2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHere's the Super Tuesday pattern: where HRC won, Dem turnout was severely suppressed.
There is no question that HRC has showed her strength in South Carolina and conservative, southern Super Tuesday states. However, the alarming fact is that Democratic turnout on Super Tuesday was down 32% overall, while GOP participation rose more than 60 percent compared to 2008. So far, Democratic primaries have attracted 26% fewer Democratic caucus goers and ballots than eight years ago. See, http://www.npr.org/2016/03/02/468918065/republican-super-tuesday-turnout
The exception to this was Colorado that went for Sanders with record Democratic turnout. In Oklahoma and Massachusetts, where Sanders showed strongly or beat Clinton, Democrats also showed up in large numbers. The Denver Post reported:
http://www.denverpost.com/election/ci_29581980/colorado-offers-sanders-chance-super-tuesday-favoring-clinton
Nationally, this may have been Hillary's night in seven states versus four won by Bernie. But, Democrats saw a steep plunge in turnout on Super Tuesday, while numbers for Republicans were sharply higher than in 2008.
Turnout virtually cratered in Texas, which Clinton won in both cycles. There, just over 1.4 million voted this go-round compared to 2.87 million in 2008. The 51 percent slide is the steepest of any of the contests held Tuesday.
Turnout was also down significantly in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia and Tennessee. It fell 28 percent, 34 percent, 29 percent, and 41 percent in those states, respectively.
The upside for Clinton, who won seven of the 11 Super Tuesday states that were up for grabs, is that the states with the largest drop in turnout are red and are unlikely to select a Democrat come November.
But turnout also dipped significantly in Virginia, a key battleground state. In 2008 just over 986,000 voted in the primary. This year, around 780,000 showed up, marking a 21 percent decline.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/02/democratic-turnout-down-32-in-super-tuesday-states-compared-to-2008/
Meanwhile, in Oklahoma, which had a record turnout and where Bernie won by a solid margin, Democratic numbers were less than 2012.
OKLAHOMA CITY - Oklahoman had record voter turnout in Tuesday's primary. The state election board reports just over 795,000 people came out to vote.
More than 335,000 Democrats voted. That's three times as many in 2012, but less than 2008.
And nearly 460,000 Republicans cast a ballot. That's a new record for a party in a presidential primary.
Oklahoma voters bucked the national trend for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in presidential primaries, handing victories instead to their challengers on opposite ends of the political spectrum.
http://www.newson6.com/story/31364488/oklahomans-cast-votes-in-record-numbers-in-primaries
The takeaway from this is obvious. NBC summarized it this way as the final votes were being counted late last night:
In 2008, Democrats shattered voter turnout records in their epic presidential primary clash. This year is starting to look like a mirror image but this time, with an advantage to the Republicans.
A tally of nine states where Democrats and Republicans both headed to the polls on Tuesday shows that total turnout looks much like it did eight years ago but the numbers are reversed by party.
More than 5.6 million votes were cast in the Democratic contest on Tuesday in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont and Virginia. About 8.3 million were cast on the GOP side in the same set of states.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/super-tuesday-voter-turnouts-similar-08-republicans-democrats-reversed-n530071
thereismore
(13,326 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)The DNC isnt the RNC but still
thereismore
(13,326 posts)noamnety
(20,234 posts)We had people here that were downright gleeful at the thought of a snowstorm suppressing the college vote.
kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)Cons and Dnc don't want us to vote in the primary.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Nearly all Trump this and Trump that.
When mentioned it was: Hillary is to be crowned.
When mentioned: Bernie is a socialist who hasn't a chance.
___________________
Our DNC refused to have debates in quantity or quality thereby handing over all the PR to the republicans.
And the Clinton machine is happy as can be turnout was dismal.
questionseverything
(9,651 posts)i think he was supposed to run as a rep,screw up the party then after the repubs kicked him out, he would run 3rd party
splitting the repub vote so hc could win
that is why the dnc didnt worry about giving the repubs a 2 month head start in the debates...and that 2 month head start is why we are having low turn out numbers
watching him last night, i wondered if he is having second thoughts about doing the 3rd party thing...like maybe he is thinking to himself...i could win this
oddest election of my life for sure
BreakfastClub
(765 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)The overall summation at that segment from DailyCaller was concise and inclusive. I don't like the rag, it's RW, but the numbers are sound. I could have omitted the link and you'd never have known it. But, for the sake of transparency, the sourcing is included. If there's anything inaccurate, I'm sure someone will point that out. Until then, you just don't like the message. You shouldn't like the message.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)They're 1) time and 2) the voters
The longer the campaign lasts and the more Democrats get out and vote, the greater trouble she'll be in.
Luckily, her campaign knows this. And so does the DNC.
(Or am I repeating myself?)
msongs
(67,395 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)This also illustrates the effect of Hillary's so-called enthusiasm gap. Most alarming, this indicates serious problems with our GOTV in November if she heads the ballot. But, some of her partisans won't grasp the evidence and the obvious implications.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Turnout was down in Texas and the Southern states in part because they weren't contested.