources trying to flip “swing” voters, and efforts would be more effective focusing on increasing the turnout of existing anti-Trump voters.

Nominating an inspiring candidate would be a good first step.

[Gothmog]

106. FactCheck Posts- Sanders Spins Young Voter Turnout in Iowa

sanders is trying to preserve the myth of his magical voter revolution and is claiming that there was increased turnout. This claim was fact checked and found to be false

Link to tweet

Sen. Bernie Sanders claimed there was a “huge voter turnout” among young caucusgoers in Iowa this year, saying the turnout was “even higher than Obama’s extraordinary victory in 2008.” In fact, about 10,300 fewer young voters turned out this year than in 2008.....

It’s true that an estimated 24% of this year’s Democratic caucusgoers in Iowa were 29 years old or younger — a higher percentage than in 2008 (22%) and 2016 (18%), according to Edison Research, which conducts entrance polls at the Iowa caucus sites for major news organizations. But far more people participated overall in 2008, including more young people.

“In 2016, participation in the Iowa caucuses was around 170,000 voters,” Edison Research said in a blog post prior to the Iowa caucus.

“But in 2008, turnout for the Democratic caucuses in Iowa reached record levels; 239,000 voters came out to participate in the caucuses that year.”

That means about 52,580 people ages 17 to 29 participated in the Iowa caucus in 2008 — which is far more than came out this year.
As the Washington Post reported, 176,000 people participated in the Democratic caucuses in Iowa, which means about 42,240 of the Democratic caucusgoers were 29 years old or younger. That’s about 11,640 more than participated in 2016 — when Sanders was also a presidential candidate — but it’s about 10,300 fewer younger voters than in 2008.

So, Sanders’ claim that young voter turnout among Iowa Democrats “was even higher than Obama’s extraordinary victory in 2008” is pure spin.

[Gothmog]

107. Sanders does not have a magic wand

Link to tweet

?s=20

[Gothmog]

108. No, radical policies won't drive election-winning turnout

The concept of a magical voter revolution is debunked

Link to tweet

Sanders’s explanation of why this is not a problem is simple, and he has repeated it endlessly. When a member of the Los Angeles Times editorial board asked him whether “a candidate as far to the left as you” would “alienate swing voters and moderates and independents,” the senator replied: “The only way that you beat Trump is by having an unprecedented campaign, an unprecedentedly large voter turnout.” Faiz Shakir, Sanders’s campaign manager, adds: “Bernie Sanders has very unique appeal amongst [the younger] generation and can inspire, I think, a bunch of them to vote in percentages that they have never voted before.”

This has remarkably little empirical support. Take the 2018 midterm elections, in which the Democrats took back the House (a net 40-seat gain), carried the House popular vote by almost nine points and flipped seven Republican-held governorships. Turnout in that election was outstanding, topping 49 percent — the highest midterm turnout since 1914 and up 13 points over the previous midterm, in 2014 — and the demographic composition of the electorate came remarkably close to that of a presidential election year. (Typically, midterm voters tend to be much older and much whiter than those in presidential elections.) This was due both to fewer presidential “drop-off” voters (people who voted in 2016 but not 2018) and to more midterm “surge” voters (those who voted in 2018 but not 2016)…..

This analysis shreds an implicit assumption of Sanders and other members of the turnout-will-solve-everything crowd: that if they polarize the election by highlighting progressive issues, “their” nonvoters will show up at the polls, but none of the nonvoters from the other side will. That view is also contradicted by many political science studies. Stanford political scientists Andrew Hall and Daniel Thompson, for example, studied House races between 2006 and 2014 and found that highly ideological candidates who beat moderates for a party nomination indeed increased turnout in their own party in the general election — but they increased the opposition turnout even more. (The difference was between three and eight percentage points.) Apparently, their extreme political stances did more to turn out the other side to vote against them than to turn out their own side to vote for them.

The turnout equation does not necessarily return positive results for a candidate like Sanders. The reverse is more likely. It is truly magical thinking to believe that, in a highly polarized situation, only your side gets to increase turnout. And if the other side turns out in droves, you might not like the results — a warning Democrats would be wise to heed.

[Gothmog]

109. Sanders would kill down ballot candidates

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

110. Where is sanders' magical voter revolution??

Link to tweet

[uponit7771]

111. K&R, there's no evidence Sanders or Bloomberg has swing state appeal