Dem turnout down 30% while GOP turnout up 50%

[eridani]

These turnout numbers are highly disturbing to me, despite the great catch-up job pulled off by the Sanders campaign. I'm blaming the media and DWS for this. The media have been all Trump, much more than even for Clinton (and many of those stories were fluffy scandalmongering). Sanders has of course been completely blown off. Dems had a chance to get more people involved by scheduling debates on nights when people could watch them, but totally blew it--harming whoever is the eventual nominee.

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/2/1478607/-Political-revolution-Dem-turnout-down-30-while-GOP-turnout-up-50

It does not give me any joy to write this. I think that the Democratic party is in trouble. Here are the approximate numbers, I can’t find exact stats from 2008 so I rounded 29% and 49% to 30% and 50%. Most of the numbers are plus or minus 1,000 depending on which sources you look at for the stats.

Democratic turnout in the Iowa Caucuses

2008 — 239,000
2016 — 171,000

Republican turnout in the Iowa Caucuses

2008 — 119,000
2012 — 122,000
2016 — 182,000

So while Bernie Sanders talks about a “political revolution” as the answer to how we can turn things around and elect a Democratic Congress, it’s pretty clear there is a political revolution going on, but for Republicans not Democrats. It’s true that there’s a political revolt going on within the Democratic Party, to change the agenda and the party’s core economic message.

However, a political revolution within the party is not the same thing as a national political revolution. Unfortunately, the evidence of a national political revolution all points to the Republican side instead. Iowa has been a reliably strong Democratic swing state the past few elections, but 11,000 more Republicans went out and caucused last night than Democrats. Compare that to 2008 when 120,000 more Democrats turned out than Republicans. This should give both campaigns some pause about where they are headed. It’s also worth noting that 17-29 years old made up 22% of caucus goers in 2008 versus 17% in 2016

[RKP5637]

1. In short, DWS is incompetent. She needs to be replaced. Many don't even feel part of the DNC, it

needs to be revamped. With DWS at the helm, the Democrats will likely not see the WH in 2016.

[Art_from_Ark]

2. Heckuva job, Brownie

er, Debbie

[RKP5637]

4. Yep, same! n/t

[brooklynite]

13. The job of the DNC is not to turn out votes in individual States...

...it's to raise money and support the State efforts. Maybe you should direct your complaints to the IDP.

Or just keep whining.

[libdem4life]

18. And she did that exactly how? Oh, and "Whining" is an insult. Surely you didn't mean it as such.

And in addition, I think most on this site are well aware of the "job of the DNC".

So, again, what did DWS do for the Party. I know my answer...interested to hear yours.

[RKP5637]

24. I'll just keep whining!

PS: Thanks for the infor. I do sincerely appreciate it!

[mhatrw]

39. Is it DNC's job to keep national interest on Democratic candidates and ideas?

You wouldn't think so from what DWS has done and mostly not done.

[Ed Suspicious]

51. Money. Money. Money. Money. Money.

[brooklynite]

52. You'll let us know when Campaign Finance Reform passes, will you?

In the meantime, campaigns cost money.

[Betty Karlson]

43. That was my first thought too.

Second thought: we really can't afford to turn off even more voters by running a corporate shill. Thewre are too many voters who won't vote Democratic / won't vote at all if Clinton ends up the nominee. DWS is setting us up for a GE disaster.

[RKP5637]

49. Yep! Much as with the R Establishment, as well as with the D Establishment,

voters of both parties are getting fed up with political dynasties. I think they want to see someone other than Clinton/Bush dynasties. A lot of it, I think, has to do with better communications of today. Voters can communicate across the country, hear issues from many sources, whereas it used to be by political party communications, word of mouth and TV.

Of course that's been here for awhile, but I think its reach is ever increasing. DWS needs to get ahead of the curve, not behind it. Also, it's blatantly clear she is biased toward Hillary. The DNC needs to get ahead of this, or we likely might see a Cruz (UGH!) presidency in 2016.

I often think of the DNC, as well as the RNC and MSM as just subsidiaries of Wall Street. Millions and millions of Americans in this country are hurting, but the establishments have blinders on. And MSM is in on it for the $$$$$'s ride.

[Recursion]

3. It's going to be very tough for any D candidate to win in 2016

This is an example of why. Republicans right now are as fed up and pissed off as we were in 2008.

[DanTex]

10. I think that's overly pessimistic.

First of all, the betting markets have the Dems at 60-40 right now. The GOP also has the problem of coming up with an electable candidate. Rubio is their best shot, but it's far from clear that he will win the nomination.

On the Dem side, the biggest challenge is going to be getting both sides of the party unified behind the nominee. The odds heavily favor Hillary, in which case the question is how many of Bernie's supporters will follow him when he endorses Hillary. If Bernie wins, that could spell trouble, because the "socialist" label is still poisonous outside of the liberal Democratic base.

