Voter turnout 2008 vs 2016, is Sanders failing to expand the party?

[bigbrother05]

Have heard folks point to the lack of record turnout in 2016 vs 2008 as an indication that Sanders hasn't expanded the party and is therefore unelectable.

Let's look at the race in 2008. There were two major candidates, Clinton and Edwards with an attractive newcomer, Obama. There were also major party figures in Biden, Kucinich, and Richardson as well as some other interesting though minor candidates. We also had a party that had suffered under two terms of W. So you had at least six different campaigns working to bring out voters in Iowa and NH and a Dem party crying out for change.

Now in 2016, we have two major candidates, Clinton and Sanders with a minor third player in O'Malley. Iowa didn't keep track of the turnout, but NH was lower than 2008. Clinton matched or beat her 2008 winning numbers, but Sanders beat her by 21%. Can we really fault Sanders for not getting as many votes as 4 or 5 2008 candidates combined? He had one campaign organization vs several in 2008 that could reach multiple constituencies simultaneously.

Lets remember that the 2008 field didn't start to narrow until after NH and Edwards left just before Texas, so what is basically a one-on-one race this year was not replicated until much later in 2008.

Don't know who will be our nominee, but the numbers this year are damn good and bodes well for the Party in the general.

[Jarqui]

1. The media muzzle on Sanders and the weak debate times

have hurt his campaign and early turnout for the Dems this year.

Obama was out of the gate sooner and had some folks behind him. By this point in the primaries, he was getting Trump-like attention. Bernie really started from scratch. Since Iowa and NH, I think Bernie's had more attention so we'll see where that goes.

[liberal_at_heart]

2. Well I know one thing. All the dirty tricks by the DNC, and Hillary's campaign have

definitely lost the Democratic party some members. My Millennial daughter was a Democrat until the DNC decided for her that Hillary would be the nominee. Now my daughter is an Independent.

[sadoldgirl]

3. Let me state it this way:

If the only candidate right now were
HRC, the amount of dem voters would
be much smaller.

[bigbrother05]

5. That's my point, more candidates running = higher turnout

So maybe the turnout fretting can wait

[RobertEarl]

4. Question is

Why hasn't Hillary expanded the turnout?

Bernie's people are doing their part. Just watch and see.

[Dawgs]

15. According to some we can only discuss Bernie's shortcomings in this thread.

Bad boy!

[RobertEarl]

17. Whoops I'm sorry... ok, here

Bernie hasn't solved all our problems!!

What's he waiting on?? He's been campaigning for 9 months now and I still don't have a job!! Promises, promises, Bernie. What's wrong with you??

There, do I fit in now?

[NanceGreggs]

6. No one said ...

... that "lack of record turnout in 2016 vs 2008 as an indication that Sanders hasn't expanded the party and is therefore unelectable."

What has been said repeatedly, by the BS campaign and its supporters, is that Bernie was going to be bringing in a wave of first-time voters, i.e. young voters getting involved for the first time, older voters who had not voted for a long time due to being disenchanted with the whole process. These voters were - so we were told - going to come out in droves to vote for Bernie, because he had sparked so much enthusiasm across the board.

It didn't happen. That massive wave of new voter anxious to vote for BS didn't show up in Iowa or in NH. It's as simple as that.

Going back and saying, "Well, the numbers are down from 2008 because of this, that, and the other thing," doesn't fly.

If BS was truly capturing those "untapped voters", who were suddenly enthused about voting now that HE was running, turnout would have been up not down, reflecting that much-touted enthusiasm that BS has supposedly inspired.

[Dawgs]

8. I hope you realize that your argument also works against Hillary.

Who would be even worse at getting any additional voters to go for her; including indys, republicans and anyone else that think's she's not honest; which is pretty much everyone.

[NanceGreggs]

10. Yet another ...

... "but what about HER!!?!!" response to a discussion about Bernie. It happens every time.

Hillary hasn't been bragging about how a massive wave of first-time voters would show up to vote for her, has she?

That was Bernie's boast - and it didn't happen.

[Dawgs]

14. Um, when has Bernie "bragged" about a "massive wave of first-time" voters?

Got a link?

