How Hillary Clinton’s Super Tuesday ‘Win’ Relied on Dismal Voter Turnout

[w4rma]

In the Southern states where Clinton racked up the biggest wins — Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Virginia, Tennessee, and Texas — turnout was abnormally low. To make the above table, we used New York Times election results to compare 2008 Super Tuesday turnout with 2016 Super Tuesday turnout:

• In Alabama, where Clinton beat Bernie Sanders by a 58-point margin, voter turnout was 26 percent lower than in 2008.


• Clinton won by 37 points in Arkansas, but voter turnout was 31 percent lower than in 2008.


• In the 2008 Georgia Democratic primary, over 1 million Democrats voted. But Clinton won by a 43-point margin in 2016, when just 761,218 people voted.


• Approximately 990,000 Virginia Democrats voted in 2008, but only 783,000 voted this time around. Clinton won the state by 29 points last night.


• In Texas, Clinton beat Sanders by 32 points. But voter turnout was dismal — 51 percent fewer Democrats voted this year compared to 2008.

In the four states Bernie Sanders carried on Super Tuesday — Colorado, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Vermont — voter turnout was higher than in 2016 or comparatively high to the states Bernie lost. While turnout was lower in three of his four states, the margins are much smaller than in the states Clinton won. Here’s the breakdown:

• Voter turnout for the 2016 Democratic caucuses in Colorado was 2 percent higher than in 2008, setting new records. Sanders easily won by 19 points, with help from winning the state’s considerable Latino vote.


• Roughly 9 percent fewer Democrats voted in this year’s Democratic caucuses in Minnesota in comparison to 2008. Sanders won the state by a 23-point margin.


• Sanders won by 10 points in Oklahoma this past Super Tuesday. Oklahoma’s Democratic turnout for this past Super Tuesday was 20 percent lower than in 2008.


• As expected, Sanders won big in his home state of Vermont by a 73-point margin. Voter turnout was 13 percent lower when compared to Super Tuesday turnout in 2008.

As a whole, Democratic turnout was lower in almost every Super Tuesday state this year, but down significantly more in the South.

http://usuncut.com/politics/this-is-the-biggest-super-tuesday-story-no-one-is-talking-about/

[Wilms]

1. Meanwhile, Bill is clogging up the streets by a polling station.

Pretty impressive how that campaign relies on low turnout.

[Chichiri]

4. Turnout was plenty high among HRC supporters. nt

[leveymg]

9. Absolutely not. In states HRC won Dem turnout was down 32 percent.

See my OP of 3:13 pm on Greatest page

[Chichiri]

15. I didn't say Dem turnout. I said HRC supporter turnout. nt

[leveymg]

17. The point is where she won Dem turnout was generally far lower

than it was in 2008. That does not bode well for the GE in November.

[emulatorloo]

22. You need an Obama to get 2008 style turnout.

Neither of our candidates are Obama.

[Chichiri]

27. Actually, what you need are two very strong candidates...

...both of whom can pull massive support across multiple demographics.

[malokvale77]

29. Forget it...

They will never understand or accept the significance of the numbers. Or alternatively, they are trolls trying to take down DU.

[Sancho]

78. You don't get it...

In 2008 a large group of Hillary supporters and a large group of Obama supporters turned out - so there was a total large turnout.

In 2016 a large group of Hillary supporters turned out, but not so many Bernie supporters. The total was less than 2008.

The reason for less voters in the 2016 primary was that people didn't care to come out and vote for Bernie.

Now do you understand?

[malokvale77]

81. I think you are the one who doesn't get it.

I won't even bother to explain to you.

Now do you understand?

I doubt it.

[Sancho]

91. Give it a try!

Why did Bernie supporters fail to show up for the Primary in the sun belt? Where was the revolution? Hillary supporters came out and voted, that's why she is winning.

Bernie spent more than Hillary in many cases. He simply did not convince enough people to show up!

[AgingAmerican]

93. Turnout was abysmally low

Especially compared to the Republican turnout.

[Chichiri]

94. It was low because Bernie supporters didn't show up. HRC supporters did. nt

[AgingAmerican]

95. It was low because entheusiasm was low among Democrats

Because the party believes that name recognition is enough to bring people out to the polls.

