How low would Democratic turnout go without Bernie Sanders?

[Skwmom]

Pretty damn low.

I am sick and tired of the idiots saying that Bernie is not getting voters to the polls.

1. In Iowa they REFUSE to release the numbers of Clinton and Bernie Supporters (if they supported their bogus argument against Bernie they would release them).

2. In NH, it was the second highest turnout in history. 2008 was the highest. The turnout was 12% less than 2008.

However, on CNN they were reporting a 30% lead for Sanders which might have depressed turnout of Sanders supporters or drove them to pick the Republican ballot. Also, it was reported early that cars were turning around because of the backup due to new traffic flows used.

3. He WON THE MOST VOTES EVER in a New Hampshire Primary. That's not just for the Democratic Primary in New Hampshire. He won more votes than any candidate in any Republican New Hampshire Primary too.

Stop with the bullshit. Are you doing it for a paycheck or are you just that damn clueless?

[stopbush]

1. Wrong.

Bernie is getting Independents to turn out for him, not necessarily more Ds. His win in NH was based entirely on the I vote. The D vote in NH split evenly betweem him and Hill.

[Skwmom]

2. And who in the hell do you think you need to get to turn out in the general election?

Earth to Democrats - Democratic votes won't deliver the Whitehouse.

[stopbush]

7. The facts aren't on your side.

Statistically, only 5% of the population is truly Independent. The rest of the Independent vote skews heavily into leaning D or R. Most people who call themselves Independent actually vote for the same party candidate election after election. You may call yourself an Independent, but you always vote D or R because that's where you are politically.

In short, Bernie has no more chance of swaying Independent voters that lean R to vote for a D than Trump will have a chance of swaying I voters who lean D to vote for him.

Another statistic - the Independent vote almost always supports the losing candidate in presidetial elections.

Elections are won or lost based on getting the party faithful out, not the Independent vote. That's why Rs win in the midterms - the D faithful stay home.

[Skwmom]

9. You commit a common fallacy. When things have CHANGED you need to take that into consideration

in your analysis. You do not.

[Avalux]

3. That's why Bernie is the only candidate who can win the GE.

Hillary can't depend on the Dems who will vote for her, and not all will. She won't pull in anyone else.

[Skwmom]

4. They think they can hang their hat on the Supreme Court drumbeat. God, are they clueless.

If the Republicans play their hand well (big if), they will leave have Team Hillary in a meltdown mode.

[farleftlib]

6. While Bernie is pulling them in in droves

Independents and the youth vote. You lose all those with a Hillary nomination.

[jfern]

12. You don't win a Presidential general election with only registered Ds

[Motown_Johnny]

14. Which is why he would do better in the General Election.

You don't really think the General will be "Democrats only" now do you?

[stopbush]

19. No. Many Indies will vote for the D or the R candidate and happily.

It's what they always do.

The small number of Is who believe that a candidate must bow and scrape for their vote will need to deal with the fact that their numbers don't make a difference in a presidential election.

[HooptieWagon]

5. Yes, it would be low.

Of course Bernie brings in Independants and some crossover Republicans. If they were loyal Democrats, they would be registered Democrats. They're not voting for Clinton. If Clinton runs a clean primary campaign (no indication of that so far), she'll get most of Sanders supporters who are registered Democrats to hold their noses and vote for her. Not all though. If she continues to run her dirty primary campaign, and is perceived to be illegitimate nominee by Superdelegate shenanigans, very few democratic Sanders supporters will vote for her in the GE. That goes downticket too. And there will be a sizeable number of Democrats (many lifelong) leave the party in disgust. Hillary is already poisoning the well, if Debbie goes scorched earth with the superdelegates the November will be a bloodbath the party may never recover from.

[H2O Man]

8. Great point.

Recommended.

I really hope that we don't find out how low it would be without Bernie. I think that everyone would agree that if Hillary Clinton is the nominee, the republicans will have a record turn-out.

It's always better when we set the bar too high for the republicans.

[Gregorian]

11. My thought on Scalia's vacancy is that it gives potential for enthusiam in Sanders supporters.

The pressure is on. With a real push we could make big lasting changes.

[Hydra]

10. If Bernie wasn't in the race, this would be a record low activity primary

And who knows for the GE. I think a lot of Dems would vote the lesser of two evils as was the intended theme...but how many would simply not bother, knowing they are voting for Bushco?

[loyalsister]

17. I have had a few frustrating conversations on the subject

The people who are supporting Sanders largely because they are sure the game is rigged because they feel it every day of their lives will not vote for Hillary because she has a long history of supporting it and she also personifies it.

If they are further convinced by the primary you have the double whammy of a depressed turnout on the left and enthused on the right.

I am not sure the SC works on them because they have only committed to keep it in mind.

[liberal_at_heart]

13. I'm not sure either party really cares how many voters there are. They are too busy fighting

for the votes that are to be had and busy trying to prevent people from voting that won't vote for their candidate. As long as they get more votes than the other guy just how many votes there are doesn't really matter.

[Live and Learn]

15. I shudder to think how low the numbers would have been without Bernie. nt

[Aerows]

16. I don't even want to ask or contemplate these questions

Every Democrat needs to turn out to vote regardless if Satan is the Presidential nominee, because our state and local politicians deserve our votes. So you don't like who is headlining the ticket? So what. Do you want to concede every single office in your own town, city and state to a Republican?

Oh hell no. If we want quality candidates, we need to get off of our butts and elect qualified politicians in state and local races so that we have quality candidates that rise to the national level.

I don't care if the race is for official city stamp licker - vote for a Democrat in that office, because Republicans will be running someone less qualified in it.

[Betty Karlson]

18. I'm going with clueless. Clinton doesn't have that much cash anymore:

after burning 90 % of her budget for a 0.2 % 'win' in Iowa, she can't afford to pay her online cheerleaders.

[stopbush]

20. Hillary has $74 million on hand. Bernie has about $30 million.

[Betty Karlson]

21. But Third Way "No we can't" is much tougher to sell than reality-based progressive policy.

The status quo is untenable and selling it has become virtually impossible. So she'd need a lot more to outflank his 30 Million.

Maybe she should make another speech to Goldman Sachs?