Is corporate media creating a misleading impression of voter sentiment? 91 percent of Nevada Dem vot

[LiberalArkie]

Is corporate media creating a misleading impression of voter sentiment? 91 percent of Nevada Dem voters said ‘no’

We caution readers to be very careful in interpreting the Democratic primary election results so far for reasons cited below. We think the way our major news organizations are reporting the primary results can easily create a misleading impression of voter sentiment.

The analysis below should give you pause whether you think Sanders is, and should be, a shoo-in to beat Trump or you fear that a Sanders nomination will ensure a second Trump term and a romp by Republican Congressional candidates.

Snip

Nevada has almost 611,000 registered Democrats. Final results will show fewer than 36,000 votes for Sanders. That means for every vote Sanders won there were 16 Democrats who choose someone else—or no one at all.

The low turnout is surprising since the party made voting easy. Ballots could be cast in person for four days or at the Saturday caucuses. Yet 91% out of Nevada Democrats didn’t vote or caucus.

Snip

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/02/is-corporate-media-creating-a-misleading-impression-of-voter-sentiment-91-percent-of-nevada-dem-voters-said-no/

[58Sunliner]

1. Good to know. Because that low turnout is key to not winning at all.

[uponit7771]

2. Unnnn, I thought NV voters this year outnumbered 16? That's not low turnout but maybe lower than 08

[W_HAMILTON]

4. This year's turnout did exceed 2016, but that's not saying much...

...given that they implemented "early voting" in the caucuses this year for the first time ever.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

3. Plus you also have to count voters who weren't born yet. They also didn't vote for Sanders.

[JustAnotherGen]

5. The messaging this weekend

Was all 'record' turnout, early voting was a success, etc etc

Thank your for posting this. Will take a deep dive later.

[Vivienne235729]

6. This right here. One more time: 91% of NV Democrats did not vote in the primary.

I wonder why so many did not vote? They don't care? Or did Republicans sign up to be Democrat just to skew the primary results? What I hope is that they are undecided on the democratic
nominee but will show up in full force for the general.

[Nanjeanne]

7. So let me understand the issue here . . . Approximately 84,000 voters voted in 2016. Approx 110,000

in 2008,

And in 2020 - more than 70,000 votes were early votes - added to the caucus-goers - it looks like 2020 will be even greater turnout.

Link to tweet

So people were more excited to vote in 2008 than in 2016 and more excited to vote in 2020 than 2016. And Sanders got more votes in a crowded campaign than the top 3 candidates combined.

But because Nevada voters sat out in 2016 more than they did in 2008 and 2020 - and Bernie only got 47% of the votes from the increased voter turnout in 2020 - while 5 candidates managed to get 53% combined -- this is bad for Bernie? Ok.

[JudyM]

8. This makes more sense to me.