Hillary won with record LOW numbers. In every state, Democrats are voting in record LOW numbers.

This is DWS/Hillary's strategy of hiding the Democratic candidates and message coming home to roost.

[Chichiri]

96. Enthusiasm is plenty high among HRC voters. nt

[NanceGreggs]

5. Well, why don't you explain that to all of us?

If Bill was "clogging up streets by a polling station" as you allege, wouldn't doing so have frustrated HRC supporters as well as BS supporters?

Explain to us how "low voter turnout" means that Hillary supporters are more likely to vote than BS supporters. If Bernie has so many supporters, how are they being stopped from coming out to support him?

This makes absolutely NO sense. We've been told for months about the first-time voters Bernie's "message" would inspire to get involved in the process. Where are they? What prevented them from showing up to vote for him?

[w4rma]

12. He completely blocked the poll, one Massachusetts resident says of Bill Clinton (video)

Clinton wound up speaking for approximately 25 minutes in front of the polling place, a problem in and of itself, but exacerbated by the massive traffic jam the ex-president’s presence created.

“This is a big city,” Grace continued. “There was no reason whatsoever to take up the parking spaces and block off the streets.” Grace said she did not see a voter walk into the polling place for a full two hours in the lead up to Clinton’s speech.
http://ahtribune.com/us/2016-election/600-massachusetts-resident-bill-clinton.html

[NanceGreggs]

30. While I don't accept that Bll "blocked the poll" ...

... I'm interested in your explanation as to how he would have only blocked BS voters and not HRC voters.

If what you say is true (and again I don't believe it for a minute), he would have been "blocking" both voters for Hillary AND voters for Bernie.

So how did this alleged "blocking" help Hillary to Bernie's detriment?

[truedelphi]

32. This is reminiscent of how in TV show the "Good Wife" the Governor

Decides to have a press conference right up the street from the polling place where his wife would probably lose some votes.

His presence on that street meant the security people blocked off the traffic and so many didn't get to vote.

Sad to know that reality is following the exploits of TV show scripts.

[Wilms]

18. Low turnout favoring her was mentioned a looong time ago.

Nothing new.

Meanwhile, are you defending the President's behavior?

[NanceGreggs]

25. Classic non-answer.

Explain to us how if voter turnout is low, it favours one candidate over another.

If turnout is low, how does that translate into more HRC supporters coming out to vote than BS supporters?

I am REALLY interested in your explanation.

[Wilms]

36. It's no different than in the general.

There, low turnout favors conservatives. What's the difference?

[onenote]

45. Logic fail

Vote in particular location is 60/40 for candidate A. For one hour voters are unable to get to polls and go home. What basis is there for concluding that the percentage of voters who didn't get to vote is different than the percentage of voters that did get to vote.

Low turnout harms Democrats when turnout is low for Democrats. It harms repubs when turnout is low for repubs. Turnout in 2010 was low for Democrats and we were hurt. It wasn't low for repubs.

Don't believe me? The turnout in the 2006 elections was 37.1 percent and the Democrats picked up 6 Senate seats and 31 House seats. In 2010 turnout was 37.8 percent and the repubs picked up six Senate seats and 63 House seats.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html

So much for simplistic theories.

[Wilms]

66. Who says? You?

Moral implications notwithstanding, I'd have preferred a Sanders rep instead of Clinton.

Do we know how that precinct broke? Wouldn't that be an issue. And what about what was Clinton doing there in the first place???

[onenote]

69. we know that Newton broke 66/35.5 for Clinton (and New Bedford 54.1-44.3)

FWIW its worth, I voted for Sanders in Virginia. But the outcome is what the outcome is.

And I don't think it was appropriate for him to be there. I also don't think there is the slightest evidence that it hurt one candidate more than the other (although there is some reason to think that if it hurt anyone by causing some people to be unable to vote, it may have hurt Clinton more since she did significantly better in Newton and New Bedford). And yes I know I don't know specific precinct data, but with a 66/35.5 margin in the town, it would be astonishing if the precinct where Clinton showed up was anything other than a pro-Clinton precinct. (Do you think he'd pick a precinct to go to where Bernie was favored?)

