Yay...a 4th straight record turnout for the Republicans*

[cyberswede]

I sure hope this is due to the large number of candidates.

(*no link - just heard from Brian Williams on MSNBC)

[leftofcool]

1. I think you are on to something here

[Rex]

2. Yeah some of them voted twice!

Trusting the GOP to report accurate numbers ain't working out so well.

[arcane1]

3. While I would not be at all surprised if they had a high turnout...

I need a better source than Brian Williams

[RKP5637]

26. I find him so annoying to watch, his voice and expressions grate on me. I change the channel. n/t

[Recursion]

4. The thing is, even if it is just from the large number of candidates, that doesn't matter

If you can get someone to come out to the primary, they're much much more likely to vote in the general. This is exactly why having a narrow bench is a bad thing: the contacts that are being made, right now, by the GOP in the primary are going to still be contacts in November.

[Agschmid]

5. Yup. Real scary for the GE.

[bkkyosemite]

6. Bernie stressed again tonight we need to come out and vote us ...we dems

[Skittles]

8. neither Bernie or Hillary will motivate as well as Trump

it is a LOT easier to appeal to ignorance

[a kennedy]

29. So the record numbers of voters for Obama was because we were ignorant??

curious.....

[Skittles]

46. those numbers would be FAR EXCEEDED by the Idiots-For-Trump votes

[Gregorian]

7. If someone asked me to train people to vote against their best interests, I'd be at a loss.

Maybe it's just easier to sell fear than it is hope.

[bighart]

32. The problem with selling hope is

that sooner or later you have to deliver. If most of the hope you sold never results in positive change, even if it isn't your fault because you are blocked and obstructed at every turn, people become disillusioned and cynical.
Selling fear works every time because there will always be some shadowy bogey man looming in the future.
Selling fear doesn't require being specific, all you need is a perceived threat.
Selling hope means you have to define to some extent the problem with whatever the status quo is and articulate, at least in general terms, what needs to change and how you plan to do it.

[Skittles]

47. CORRECT

it's what many of us are feeling right now

[spanone]

9. republican will always turn up for a good hatefest

[brooklynite]

10. No, it has to do with the desire to replace an incumbent President...

...just like Democrats had a huge turnout in 2008. Not something to worry about.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

13. Uhhhhh, what?

And what happened in the 2008 GE again?

[brooklynite]

14. So what's your solution?

I was told that Bernie Sanders was going to bring in a wave of disaffected new voters. Still waiting.

[Bluenorthwest]

18. I was told Hillary Clinton 'owns you gays' and that she was an absolute lock, Sanders out by NH...

Still waiting to see that. Also still waiting for an apology for her years and years and years of denigrating LGBT for her own advancement while members of her cohort giggle and point fingers and claimed to be super holy religious. Her entire cohort should be doing that, but they don't and lord knows she won't.

The fact that folks like you are so eager to preserve the nasty anti gay politicians says all I need to know about this Party and what minority persons need to do with this Party.

[brooklynite]

24. So you don't have one...

...as we move into South Carolina and Super Tuesday.

[Bettie]

30. Do you think we'd have larger turnout

if Clinton were the only candidate? I ask because her supporters seem to be very angry that there is anyone else in HER race.

[brooklynite]

36. Nobody has suggested that Clinton be the only candidate...nobody has suggested that Sanders drop out

[Bettie]

37. There are crowing posts every day

about how Sanders is done, which IS a call for him to drop out and leave the inevitable to her victory lap.

And the question remains unanswered. DO you believe that turnout would be better with only Clinton in the race?

[brooklynite]

38. I suppose that all the posts saying America was "feeling the Bern"...

...or that Bernie was beating all the Republican candidates...

...or even that Bernie was leading in the Reuters tracking poll...

..were just exuberance on the part of Sanders' supporters?

[Bettie]

39. And yet, my question remains unanswered

Do you believe that turnout would improve if Clinton were the only candidate?

I, personally, do not make any of those type of posts.

The process has just begun, nothing is decided yet.

Stating that someone is leading in a poll is a simple reporting of those results. Clinton is leading in some states (all of the South last I checked), Sanders is leading in others. In the end, the only poll that matters is election results.

However, the point is that turnout is low.

My personal belief, with no proof except talks with less political friends (who reliably vote Democratic), is that it is for two reasons.

The first is that for the less-politically active, it doesn't matter which of the two is the eventual candidate, because they will be fine with either one.

The second is that there are only two candidates in the race so there isn't as much of a 'horse race' thing going on.

To answer my own question: turnout would be lower with only one candidate. Honestly, the best thing for primary turnout would be for the two to remain roughly tied for quite some time.

[brooklynite]

40. I don't, and as I've said, nobody has suggested Sanders leave

The fact that you choose to infer that about stories showing how well Clinton is doing isn't my fault.

[Skittles]

45. has no one here EVER seen the primaries before?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

42. This has nothing to do with Sanders. I don't get your parallel

You said everyone turned out in the Democratic primary to reject the incumbent president.....and you failed to mention that carried over to the general election with what compared to the previous two elections was a landslide for the candidate everyone in the primary ran out to vote for.

But you say "nothing to worry about" in this case (in regards to Trump).

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. They are committed to take back tje WH

It was the same way in 2008 for democrats. This is really not that unusual.

