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.
Where did all the Democrats go? Turnout in the 4 races held is far far below where it was in the last open election year of 2008. Doesn't matter if it is a Blue state or Red State. Are they failing to inspire the people?
Seems to me this is very bad news for Hillary Clinton if she can't even inspire her base to turn out for her.
South Carolina
2008 had absolutely record Democratic Primary turnout and blew everything out of the water. Turnout is down from the record highs if 2008, but is still better than other Primaries (such as 2004)
Why is lower primary turnout an indication of anything? There are only two candidates on the Democratic side and Hillary is considered to have a 90+% chance of winning the nomination. With the result almost a conclusion, why would voters turn out in great numbers?
2008 had absolutely record Democratic Primary turnout and blew everything out of the water. Turnout is down from the record highs if 2008, but is still better than other Primaries (such as 2004)
But one would expect that. There are for example, close to 700,000 more people living in SC now than in 2004.
It's the dramatic fall of the last 8 years that looks devastating to the Democrats.
Why is lower primary turnout an indication of anything? There are only two candidates on the Democratic side and Hillary is considered to have a 90+% chance of winning the nomination. With the result almost a conclusion, why would voters turn out in great numbers?
They didn't turn out in NH where both candidates spent millions in TV adverts
They didn't turn out in NH where both candidates spent millions in TV adverts
I think it's more about competition. In NH and SC the winners were expected to win by huge amounts which they did. At this point most democrats expect Clinton to be the representative so not much reason for many to vote.
I think it's more about competition. In NH and SC the winners were expected to win by huge amounts which they did. At this point most democrats expect Clinton to be the representative so not much reason for many to vote.
But it was down 29% in Iowa where the outcome was very uncertain and this was also the first race of this season. Same for NV where it was thought that Bernie might beat Hillary.
Why is lower primary turnout an indication of anything? There are only two candidates on the Democratic side and Hillary is considered to have a 90+% chance of winning the nomination. With the result almost a conclusion, why would voters turn out in great numbers?
One would hope to vote for Sanders but alas, it seems the (D)'s prefer Wall Street over main Street and the last 7 years weren't just a fluke.
But one would expect that. There are for example, close to 700,000 more people living in SC now than in 2004.
It's the dramatic fall of the last 8 years that looks devastating to the Democrats.
I realize that, my parents who retired to the S.C side of suburban Charlotte are two of them (as well as some other family that has moved outside of Charlotte). With that being said the population rise from 04 was about 16%, the Democratic primary #'s is up about 22%.
Regardless, my main point is while turnout is down, it is down from absolute records, it is still higher than turnout in other cycles even after taking into consideration population increases.
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.