The enthusiasm gap is a lurking turnout disaster. It's Sanders or a ballot-wide Republican landslide

[Attorney in Texas]

Sanders is working hard to bring new Democrats to the ballot box and Clinton (with the DNC's collaboration) is inspiring no growth or enthusiasm.

"1.1 million more Republicans have voted than Democrats" on Clinton-centric Super Tuesday:



The RNC is building its party while our DNC is shrinking and discouraging our base:



This voter downturn is the foreseeable result of the DNC conspiring with the status quo establishment candidate who has little appeal to new voters, independent voters, and young voters. If the DNC had put as much effort into building our party as it put into its effort to hamstring our other primary candidates in an effort to grease the skids for Clinton, we would not be behind the turnout eight ball like we are.

As things stand right now, we change the DNC's game plan or we lose in November.

[Renew Deal]

1. Th gap is from Trump supporters that fall out of the process if he loses.

[Betty Karlson]

5. Does that mean we can start ignoring the meme "vote Clinton or you will get Trump"?

I never bought it for a moment; it's great to hear the other side now agrees how silly the argument was to begin with.

Feel the Bern!

[Vote2016]

2. kick & rec #5

[Zambero]

3. Bernie's raw numbers are included in the Dem shortfall

Which neutralizes the premise of this argument to a great extent. And the GOP totals include 3 disparate factions (authoritarian-racist, theocratic, and pro-establishment) who don't like each other a whole lot. Indeed, two-thirds of Rubio supporters and half of Cruz supporters can't stomach Trump, and to a lesser extent vice-versa. So there is plenty of division in the apparent display of GOP enthusiasm, which upon closer inspection does not represent any sort of united front.

[Attorney in Texas]

10. Yes. If the DNC was expanding the party (among younger voters, new voters, and independent voters),

then the voter turnout would be up.

This is the DNC's job.

The DNC fucking up the debates and the calendar has consequences.

The DNC successfully rigging the primary to hamstring O'Malley, Lessig, Webb, Chafee, and - without such success - against Sanders has consequences.

These consequences are our candidates and their messages were not and are not as widely known among the type of voters who we'd need to expand the party. This suppresses turnout.

[Lizzie Poppet]

13. The DNC has been all-in for a candidate young voters ALREADY rejected.

The problem is obvious...

[Attorney in Texas]

34. And some express "shock" that turnout is down

[Lizzie Poppet]

54. Hillary is great for turnout.

Conservative turnout...

[marions ghost]

42. I like how you put that...

"Consequences"

Well said.

[TM99]

38. Last fall the number of registered Democratic voters was at 23%.

As of this month, it is back up to 30%.

That increase is solely from Sanders. Independents like myself who want to vote for him in a closed or semi-closed primary state have registered for the first time as Democrats.

Whether he wins or not, most of us will leave again. I expect a great percentage if he loses. If it drops down to as low as only 20% of registered voters, this enthusiasm gap plus the fuck-ups with the DNC plus the lower turnout will spell disaster for Clinton.

[djean111]

55. My grandson will re-register as unaffiliated after he votes for Bernie next week,

here in Florida. I will stay registered as a Dem until after I vote for Grayson in the primary on Aug. 30 or thereabouts.
I think that people registering as Dem to vote for Bernie may be responsible for the uptick in registration. It will go back down.

Simple as this - if Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is a Democrat, then I am not. That's the DNC's choice that they made.

[TM99]

56. I know scores of voters

here in AZ that I personally helped to get registered as Democrats so they could vote in our primary this month.

They were disaffected Dems, independents, Greens, and even a few moderate libertarians.

I can think of not one of them who has said they will stay in the Democratic party after they vote.

This is happening everywhere. This is bad for the general election.

[SidDithers]

4. "Clinton-centric Super Tuesday"...

Any day that Clinton receives more votes from Democrats than Sanders is now "Clinton-centric".



Sid

[Bluenorthwest]

17. Tuesday was a list of States that were said to be extremely passionate for Hillary and while she

beat Bernie in those States soundly, the turnout in those States was also profoundly down from 2008, 5 Southern Super Tues States had turnouts drop between 25% and 50% from 2008. These were the States that were supposed to be simply chomping at the bit to vote for Hillary and that did not happen. Same can be said in Bernie States, I am not seeing the leap in voter turnout in those States either.
The way I see it, Hillary has had victories and Bernie has had victories but thus far the Democratic Party has not had a victory. The 08 primary drove up turnout and new voter registrations and that is not happening currently, or thus far in this cycle.

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. But more Clinton supporters are showing up to the polls than Sanders supporters

It would appear that Sanders supporters have the enthusiasm problem.