[cali]

32. That's exactly right. Good comparison.

[BigGLiberal]

5. I guess the young folks didn't show up after all.

[cali]

34. They did. 2nd biggest turnout in Iowa Caucus history

but it was about 3.5 points less than in 2008.

[Lucinda]

6. The IDP says this was one of the highest turnouts ever for a Dem caucus

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

"Tonight we saw an historically close Iowa Democratic Caucus that featured one of our strongest turnouts ever and passion and energy from Democrats all across our state."

I read elsewhere that it is the 2nd highest Dem turnout ever - following 08 as no 1.

[quickesst]

8. That factual information...

... Will fall on deaf ears as long as there's an opportunity to slam Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party.

[eridani]

45. And it was the first time in many years that Repuke turnout exceeded ours. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

7. DWS in trying to help Hillary win the primary may have hurt the party in the GE.

Hillary only wanted 4 debates. DWS purposely scheduled them to yield as little exposure as possible. Of some 800+ minutes of network news time last year covering the primaries, 113 minutes went to Hillary, 10 to Bernie. The selfish tunnel vision of two women (HRC & DWS) may have cost us the election.

[RKP5637]

50. If one listens to MSM even just a little, the only candidates one really hears about are

republicans. An observer from outside would think we have only one party in this country, the republicans. DWS is in over her head IMO!

[DanTex]

9. 2008 was a record year, because of Obama. What this shows is that Bernie is no Obama.

He has limited appeal, even in liberal white states like Iowa. Most of us already knew this, some are finding out right now, and others will continue to ignore it for another month or two.

[Perogie]

11. Same can be said about HRC

If Bernie wasn't running most of the people that caucused for him probably wouldn't have turned out Monday. The totals would have been lower. HRC is no crowd draw herself.

[DanTex]

12. Hillary's no Obama, never was. Being Hillary was almost enough to beat Obama in 2008.

The hope among Bernie fans is that Bernie would replicate Obama's upset, but the numbers make that highly unlikely. Iowa Democrats are a very Bernie-friendly demographic, and for him to lose there doesn't bode well for his overall chances.

[Lans]

25. Right, Obama was the only reason for the record turnout

8 years of Bush had nothing to do with it

[mhatrw]

40. The why did Sanders get more Iowan voters than Obama got? nt

[newblewtoo]

14. K&R n/t

[DrDan]

15. hence the raw numbers should not be released - do not give the GOP this talking point

[hoosierlib]

26. We know the raw number...171k voted

What the establishment doesn't want released is the raw vote totals for each candidate...methinks Bernie won if one were to count total votes...

[stillwaiting]

36. The raw votes would absolutely be released if Hillary won.

The very fact that they weren't gives us a strong indication that Bernie won the raw vote. And, it might have been by a larger margin than most would guess.

[Betty Karlson]

44. Very astute observation. eom

[DrDan]

37. I had not seen that number released

[Gamecock Lefty]

16. I'm OK . . .

releasing the popular vote as has been requested by Bernie supporters.

Remember who won the overall popular vote in the 2008 primary season? Hint: not the guy in the White House!

[sinkingfeeling]

17. Well since we've been told for a year or more that Hillary

was favored by a gazillion percent, people felt they weren't needed.

[Odin2005]

19. DEBBIE WANTS US TO LOSE.

The Establishment prefers to be the minority party so they can just blame the Republicans when they kiss the butts of their corporate masters.

[kath]

35. Yep, the ol' Good Cop/Bad Cop routine. Don'cha just love Corporate One-Party Rule?

[book_worm]

20. Obama was a once in a lifetime candidate who sparked a huge turnout

among young people--Bernie did OK, but couldn't bring out the same numbers. If he had he would have won Iowa--but he did well enough to achieve a tie.

[Gamecock Lefty]

21. Not True

Nobody’s been telling you for a year that Hillary is favored by a “gazillion percent.” Hillary was the front-runner and favored at the time because NOBODY else we knew was going to run for President. Once others decided to run it was natural for her whopping leads to begin to shrink.

And you guys can talk about the ESTABLISHMENT all you want but the fact is ol Bernie has been in politics since, what, 1972? That sounds pretty establishment to me no matter what his positions.

Fact is Bernie is a pretty good candidate and likeable man and generates passionate crowds, but look at this past Monday – seems we Hillary supporters are pretty passionate, too! And we turned out at the polls, too!

[TwilightGardener]

22. We might lose this one. I fully acknowledge that. The GOP is hungrier

to win this time around.

[MelSC]

62. I agree

I don't think many of you understand how angry Repubs are and are ready to take the WH back. This nasty divide between the supporters of Bernie and Hillary won't help us either. It won't stop me from voting however!

[RobertEarl]

23. Consider this Iowa #s

Iowa is a state where Independents can vote for whoever they want.

Many voted this time with an anti-establishment bent. Just so happens they had more choices in the republican field.