BTW, I can discuss whatever the fuck I want. It's okay if you want to ignore it. It certainly doesn't surprise me.

[kstewart33]

18. Dawgs, come on now. Bernie's Revolution requires a surge of 1st-time voters.

That's common sense and you know it.

Question: Has Bernie ever put a number of the size of the Revolution that is needed to achieve his agenda? I haven't see it yet. Would appreciate a post if you've seen it.

[NanceGreggs]

19. It has been a mainstay ...

... of BS's campaign that he has the ability to garner the votes of first-time young voters, and voters who had been disenchanted with the voting process.

It's also been the cry of his supporters, the idea that BS needn't worry about Hill's lead in nat'l polls, because he would be bringing out the voters who hadn't been polled due to their not having voted in previous elections, and therefore not being on the voter rolls that pollsters draw their information from.

Yes, you can discuss whatever the fuck you want. I just find it telling that BSers can't discuss anything about him without saying "but what about Hillary" in response.

[JackRiddler]

9. He got the highest total of anyone ever running in the NH primary.

Highest. Anyone, ever. Higher than Clinton in 2008, higher than anyone else, ever. Clinton of course DECLINED from 2008, so she can be blamed for the net cumulative decline but Sanders obviously cannot. Yet in the Bizarroworld logic of the Clinton camp, that's not her fault for getting a lower total but it is Sanders' fault for getting the highest NH primary vote total of anyone in any party in any year, ever.

So what number would have satisfied the Clinton camp's standard? That's obvious: NO TOTAL WOULD SUFFICE. This is just another pathetic Rove-style attack on his strength, and it's not very creative.

The locally coordinated attack on Sanders yesterday and today has been reduced to "I don't see him walking on water," because that's all that can be said against him, at least from a Clinton camp perspective. He hasn't led a revolution or cured death, therefore vote for HRC!

[NanceGreggs]

16. And yet again ...

... the But what about HER!?!! response to a discussion about Bernie.

How many votes BS got in NH still doesn't change the fact that overall turnout was down. Where were all those first-time voters that Bernie said would come out to support him?

Again, HRC didn't make that boast - Bernie did.

"I don't see him walking on water," because that's all that can be said against him ..."

No. What CAN be said is that BS has been bragging all along about bringing in new voters - and he's been proven wrong. There was no swell of new voters in NH or Iowa. Had there been, turnout would have gone up, not down.

So having been proven wrong on BS's alleged ability to bring in new voters, the goalposts have been moved to "but he won by a huge margin in NH" - which has absolutely nothing to do with new voters showing up.

This has been a mainstay of BS's campaign - his much-touted ability to increase turnout due to previously disenchanted voters coming out to vote for him.

It didn't happen in Iowa, and it didn't happen in NH.

[Armstead]

23. Simple question

Is a total a total?

Is a victory based on a total?

Were Bernie's totals significantly higher than anyone -- including Superstar Trump?

Is that less important than who those voters were?

[NanceGreggs]

26. Simple response.

BS was allegedly going to garner the support of new voters. He didn't in Iowa, and he didn't in NH.

No one is disputing his win in NH - it was impressive. But it has nothing to do with the fact that turnout was down, and those much-touted new voters never materialized.

[Armstead]

27. Let's say he wasn't running....

What would the Democratic turnout been then, with a typical tepid opponent? If Hillary's numbers are any indication, not much,.

[NanceGreggs]

31. Again, this particular discussion ...

... has nothing to do with Hillary.

It has to do with BS's much-touted ability to bring in new voters, who would come out for the sole purpose of supporting HIM and his "message".

[JackRiddler]

34. Hypocrisy and lies will naturally attract the "what about her" response.

This is a particularly egregious example.

Sanders got the highest vote total of any candidate in any party in any NH primary election in any year, ever.

Camp Clinton could just ignore that, and move on. No one's making them dwell on it.

Instead, they have devised possibly the dumbest talking point I've ever seen. It's not the worst ever, but possibly the dumbest.

Their idea is to complain that overall turnout declined from 2008 -- and to blame this on the candidate who got the highest turnout of any candidate in any party in any NH primary election in any year, ever!