So why did he do it? Uncontrolled ego? Desire to press the flesh with voters in an area where his wife was popular?

Again, not an appropriate thing for him to do. But the claims about injury are simply unsupported by the available facts or logic.

[Wilms]

72. My claim was he was clogging the streets.

I also mentioned low turnout favoring conservatives...which Clinton is in this case.

Uncontrolled ego, is a good one. It's got me thinking about how the two of them have problems with boundaries.

[onenote]

82. Low turnout in primaries hurts whichever candidate can't get voters to the polls

Actually the same is true in general elections.

Proof? Here you go: in 2006, turnout in the off-year elections was 37.1 percent and the Democrats picked up 6 Senate seats and 31 House seats. Four years later, turnout was 37.8 percent and the repubs picked up six senate seats and 63 House seats. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html

In other words the overall turnout was largely irrelevant. What mattered is which party turned out the vote. In 2006, the Democrats turned out in higher numbers than repubs and, no surprise, the Democrats won a bunch elections. In 2010, repubs turned out in higher numbers than Democrats and, no surprise, the repubs won back a bunch of seats.

[Wilms]

85. That's impressive.

But how often does that happen? Is the conventional wisdom wrong?

[onenote]

87. The conventional wisdom is simplistic.

People think that whenever there is low turnout overall it hurts Democrats. But as Spock would say, it's only logical that what matters is which party has the lower turnout.

[Wilms]

90. Well, it's a bit more nuanced.

But I think we'll find that it is generally true.

http://ofpoliticsandmen.org/2014/03/04/high-voter-turnout-favor-democrats/

on edit - this is a pdf. http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~iversen/PDFfiles/Lijphart1997.pdf

[NanceGreggs]

56. So explain to me how ...

... low turnout in a state primary favours Clinton over Bernie.

[Wilms]

67. Ah. You missed my point.

Low turnout favors conservatives. At minimum, she is to the right of Bernie.

Again, NO different than how repubs get favored with low turnout.

AND WHAT WAS CLINTON DOING THERE???

[NanceGreggs]

73. Well, there's this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511397969

"Exit polls reinforce the idea, showing that Sanders did well with the right wing of Democratic primary voters, including independents and moderates."

You still haven't explained why all of those Bernie supporters, who are legion according to BSers, didn't come out to vote for him. Where were all of those first-time voters we've been told about over and over, the ones who were going to stun us all with their commitment to the "Revolution"?

Kinda hard to have a Revolution without revolutionaries, isn't it?

[Wilms]

76. Please. Who doesn't like Bernie?

Among his toughest demographics are people making >$250K. What can ya do?

As to the youth vote, that was your off topic question. And it's disappointing. I don't know if they failed to come out or if there weren't enough.

With regard to Revolution, it's regrettably simple. Both parties have been fairly satisfied with the transfer of wealth and the money in politics. Bernie isn't. THAT, unfortunately, is a revolutionary idea.

Where do you stand on those issues? And where do you stand on the President electioneering in front of a polling place??

[NanceGreggs]

80. I didn't say anything about the "youth vote".

We have been told since last summer that the nation would be stunned when first-time voters, inspired to vote by Bernie being in the race, showed up to vote for him.

It wasn't at all restricted to "the young". It was to be voters of all stripes who have been apathetic due to their disenchantment with "the system", who were now going to participate in the process in order to elect Bernie.

The fact is that those droves of BS supporters never existed, outside of the wishful thinking of Bernie and his fans. Whether Bernie's ideas are "revolutionary" or not doesn't change the fact that the supporters he claimed would come out and support him just aren't there.

If you believe that Bill was doing anything illegal, I suggest you gather the evidence of same and bring it to the attention of the appropriate authorities.

[Wilms]

83. Well, anyways...

Among first-time voters, Sanders got a whopping 71 percent of the vote.

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/03/inside_the_democrats_racial_divide_bernie_sanders_hillary_clinton_and_the_polls_that_prove_this_isnt_over_yet/


Your response to Clinton being there is disappointing. None of the facts are in dispute. More shoulder brushes.

