Very troubling Iowa result: Repubs turn-out more voters than Dems

[LonePirate]

Per the Iowa Democratic Party, over 171K turned out to caucus for the Dem candidates last night.

http://iowademocrats.org/statement-from-idp-chair-on-tonights-historically-close-caucus-results/

This number is down sharply from the 230K in 2008 when twice as many Dems participated as Repubs that year.

Even worse for us is that over 186K Repubs voted in IA yesterday (per NBC News vote totals), more than 15K above the Dem number. This is the first sign I have seen that we could be in trouble in November. Am I misinterpreting these results? Is this difference inconsequential or is it harbinger of a miserable GE for us?

[beachbum bob]

1. more issues on the GOP side so more people showed up

doesn't indicate a trend for the general election in November

[narnian60]

2. Absolutely.

[Cosmocat]

3. That is a graveyard you are whistling past

There is a democratic president who has been bashed like shit for 7 straight years.

The only elections democrats have showed up for in the last two decades were 06 and 08, which was complete anti Bush elections, and 12 to get BHO reelected.

This is set up JUST like 99 ... The country wore down from republicans nearly decade long hissy fit over a democrat being in the white house, and more than willing to turn POTUS over to a republican to shut them up.

You better hope for Cruz or Trump, because they are horrible enough to even that out a bit, but if it its rubio, it isn't a matter of if, it is a matter of how big of a win it will be.

[AgingAmerican]

4. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is throwing the election

She is like the classic jealous husband: "If I can't have you, nobody can".

[Cosmocat]

5. DWS

DWS has absolutely no influence on the overall stupidity of the people in this country ...

[AgingAmerican]

8. She has been actively suppressing the Democratic vote for eight months

But, hey, whatever gets you through your day...

[Cosmocat]

10. 99%

of this country don't even know who she is.

If your position is that people aren't voting because of DWS, I need to take your own advice ...

[Uncle Joe]

9. Yes she does have influence on public ignorance of our candidates and the issues that we run on.

There is no doubt her cynical manipulation of the debates contributed to this.

[Cosmocat]

11. You can count on one hand

the number of people who didn't caucus last night because of her ...

And have fingers left over to thumb for a cab, pick your nose, give Marco Rubio the middle finger, wear your wedding ring and twirl your pinky ...

Ignorance had zero impact on republicans showing up ... It was basically a prerequisite.

DWS is worthless, but its a fucking presidential election and everyone knows it.

[Uncle Joe]

13. Yes T.V. exposure means nothing that's why candidates and super-pacs spend billions of dollars on it

DWS by putting her thumb on the scale in an attempt to help Hillary basically gave the Democratic Party her middle finger.

[Cosmocat]

14. Is there anyone in Iowa who was unaware

that it was a presidential caucus?

Did she kidnap people's children to keep them from getting out?

To whatever extent there is some actual reality to to your Hillary derangement, everyone knew there was an election.

This cycle is a near complete repeat of 99 ...

A Democratic president coming of a two fairly successful terms, but the republicans having spent nearly a decade throwing a fit has the country so worn out the democrats are willing to step aside and let the republicans get the white house just to STTFU.

The side running against the other side always has more energy - see the dems in 06 and 08, the Rs in 10. The Ds managed to wipe the drool off their chins enough to get BHO reelected, but are just being who they are ...

But, sure some vast conspiracy is to blame for the people of this country doing that they have done repeatedly the last three decades ... Democrats sleepwalk through elections while republicans get amped up by stupid to turn out.

[Uncle Joe]

16. Nothing trumps the debates in making a real time distinction between the candidates and

in touting their messages.

The corporate media conglomerates give the Republicans an inordinate amount of air time, but this was aided by that party's greater number of debates mostly scheduled for when people would actually view them. They can trash President Obama and the Democratic Party in general before tens of millions of Americans in real time and from the Democratic side, virtual crickets in real time rebuttal because of DWS's narrow interests.

You make my point, the side running against the entrenched power most always has more energy, that's why the cynically scheduled low number of debates on the Democratic side were designed to keep that renewal energy and information in check with the hopes of protecting the establishment powers in this case being led by Hillary.

[Cosmocat]

19. OK

You win, the apathy of democrats has been coordinated for three decades in some deep conspiracy to elect Hillary ...

[Uncle Joe]

20. The Democratic Party had a record number of debates "and" turnout in 2008.

[Cosmocat]

21. And were driven by wild eyed rage against GWB

Like they were in in the 06 mid terms.

But, yeah, it was the debates ...

[Uncle Joe]

23. And wild eyed rage is driving this election as well, so the debates were greatly limited in number

and cynically scheduled for when they would least likely be viewed in an attempt to dampen the righteous anger by limiting the message best expressing it.

[Cosmocat]

24. lol

OK ...

[Uncle Joe]

6. I believe the limited and ridiculously scheduled debates resulting in much lower T.V. exposure

in allowing our candidates to present their messages and counter rebuttals against Republican propaganda contributed to this.

Thanks for the thread, LonePirate.

[pinebox]

7. It's begun. The anti-Hillary crowd is beginning to show up

I've been saying this all along that Hillary will motivate the GOP base.

[unc70]

12. Low turnout favored Clinton

That was the message from both candidates, the polls, and the pundits. This was certainly a low turnout for Dems. What happened?

One possibility is that more independents decided to caucus with Republicans. Turnout is always tricky. Will be interesting to see the analyses.

[jham123]

15. 50/50 split

Until the 'other' half fully believe that Bernie is viable (and not 1% like MoM) the voter apathy is clear.

I wonder how many first timers were left outside after they ran out of registration forms??

[Darb]

17. I thought Bernie had a "moooovement" going, a revolution.

So it's not as enticing as the Obama candidacy. Very telling I'd say.

[NCTraveler]

18. Maybe trashing the guy who played...

Such a big role of getting those voters to the polls in '08 wasn't such a good idea. Have done a little of that bashing myself. Simple fact is we don't have an Obama running this time. Edwards had a really enthusiastic group of support as well. There were more options.

As for the republicans, they simply have a lot more going on. More campaigns working to GOTV, money, and the media. I don't think any comparison can be made with respect to the general.

[JaneyVee]

22. They elected Brandstandt.