Now since Camp Clinton came up with this incredibly stupid point, it is not particularly surprising that they receive the obvious reply: the decline in overall turnout from 2008 is directly attributable to the decline in Clinton's vote total!

HRC was the only constant between the two elections. She lost tens of thousands of votes!

And her side thinks -- well wait, I don't know what they're thinking, since if they were thinking they'd shut up about this...

But anyway, they seem to think they can distract from Clinton's great loss of votes since 2008 by complaining that Sanders' RECORD BREAKING vote total was not higher than it was.

You won't admit this, you will repeat the same exact bizarroworld anti-Sanders talking point, but this is one of the most incredible examples of the Clinton camp's stubborn self-destructiveness that has everyone gobsmacked. Who is in charge of this campaign, and do they intentionally want to lose?

Never mind that it's dishonest, unethical, petty, all that. Everyone expects that. The CC will do whatever they think it takes to heave this particular politician into a thoroughly undeserved White House, we know.

But why are they being dishonest and unethical, etc., in highlighting their own weakness and desperation? Why are they insisting on shooting themselves?

[Armstead]

20. Bottom Line

151,584 Bernie Sanders

100,406 Donald Trump

95,252 Hillary Clintoon

[NanceGreggs]

24. Bottom line ...

... overall turnout was down.

Again, where are all those new voters who we were told would show up to vote for Bernie? Where are all of those voters who have been disgusted with politics-as-usual, who are now engaged because Bernie's "message" has created so much enthusiasm among them?

[Armstead]

25. If you have missed the increasing enthusiasm Bernie is generating.....

I would suggest a visit to an ophthalmologist and an ear specialist.

[NanceGreggs]

28. A complete non-answer.

We've been hearing from the Bernie folks for months about all of those new voters who were going to show up for Bernie in the primaries. So far, they haven't.

[Armstead]

30. Give it up. Accept the truth is halfway in between

Bernie IS generating excitement, and attracting new voters.

Overwhelming? Not at this point... Democrats have to do a lot better job, no matter who is the nominee. .

But did Bernie draw a shitload (a technical term) of current and new voters and basically WIN the entire primary, including trumping Trump? Yep.

Were the numbers higher than they would have been without Bernie? Most likely.

[NanceGreggs]

32. He won "the entire primary"?

He won one state.

"Were the numbers higher than they would have been without Bernie?"

That's something we'll never know.

[Armstead]

33. Can you get any nit pickier?

Of course it was one state. You are also basing your "question" on the same results.

And yes we'll never know. But we do know that Clinton got a losing number of votes, so she certainly not increase turnout to any extent. That matters, if you're concerned about the overall election.

[NanceGreggs]

39. Yes, it matters.

I don't think any Democrat is happy with the lower turnout in either Iowa or NH.

But the fact remains that BS's campaign has been premised on the idea that he would be getting support/votes from previously "untapped" voters who would be prompted to get involved due to his platform. Were that the case, turnout would have been much higher than it was.

[JackRiddler]

36. Actually the truth is worse.

Overall turnout was down... because Clinton's share was down!

Sanders' was the highest vote total of any candidate in NH primary history, ever. Highest. Ever.

Clinton's is directly comparable to her 2008 performance. She's the only constant between 2008 and 2016, and she fell massively.

So the hilarity of this most all-time-stupid talking point is that it's blaming Sanders for the thing that everyone can see is Clinton's fault. They are intentionally highlighting her weakness! They're insisting on it! No one is making them push this over and over!

Who is running that campaign? Why are they so intent on losing?

[frylock]

58. Not good enough, Bernie!

[JRLeft]

62. Turn out was down because there were only 2 turnout the vote machines.

There were far more candidates with well funded get out the vote machines.

[Lucinda]

21. +1

[Karma13612]

42. Would you mind waiting until we have a few more

primaries and caucuses??

Based on the turn out he is getting at rallies and speeches all across the country, I think we will have good voter turnout.

We did in NH.
And he came in 2nd in IA by the width of a hair.

There were caucus locations in IA where they ran out of new voter registration forms.

For heavens sake.

Oh, wait, you were just winding me up!!
Sorry, I didn't see the snark tag so I thought you were serious.