[malokvale77]

34. Gee Nance...

why don't you explain it all to us proles?

[NanceGreggs]

55. It's not my theory.

Nor do I buy it.

The person who believes it's a fact should be able to explain the factual basis for it.

[malokvale77]

60. Way to triangulate. nt

[NanceGreggs]

62. Huh?

It's up to the person claiming their theory is fact to EXPLAIN how it's a fact.

Jesus Hussein Christ, that's just common sense.

[malokvale77]

65. Best answer...

if I never wanted to explain what I just said.

[calguy]

2. More like BERNIE was relying on heavy turn out

But he couldn't make it happen. The revolution is not nearly as big as DUers would have us believe.

[leveymg]

6. In general, Dem turnout was highest in states he won, contrary to the overall trend that had Dems

votes down by 26 percent on Super Tuesday. The biggest declines and GOP gains were in conservative southern states where Hillary's margins were greatest and the gains in GOP primary turnout were highest. The Republican primary numbers were up 60 percent overall.

[RobertEarl]

13. DNC is against turnout

They know Bernie has a hard time with low turnouts.

What we do notice is that where Bernie spent most of his time and effort, the turnout was good. That shows the revolution is working. Bernie is getting out the vote.

[NanceGreggs]

54. Why?

"They know Bernie has a hard time with low turnouts."

Why?

What stops Bernie supporters from coming out to vote for him, regardless of whether overall turnout is high or low?

[NanceGreggs]

21. The "Revolution" ...

... and its "passionate revolutionaries" never existed.

The BSers have vastly overestimated their numbers from the outset. They have included in their ranks people who were never in their camp to begin with. They relied on on-line polls (where anyone could "vote" multiple times - including non-citizens, those not of voting age, etc.) and declared those polls to be proof that their numbers were legion.

The much-touted "Revolution" was smoke-and-mirrors all along. The Bernie supporters looked at the crowds at Bernie rallies last summer - and counted the attendees as BS voters. They looked at on-line polls, and counted the respondents as BS voters. They looked at DUers being 85% BS supporters, and assumed they represented 85% of Democrats.

When the rubber hit the road - i.e. people actually got off their asses to vote in primary contests - the real numbers showed that there are more Hillary supporters than BS supporters. It's a reality the BSes are still trying to explain away.

[NanceGreggs]

3. Your point being ... what?

If HRC won those states, it means that more HRC supporters turned out to vote than BS supporters.

Why do you suppose that is?

What happened to those droves of BS supporters who were going to come out and vote for him? Were they told to say home? Were they threatened in some way? Is it Hillary's fault that they never showed up?

I really don't understand what point you're trying to make.

[Beacool]

7. Where were the political revolutionaries that Sanders is relying on?

If he draws so many people to his rallies, why haven't they been voting in droves? Aren't these the people that he keeps repeating are going to uprise and be underneath McConnell's window demanding change?

The very least they could do is show up to vote for him.

[Avalux]

31. There you go deflecting. Aren't you concerned about dismal turnout in the GE?

If Hillary is the nominee, voter turnout will be horrid for her. She won't win.

[malokvale77]

37. Do you think...

for one minute that voters will turn out in droves for Hillary in the general.

People like you have seen to it that will never happen. Have fun. I'm sure you will be fine no matter.

[onenote]

46. I expect turnout to be lower in 2016 than in 2008 and maybe 2012

It will be lower for Democrats. It will be even lower for repubs if Trump is the nominee.

[malokvale77]

49. Are you happy with that? nt

[onenote]

50. I'll be happy if the Democrats come together and defeat a divided and depressed repub party

and prevent the worst presidential candidate of my lifetime from becoming president.

Will you be unhappy with that result?

[malokvale77]

52. If you are talking about my lifetime...

anybody but Bernie Sanders is worse.

[onenote]

53. and they're all equally bad in your opinion?

No difference between Obama and Trump. Between Carter (I'm assuming you're old enough to have been around when Carter was president, but I'll admit you might not be that old) and Bush.

I said worst. Who was "worst" (including Trump).

