Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I did see that you corrected numbers in a later post.
And I thank you for providing your sources.
I don't think that Democrats are in serious trouble, not in Iowa, and not nationally.
That said, enthusiasm drives turn-out, and the Democratic frontrunner, Secretary Clinton, isn't creating as much enthusiasm as Sanders. Trump is producing enthusiasm, but he's got some serious issues with negativity ratings as well. While the polls show Trump ahead in South Carolina, I would hesitate to start celebrating just yet. Trump's polarizing effect may drive turn-out, but some of that turn-out is to vote against him. And Trump's failure to really build any on-the-ground campaigns is another problem. While he may win in the polls, he's got to get his supporters to the voting booths. Ground campaigns win elections.
I didn't make up those numbers. They came from the green page. But no matter.
The Iowa DNC chair, Luis Miranda has gone on record and stated that turnout for the Democrats was 171K. We don't actually know of course because he refuses to release the actual count.
So that changes it as follows. Still a substantial loss for the Democrats
I did see that you corrected numbers in a later post.
And I thank you for providing your sources.
I don't think that Democrats are in serious trouble, not in Iowa, and not nationally.
New Hampshire is a reliably Blue state. It has been that way for a long time. Yet this year more people voted in the Republican primary than the Democrats. This never happens in this state in an open election year. It's a very bad sign for the Democrats.
Meh. Your reasoning is very tenuous. It's the equivalent of counting yard signs.
I don't think so. Primaries and Caucuses bring out the most dedicated of voters. If that many change their registrations then it can't be good news for the Democrats. It shows a serious erosion of their base.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 22 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,550 posts, read 16,539,320 times
Reputation: 6033
Quote:
Originally Posted by cachibatches
We saw this in the midterms when whites voted even more greatly for Republicans, Asians crossed over in large numbers, and Hispanics voted GOP heavily in key places or did not show up to vote.
The Dems, even on this site, dismissed it as "just the midterms," when their voters don't turn out, as if depending on low information, low interest voters is some kind of strength.
A few things are going on here:
A) Hillary Clinton is a totally uncompelling candidate (AGAIN) who conjures serious doubts. Bernie captures the hearts of Northeastren liberal types and limousine libs but does not have a broad appeal to other constituents. To say it another way, there is no Barrack Obama this year.
B) Party affiliation is down across the board. People have lost faith in both sides.
C) The Democrats are splitting, as happens with all coalitions eventually.
D) Jacksonian Democrats are switching sides because of Trump and Cruz, and the abandonment of white workng class voters by the Dems.
E) It is a a bad cycle for the Dems, as they have had the white house for eight years and we appear to be in some sort of crash.
None of the midterms showed cross over votes. You are arguing that different proportions when comparing 2012 to 2014 is cross over and it isnt.
Lets put this in different numbers so you can understand.
100 people vote in 2012.
60 Democrats , 40 republicans
in 2014 Dems see a 50% decline, republicans see a 25% decline.
new vote totals for that year are 30 Democrats, 30 Republicans.
New Hampshire is a reliably Blue state. It has been that way for a long time. Yet this year more people voted in the Republican primary than the Democrats. This never happens in this state in an open election year. It's a very bad sign for the Democrats.
It's not such a bad sign for Democrats.
The Republican primary featured a reality star, and a host of other candidates. It's been drawing a great deal of media attention. Naturally, a lot of people turned out. It's only the first primary. There's not enough to extrapolate any trends just yet. We just need to wait to see what happens.
2004 wasn't an open election so comparisons between the two parties would not be applicable.
I wasn't comparing the differences between the two parties in 04. I was comparing this year's turnout in the Democratic primary and Caucus so far to the turnout at the same point in 2008 and 2004, no sitting President on the Democratic side.
2008 the Democrats broke all sorts of records for Primary and Caucus totals. Turnout is down this year, but it is still pretty much higher than every othe one with the exception of the record 08 turnout.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