[NanceGreggs]

49. Oh, I'm more than happy to wait.

I just harken back to all of the posts here before Iowa about how we would all be shocked! when all of those new voters came out for Bernie - which would prove the polls wrong, because they hadn't polled those who'd not previously voted, but would be voting THIS time because of BS.

Didn't happen.

[bigbrother05]

67. Kinda the point of the OP

The 2008 campaign didn't get to a two person race until after Super Tuesday, so making comparisons of overall turnout as an indicator of for either one is premature. While the numbers weren't records in NH, there were lots of reports that new registrations were strong which is good for the party as a whole.

My whole take is that we have two good candidates, each with strengths and weaknesses. There are lots of states left and whoever is our nominee will be head and shoulders above anyone offered by the GOP but we'll all be needed to beat back the barbarians in the GE.

edit to add - Glad to see you back with us for this cycle

[SheilaT]

55. So Bernie won Iowa

by a huge margin with old voters.

That's something to think about.

I will admit, in my relatively small circle most people I know are enthusiastic for Bernie, but I don't happen to know very many people the right age to be new voters.

[NanceGreggs]

57. Bernie didn't win Iowa.

I'm assuming you meant NH.

I am also assuming that by "old voters", you mean repeat voters, and not an age group.

But that's the topic of the OP. BS has told us time and again that he will be getting huge support from first-time voters, those who hadn't voted before due to a lack of enthusiasm for the process, or for the candidates they have been offered in the past.

If Bernie won NH by a huge margin of "old voters", what happened to all of those "new voters" he said would be there?

[SheilaT]

60. Oops, I did mis speak, and thank

you for understanding what I meant.

Yes, by old voters I meant repeat ones. Bernie did win by the biggest numbers and the biggest percentage ever in NH. And he did that without new voters? I haven't a clue why they might not have been there. But notice, they weren't there for Hillary either.

And if he beats Hillary in all demographics except those earning more than 200k -- and how large a part of the electorate are the? -- and women over 65 -- although I'm a woman over 65 and I'm very strongly in the Bernie camp -- I don't see where she has a winning coalition. Especially when actually old icons step up and insult younger women for supporting him.

[NanceGreggs]

64. I thought it obvious ...

... that you meant NH and repeat voters. No problem there!

"I haven't a clue why they might not have been there. But notice, they weren't there for Hillary either."

The problem there is that Hillary hasn't premised her campaign on the idea that she would bring in new voters - Bernie has. It was his promise to deliver on, not hers. Bernie and his supporters have long held that first-time voters - those who haven't voted before due to lack of enthusiasm for the process and/or the candidates they've been offered thus far - would be spurred by enthusiasm for Bernie to show up and vote for him. They didn't - and that's a blow to that premise having been a realistic one.

I think if you look at the current poll numbers for Hillary in the upcoming states that have yet to hold their primaries, you'll see where her support lies - and it certainly is not limited to "those earning more than 200k and women over 65".

Bernie's win in NH was very impressive. But he lost in Iowa, and there are still 48 states to go. Despite BS's supporters wanting to believe that a win in NH means a win in other more diversified states, each states's different demographics have a profound effect on how the voting goes.

So we'll both have to wait and see what the country as a whole decides, rather than looking at individual states and thinking they'll all come to the same conclusion as to who they collectively want as the nominee.

[SheilaT]

65. Hillary's poll numbers have been steadily declining.

And her campaign has been premised on winning over women, African Americans, and Hispanics in very large numbers. Well, even if NH is largely white, she still only took two small groups. And Iowa she just barely won, and there's good reason to think that a review of the voting would show it went by a narrow margin for Bernie.

And now, we're learning that Nevada doesn't count, not really, because it's mostly white. It's interesting watching this play out.

[NanceGreggs]

66. As I said, SheilaT ...

... we'll both have to wait until that proverbial fat lady sings. But given HRC's lead in many, many states to come, I don't see her numbers "declining" in any significant way.

I don't know who told you that Nevada "doesn't count because it's mostly white", but I would suggest you not rely on everything you read on DU as being reflective of on-the-ground reality. 85% of the posters here are BS supporters - that tends to skew every opinion posted here in one direction.