[malokvale77]

58. I'm plenty old enough to know all of them.

I will restate that Bernie Sanders would be better than all of them.

[onenote]

59. You're very good at evasion. Or scared to answer a straightforward question

Are they all equally bad in your eyes? Is there a worst or was Carter as bad as Trump?

[malokvale77]

63. Wow...

I didn't know that the question was rather Carter was as bad as Trump.

The answer is - NO, but Sanders is even better.

[onenote]

64. FWIW, I voted for Bernie and think he's better than Clinton.

But there isn't a Democratic candidate in my lifetime (and I'm in my 60s) that I wouldn't prefer over Trump. I'm still not sure if that's true for you, which makes me think that maybe you do like Trump more than any of the Democratic candidates of your lifetime. You just are afraid to admit it publicly.

[malokvale77]

68. Your thinking about me is fucked up.

Bernie is my candidate to the bitter end.

You make a big mistake when you pretend to know me.

[onenote]

70. And there we have it: unwilling to say Trump is worse than any Democratic candidate

of the past 60 years.

Wow.

[malokvale77]

74. No wow at all.

Move those goal posts.

I think Bernie Sanders is the best candidate in my lifetime.

[onenote]

75. You moved the goal posts not me. I started this by making a statement that Trump was the worst

candidate in my lifetime. You've been unwilling/unable to state whether you agree.

[malokvale77]

79. How do you expect me to agree?

Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W Bush were the worst in my lifetime.

I don't see Trump as worse than any of them. They were/are all buffoons.

[onenote]

84. At least we have a marker. Donald Trump is equally or less odious as Bill Clinton in your eyes

Now we know where you are coming from.

[malokvale77]

86. I will agree to Bill Clinton being odious.

In this election, I do not see Hillary Clinton as less odious than Donald Trump.

I see them both as the worse examples the two party system has to offer.

[onenote]

88. Well, we can rule out your being Muslim. Or Mexican.

Probably can rule out your being African American, gay or disabled.

[malokvale77]

89. That's your problem...

you can't rule out any of those things about me or mine.

However that shit let's me know who you are.

[RobertEarl]

57. He won or almost won

In places where he spent his time and efforts. Proof that against most odds the revolution is happening.

[emulatorloo]

8. 122,300+ CO caucus goers. 192,000+ at MN caucus. GA 'just' 761,218.

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/minnesota
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/colorado

So for your author 122,300 is a high number of voters and that's why Bernie won.
And 761,218 is a low number of voters and that's why Hillary won.

In Virginia only 783,000 voted this time around. So that's why Clinton won.
In Minnesota a high 192,000+ caucuses attended, so that's why Bernie won.

Bernie supporter here. I don't beleive the author has fully thought his article through.

[AzDar]

10. Debbie Doesn't Do Democracy...

[malokvale77]

40. No she doesn't...

but what a great title for a porn flick.

[Mike__M]

11. Those Republicans frightened by Trump

should draft DWS. She's the best thing they've got going for them.

[KingFlorez]

14. Apparently there wasn't a lot enthusiasm for Sanders

Clinton supporters showed up, which is why she won big in many places and carried Massachusetts narrowly.

[msongs]

16. based on vote counts Bernie did even worse lol. oh wait, those totals are RIGGED by bill nt

[WillyT]

19. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[Onlooker]

20. If Sanders had been a better candidate, turnout would have been higher, but Hillary did okay n/t

[leveymg]

23. You have it backwards. Dem turnout was generally far better in states where Bernie won or performed

well. It is in the south where HRC had most of her winnings that Dem turnout was suppressed 30-50 percent and the GOP numbers were 60 percent or higher than 2008. See my OP on the Greatest of 3:13 pm

[Onlooker]

26. Look to Vermont

In Vermont,

In 2008, Obama won 91,901 to Hillary 59,806

In 2016, Sanders won 115,863 to Hillary's 18,335

So, as you can see, there was a net dropoff of over 10% in Vermont.

If Hillary had been stronger in Vermont, the numbers would have been better. If Sanders had been a stronger candidate in the states that Hillary won handily, the numbers would have been better.