[davidn3600]

12. Political history shows the GOP should have the advantage this time

You look at the history since WWII... only once has either party held the White House for more than 8 years straight. Neither party has held it more than 12 years straight. So even if the Democrats win this year, history shows it will only get more difficult. If you follow history.

The big thing is that the opposition is motivated and usually angry. The party out of power is far easier to motivate and get out to the polls. And we saw it happen in the Democrats favor in 2008. But now the Democrats are the incumbent party.

Following history, this is the type of turnout you would expect to see. You can read different things into it and make excuses....but this is a concern.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

19. Only incumbent for presidency

Republicans will dominate and have their way with us if they have the presidency plus the majority in the house and senate. Democrats were only partially in power for the last 8 years. The republicans have taken over the house and senate. The republicans are in no way out of power, but to them they are if they don't control everything.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

20. Makes you wonder what it takes to get the dems angry?

I suppose the republicans will have to do something like make abortion illegal again.

[hfojvt]

15. How are they measuring that?

In sheer numbers? And for Presidential caucuses?

so 2016
2012
2008
2004

4 straight Presidential caucuses.

Surprising that 2004 would be a record, since there was no contest against the incumbent.

But here's Nevada's population

2000 - 2 million
2010 - 2.7 million
2015 estimate 2.9 million

Seems to me that with a larger population you just might, possibly, get more people voting.

You don't suppose the M$M could be reporting pro-Republican spin do you?

[Renew Deal]

16. 4th straight this cycle vs every other cycle

So more people in NV that ever before in NV. More people in SC than ever before in SC, etc.

[Bluenorthwest]

21. Not possible. Nevada has only had the caucus system since 08, so GOP caucused 08, '12, '16

Also 'largest' is very relative. 2008 Republican Caucus in Nevada had under 45,000 total votes. 2012 was about 33,000.
By comparison, Oregon 2008 Republican Primary had 336,981 votes cast.
Nevada has 2.8 million people and Oregon has 3.97....

They could have their largest caucus ever and still have low turnout.

[hfojvt]

33. that still involves population

for example there were 129 million votes for President in 2012 only 122 million in 2004, although somehow Bush still got more votes than Romney and more votes than McCain in 2008.

Only 105 million votes in 2000 and 96 million votes in 1996.

Romney-Santorum-Gingrich-Paul was not that exciting of a race. Trump has been getting yuge media coverage though. If that translates into the general election is another question. It might, or it might create some Pumas among people who really do not like Trump. If he goes into the convention with less than 50% of the delegates then ...

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

17. Meanwhile, our historic primary turned out 40K fewer than 2008

Down state after state. Lookin' good, Dems!

[hfojvt]

34. our historic primary was in 2008

with 3 fairly large candidates. Now we have a prohibitive favorite against a fringe.

Lower turnout in the primary actually helps the fringe.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

43. Swing and miss

You have no sense of history.

[karadax]

22. You can bet the SCOTUS pick is a driving force for R's too in this cycle.

Some exit polling done by CNN showed that replacing Scalia was a VERY important issue for those turning out at the Nevada caucuses. They know what is at stake in this GE. They're good at being motivating by fear.

[Bluenorthwest]

23. Just fyi, Nevada has had 3 years of caucus, largest GOP turnout was under 45,000 votes so that

means a record turnout could still be a fairly small turnout. The record is under 45,000. Which is very, very low.

[sweetapogee]

25. 72K

from this story. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/nevada-gop-caucus-2016-219685

[cyberswede]

41. That makes me feel a little better.

But that's still too many Rs.

[6chars]

27. definitely a concern

in 2008, dems had all the record turnouts with the heated primary contest, and those turnouts turned into registered voters for the general and excellent dem turnout. 2016 republican turnout in the general will be what it's going to be, but it is going to be critical for dems to get their best turnout.

[aaaaaa5a]

28. This is a bad sign for the GE. NT

[Whiskeytide]

31. It's Trump. He's getting people to the...

... Caucuses and primaries that have not previously been there. They were disaffected right wingers in the last few cycles, compounded by the embarrassment of W and the perception of the re pubs running another "same 'ol same 'ol" candidate. Now they have an "outsider, anti establishment" standard bearer who excites them.

I still think Trump's unfavorables will cost him as much as as the loonies give him in the GE. Independents and traditional repubs just are not that into him. But he's proven me wrong already several times this cycle, so what do I know?

[doc03]

35. I voted in Ohio last week while I was

there and this isn't no bs three other people came in and switched D to R. That was 3 out of 4 that were there at the time.

[Jim Beard]

44. About voter registration and political party

affiliation.

from Huntington post Political party declaration at registration.

I briefly lived in New Mexico and when I registered to vote I had to declare a political party or be an independent. You can not vote in any primary if independent and only vote in the Primaries at registration.

I have lived in Texas the almost all my life and here we do not have to declare a political party, ever.

I remember in the very early 1970's a friends grandmother told the grandchildren to vote for the worst Democrat candidate in the primary and skip the Republican primary. That is when the Democrats were in power in Texas.

Here in 2016 it is reversed, the republicans are hugely in power and it is NOT a winner tall of the delegates, rather proportionally divided.

We have started early voting in Texas and I voted, I voted for Trump, I CROSSED OVER. I felt really sick doing it but I think Hillary can beat him in the General Election when I will vote for her or Bernie.

Cruz is banking high on winning Texas but he can't get all the votes.

My gut tells me many of the high middle to upper class republicans will vote for Hillary in the fall.