It was DUers who insisted that Bernie would win Iowa handily and by a wide margin due to those "new voters" - ya know, the ones who never showed up.

[Autumn]

7. He expanded it by one. I signed back up in the Democratic party just to caucus for him. nt

[JackRiddler]

11. Obviously it's not Sanders, since he got...

the HIGHEST TOTAL NUMBER OF VOTES OF ANY CANDIDATE IN ANY PARTY IN ANY NH PRIMARY ELECTION IN ANY YEAR, EVER!!!

Clinton, meanwhile, declined by about 20,000 from her 2008 performance.

So this dead-on-arrival talking point is another example of the Clinton camp's bizarro land logic. By this standard, which THEY chose to highlight, only the Clinton campaign failed, but they're trying to use it against Sanders. It's pathetic.

[H2O Man]

12. no

[HereSince1628]

13. Interesting. Dems are counting on Sanders to expand the party

but not Clinton?

If 'the party' isn't expanding, it couldn't be due to fewer and more hidden debates and a retread candidacy of that woman wanting to be the first Madame as President again.

[NanceGreggs]

22. But Bernie said ...

... he'd be bringing in new voters. Where are they?

The Dems aren't "counting on" Sanders expanding the party. He was the one who said he would expand the party because new voters are so enthused about his campaign, they'd show up to vote for him.

[JackRiddler]

37. Where are the new voters?

In his column! In his record-breaking vote total, higher than any other candidate's ever in a NH primary in any election year. Ever.

Why didn't Clinton maintain her 2008 total? Why is she less popular than ever?

[NanceGreggs]

40. How do you know ...

... how many BS voters in NH or Iowa were new voters?

[JackRiddler]

45. 82% of 18-24 and 85% of 25-29

Approximately 30,000 in these age groups - for Bernie.

[NanceGreggs]

47. 18-year-olds ...

... would certainly be new voters, by virtue of their age. Anyone 22 and over could have voted in 2012, or other previous elections/primaries.

There is also no evidence that these same 30,000 voters would NOT have voted had BS not been in the race.

[Vinca]

29. I don't think the 2008 election should be a comparison to this election.

The candidacy of Barack Obama was unlike anything this country has seen and it's unlikely we'll have that kind of excitement again. This year we're back to having a couple of old white candidates, not unlike all other years pre-Obama. Sure, there's a woman, but she doesn't have a tiny fraction of Obama's charisma. He turned into a global star while on the campaign trail. No global stars this time around.

[JackRiddler]

38. Clinton won NH in 2008.

She lost this year.

And this is her camp's idea of compensating for it - they complain that Sandes merely had the highest vote total of any candidate in any NH primary election in history.

[Vinca]

41. Hillary can't face the fact she's an "also ran" back for another spin of the wheel.

She generates zero excitement and is contributing more than Bernie for any lack of voter participation.

[NanceGreggs]

43. Exactly who ...

... is complaining that BS had "the highest vote total of any candidate in any NH primary election in history"?

[JackRiddler]

44. YOU ARE.

[NanceGreggs]

46. Where?

My every post in this thread has been about Bernie not delivering new voters.

So pointing THAT out equals a "complaint" about his winning NH?

Okey-dokey then.

[JackRiddler]

50. With every post.

You are trying to do the impossible spin. You are trying to turn the most impressive vote total by any candidate in NH primary history into a defeat, and to turn the miserable defeat of Clinton - who declined massively since 2008 - into a victory. The smart move as a Clinton partisan would of course be to ignore this defeat and move on, but for some reason you and your camp can't help yourselves. You are insisting on highlighting how impressive Sanders' total was, and how dramatic Clinton's decline was, with this completely unviable and illogical talking point. It's hilarious. Now please do this again and again and again. It is very important for everyone to understand the mentality of the Clinton campaign as it makes all the wrong choices and destroys itself. Thanks.

[NanceGreggs]

51. The OP is about ...

... voter turnout and the fact that the rash of new voters BS predicted hasn't materialized.