[leveymg]

35. To take your point one step further, HRC'S turnout actually declined

from 2008 nationally. Her negatives are also up. Those two factors would seem to correlate.

[malokvale77]

42. Save your breath.

They will never get it, until it hits them smack dab where it hurts.

It's got to the point where I wish upon them the pain of me and mine.

[WhiteTara]

24. What happened to that Revolution?

I thought Sanders was supposed to turn them out in droves.

[malokvale77]

44. It's a fact that Hillary can't turn out the vote.

One can only image how low the turn out would be if Hillary were the only choice.

Keep pretending that people are excited about Hillary as the first female president.

[chillfactor]

28. Democratic turn-out....

for primaries is always low...no surprises there.

[Kip Humphrey]

33. How many of these low-voter-turnout states have onerous voter id laws, I wonder.

And if there is a correlation, maybe just maybe the party had best get its ass in gear and begin to fight back.

[beachbum bob]

38. Not saying much for sanders... With even less support...

[mythology]

39. And somehow Clinton used magical powers to ensure Sanders supporters didn't turn out?

You can't claim that Sanders is able to drive turn out if you are only going to look at the states he won given that the nomination is determined by delegates from all of the states including the ones he lost. If Sanders' plan was to drive turn out, then why didn't he?

Yes Democratic turn out is down, but it's down across the board, including Sanders. And he's losing among the people who have turned out, which is the group of people who matter most in terms of winning the nomination.

[doc03]

41. I thought Sanders was getting these huuuuge crowds, well were

all these new young voters on election day?

[calguy]

43. Talk about numbers all youwant

The fact is that Hillary got more votes yesterday nationwide than any other candidate, democrat OR republican.
And that includes the Trumpster!!
'Nuff Said?

[malokvale77]

47. Go for that.

Your numbers are bullshit. She had one opponent. Both parties are collapsing under the weight of the oligarchs.

She will never be president. Less than 20% of Bernie supporters will vote for her.

'Nuff Said?

Your grammar and spelling alone tell me all I need to know about your analysis.

[frazzled]

48. The takeaway seems to be that

Sanders didn't attract voters to come out in the states he lost. D'oh.

[Punkingal]

51. i know what happened in Tennessee...my son lives there.

He told me today that 90% of the people he talked to were voting for Trump. That included people who have always voted Democratic...he mentioned one guy who told him in all his 68 years he had never voted Republican, but he does not like Hillary. This is a place that always goes democratic, except when Reagan ran in 1980.

This conversation scared the shit out of me....I am a Bernie supporter, but I don't see anything to celebrate about this. It's scary as hell...trump as President, and a Republican House and Senate. We will be well and truly screwed.

[onenote]

61. Purple Virginia. Very important state.

Trump wins with 355,960 votes. Clinton wins with 503,358.

Want to try out a new theory?

Oklahoma: solidly red state.
Trump finishes second with 130,141 votes. Clinton finishes second with 139,338 votes.

I think Clinton and Sanders both have a very strong chance of winning the GE in Virginia against Trump. I think neither Bernie nor Sanders has any chance of defeating any repub candidate in Oklahoma

Like I said, want to try out a new theory?

[Justice]

71. When one candidate projected to win by more than 20% - turnout usually down. In races where neck and

neck - turnout higher. MA turnout was projected to be high - was a close race going in.

Don't think the numbers in Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia and Virginia were down because of enthusiasm - they were down because Clinton was projected to win by 25 or more points.

Bernie projected to win VT, MN - etc. OK maybe an outlier.

Much closer races resulted in higher turnout.

Numbers don't mean what OP says they do.

[The Second Stone]

77. This deeply disrupted the Sanders' campaign plan of winning by

getting less actual votes and through the sheer smugness of the people who blog for Bernie under the misimpression that by Clinton, by kicking Sanders pasty ass all over the place by getting many more actual votes, planned to do so by turning out fewer voters.

Sanders supporters are so brilliant and revolutionary that they think that getting less votes is a winning strategy.

[w4rma]

92. The DNC was run by Howard Dean in 2008. He worked, for years, on a 50 state GOTV plan.

Now it's run by a Clinton lackey who has worked hard to make the primaries "inevitable" and "invisible".