[Gothmog]

27. Where is the Sanders' revolution?

[thereismore]

31. If you vote, you will be part of it. nt

[thereismore]

28. 2008 was a phenomenal year of Obama. Without Obama this year, turnout was very high. You just can't

compare it to Obama's year.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

29. If what you are saying is true, what should WE do about it?

[jham123]

30. Welp

When (at least) 50% do not like Hillary and the others aren't sure Bernie can even win the Primary.....why show up?

When there are "no" definite choices the populace stays home. Hence the Pub turn-out for McSame or Romney, they didn't like either of those two

[thereismore]

33. If 50% Dems hate Hillary, what does it say about her chances in GE. nt

[liberal_at_heart]

38. The government and election process has been corrupt for so long it has taken

its toll on voter turn out and even the numbers of people who associate themselves with a party. The number of people who consider themselves Democrat or Republican are in the 20%s. I'm not a Democrat anymore. I am an Independent. Approval ratings of both parties in Congress are low. The people are sick and tired of what we have. They have an alternative this time. They have Bernie, but it may take quite a long time to get people motivated to vote again.

[randr]

55. A large contribution to the corruption

is voter apathy.

[workinclasszero]

41. Bernie bros suppressed the democratic vote

by parroting right wing lies against Hillary, then failed mightily at delivering hordes of new voters promised by Bernie Sanders.

Bernie would be a disastrous candidate in the general.

[eridani]

46. Really? When did wingers start opposing war, TPP and fracking? n/t

[Ed Suspicious]

57. Tell your MSM machine to treat candidates fairly and

You'll have turnout.

[AgingAmerican]

58. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a 'Bernie bro'?

[Jim Lane]

42. Number of candidates may also be a factor.

I agree with your criticism of the media and of the whole debate fiasco. In addition, though, my guess is that a large field tends to boost turnout. On the GOP side (and on our side in 2008) there were simply more campaigns putting paid staffers in place, deploying volunteers, and giving voters something to vote for.

Anecdotal evidence that's only remotely comparable, but FWIW: I've been a Sierra Club activist for many years. We have elections to choose the leaders of our local entity. I've seen elections with 6 candidates and elections with 17, and while there are of course other factors, turnout roughly correlates with the size of the field.

[eridani]

48. Hadn't thought of that. You are probably right n/t

[JI7]

47. There is no Obama this time around

[vi5]

53. Maybe if we had been focusing on our back bench...

..for the past 8 years instead of worrying about and wondering about HRC's inevitability, and maybe if the DNC and party leaders had been out there shaking the bushes to get good, solid candidates to be out there and running and preaching the Democratic message.

Bernie is getting people who otherwise wouldn't be motivated to come out, but there's definitely a feeling among a lot of people I talk to anecdotally that his fight is much more quixotic than it actually is. I can't imagine how shitty turn out would be if he wasn't in the race.

[eridani]

59. ^^this^^ Not too early to start thinking about that right now. n/t

[randr]

54. Bottom Line

He who votes is he who wins. Happens every time, very simple, very easy.
Those who get up off their asses and take the effort get what they want.
I personally think voting should be a requirement and a fine imposed for failure to do so.

[Jarqui]

56. One major factor being overlooked: mainstream media

Compare the air time Trump got in the mainstream news to Sanders and convince me it wasn't a factor.

I think Bernie got all of about 20 mins total in 2015. Even MSNBC was all Trump and almost no Sanders.

If Sanders had been presented as a Clinton rival, more folks would have gotten interested in the contest and turned out.

Compare that with 2008. Obama got considerably more media coverage before Iowa (in part because of more debates broadcast at times more folks would watch) before Iowa.

[FrenchieCat]

60. Well, I'm going to appreciate Obama that much more, as he was one in a million....

But from what I read in this thread, everything is always someone's fault.

I determined that there are many factors, and none of them has a first and last name.
Scapegoating (not you) is not going to solve any problems, and yet this thread is full of nothing but that,
except for a few contribution to your most excellent post that should give us pause.

Whomever wins the Primaries is gonna have to have an awesome kickass VP!
Cause it's gonna take all of that, it seems.
That's what I'm thinking!

Also, Obama will have to campaign for us in the GE! That would help a lot, I think!

[eridani]

61. Agree on VP--both will need someone younger as a backup n/t

[FrenchieCat]

63. I think we also need for the camps to not be so

acrimonious to each other, as no matter who, will need each other's voters, and I would hope that neither camp would be so arrogant as not to think so. It's fine to passionate, but the nastiness will only discourage people to not want to participate. Who does that help?

We need to stress that what is needed most to win is each and everyone of us! The negativity that I read on this and other site will not help us win...and teaching anyone a lesson will not help those that we are supposed to be lifting up!

A right leaning Supreme Court, and United Citizens is forever! A GOP Trifecta, and both groups and any progress dies for years!