The discussion has absolutely NOTHING to do with Bernie's win in NH, nor HRC's defeat. Again, it's about voter turnout - and the only thing I've said about Bernie's win in NH was that his win was impressive.

If you honestly believe that pointing out the fact of low voter turnout is equivalent to complaining about Bernie's win, I can't help you. They are two completely different topics.

[JackRiddler]

53. The OP is a sad and misguided attempt to distract from Sanders' record setting results in NH

that exposes the Clinton camp's combination of reaching for any attack and lack of logic or credible strategy in doing so.

[NanceGreggs]

56. Ah, yes, of course.

Another "Bernie is being persecuted" response. Everything is a distraction from HIS brilliance.

The topic of the OP is voter turnout in Iowa and NH. If you don't want to discuss THAT topic, I don't understand why you posted in this thread in the first place.

[JackRiddler]

59. You are funny.

If this is "persecution" of Bernie, he can only benefit from more of it. This is an obsessive and unnecessary highlighting of how Bernie is winning, from an extremely whining, privileged perspective.

I am discussing turnout in Iowa and NH, but I am doing so as a normal person would do, looking at the actual numbers rather than reproducing the bizarroland talking points of Camp Clinton.

Sanders set a record turnout in NH, higher than anyone ever got - do you dispute that? Of course you can't. And Clinton, who won in 2008, saw her turnout decline radically.

The only curiousity is why the Clinton campaign thinks threads that keep making all this obvious are to its advantage, or why you're insisting on your bizarre argument that Sanders' record turnout, highest of any candidate ever, represents a weakness!

[bigbrother05]

69. No offense taken, but the OP points out Bernie's turnout nearly equaled 4/5 other 2008 campaigns

Was attempting to balance some MSM claims that because 2008 was bigger than 2016 in NH that somehow Bernie wasn't up to snuff.

Guess I should have made it clear that he had a stunning victory in NH, but thought that was obvious and was never attempting to distract from his performance.

[JackRiddler]

72. Sorry!

I saw it in the context of this flood of ridiculous talking points over the last couple of days, along the lines of, why hasn't Sanders' "revolution" reduced non-voting to zero, appointed a new Supreme Court justice, ended death, etc. So I got more involved in the exchange with such arguments than in the OP itself. Sorry!

[AgingAmerican]

35. Turnout is the responsibility of the DNC

The DNC decided to hide the candidates. This is the reward we get.

[pinebox]

48. Here you go check this

[Bjornsdotter]

52. I also believe that the numbers for NH 2008

.....show Bernie received more votes.


Hillary Rodham Clinton 112,404
Barack Obama 104,815

compared to 2016

Bernie Sanders 151,584
Hillary Clinton 95,252

[JackRiddler]

54. Why is Clinton suppressing voter turnout?

Shocking!

[Skwmom]

61. Earth to Democrats. How small would your turnout be without Bernie Sanders?

Pretty damn small.

[Autumn]

63. Have the votes already been counted from the 2016 race?

I took a nap but damn.

[beedle]

68. No one is turning up for Hillary's coronation

and that's Bernie's fault?

[Todays_Illusion]

70. N.H. and Iowa both have voter ID laws. Why isn't the DNC doing voter registration drives and

helping voters get those now necessary ID's needed to vote?

I find it very disturbing that there is no program mentioned anywhere where the DNC is working on a voter registration, ID project.

[Zorra]

71. Voters turned out in record numbers in 2008 because Bush destroyed America.

People were disgusted with the enormous Republican disaster of the previous 8 years. Any unnamed Democrat would have been voted into the WH in 2008.

Third Way, of course, then proceeded to destroy the mandate and the party in 2010 and 2012 by coddling and bowing to republicans, driving away the new Dem voters, who had been desperate for change and who had their hope crushed by Third Way.

2016 cannot reasonably compared to 2008, because there is no Bush disaster factor, and because a lot of Dems and left indies are disappointed because defeat was snatched from the jaws of victory, and what could have become a Democratic dynasty turned into a Third Way/Republican coup.

Bernie is the only reason that half the Dems and left indies in the country even give a shit anymore.

This important post from WillyT further helps to illustrate the disillusionment of pretty much everyone left of center in the US:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1242643