[AgingAmerican]

23. Yes, the crowds at his rallies prove it

You are correct, Sanders garners no enthusiasm.

[Adrahil]

32. That suggests his voters who DO show up are enthusiastic....

.... but on primary day, it's the total votes that count, not the enthusiasm of the folks who cast their vote.

[Happenstance24]

31. Yet, where are they when it comes time to vote? Elsewhere. -nt-

[Gwhittey]

50. You do know

That we have had only 4 debates from DNC? Now this is just slightly smaller than 2008 but now candidates are not allowed to go to unsupported debates if want to be invited to DNC run ones. This nice change came in 2015 so the establishment could ensure that 1 candidate who had national exposure was only one who got it. Do you know who Larry Lessig is? If you don't that is because the DNC did not want you too. He was running on Money out of Politics at the start of us. He raised money from the people and was up in polls enough to be on debate stage. Then they where told by Debbie Wasserman-Schultz changed they rules or as DNC put it "clarified the rules" which now made Lessig not able to attend the debate. So his supporters dug in and worked hard to now meet the new revised rules, which they did. But then they got a email saying the rules where change. This right her was proof the DNC was in the fix and corrupt.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-jarding/the-democrats-have-now-ch_b_8445202.html

This is same thing they are doing to Sanders they don't want him on a national TV stage talking policies. Why should that be problem don't every American have the right to be informed of a Candidates position with out having to go on Internet to find a source that is not biased toward the heir apparent nomination.That Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is not a Hillary supporter is not in question because she was on her 2008 campaign staff. That news companies are not trumping up Hillary to win is obvious. Not as obvious as the daily beast being biased towards Hillary, just because Chelsea Clinton is on the board of directors of the parent company is no reason to think that was reason they had 7-8 hit pieces against Sanders for Clinton on front page.

Please Please take time to step back to see how the DNC is being run, even if you don't do it now and wait till after GE take a honest look back on this Primary and see the corruption we the voters who are only 1/10000 counted as a vote in DNC because of super delegates.

[randome]

7. So the 'revolution' has fizzled?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[hack89]

8. Since Bernie is failing to bring new voters to the ballot box

even more so than Clinton, I question your logic and conclusion.

[hill2016]

9. young people

are not voting.

They are good at Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram and voting on online polls.

Actually getting their butts to the polling booth, not so much.

[Lizzie Poppet]

12. And that is, in no small part, because they've been told a candidate they don't like is "inevitable.

They feel they have no one to vote for, and voting against the worst of the selection offered isn't enough for them.

[marions ghost]

21. thank you

--the ones who pay attention are voting for Bernie

--the ones who aren't paying attention will either dutifully help crown Hill or not vote

[mythology]

51. If they are so easily discouraged

how were they going to usher in a "revolution"? If being told that the math favors Clinton made them stay home, what would Republican opposition do to them?

Besides, we keep hearing that younger people in general get their news from Twitter and Reddit.

[sufrommich]

11. Where are these new voters Sanders is bringing to the party?

Every exit poll shows that he is not doing what you say he's doing. The low turnout in the democratic primaries has more to do with democrats looking at the numbers and deciding the primaries are already over.

[Attorney in Texas]

14. Why isn't the DNC fighting to bring new voters to the party instead of fighting our own candidates?

[sufrommich]

15. I think it's interesting that the meme has now gone from

"Bernie's revolution is coming!" to "why isn't the democratic party running Bernie's revolution for him". When Obama ran in 2008,his campaign broke records for signing up new voters,where is Bernie's army?

[Attorney in Texas]

16. Sanders is doing fine, He's won 40% of the pledged delegates. Outside of Dixie, he's won 4 out of 7

seven states (and Clinton's win in Nevada was close and her wins in Iowa and Massachusetts were dirty and even closer).

It is the DNC that is underperforming, not Sanders.

[Bluenorthwest]

18. And at the same time, the Super Tues States that were said to be very thrilled about Clinton saw

massive drops in turnout, indicating that the thrill is over stated. In 5 Southern States Tuesday, she soundly beat Bernie but the turnouts were down ranging from 25% to 50%, this does not at all suggest that those electorates are highly motivated in supporting her. Nor Bernie for that matter.

There is no way around the fact that we need turnout, and if the voters who are allegedly excited by your candidacy do not in fact show up, it is fair to conclude they are not really that excited.

If you can be happy to win a State with 50% drop in turnout, you are not really thinking it all through.

[ChiciB1]

19. There's ONE Question That's Been Bugging Me For Some Time Now...

Bernie has $$$, Clinton just tapped Saudi Arabia for a donation, is going to have a fund raiser in Mexico and England and to me this is UN-American.

But my question is this. If YOU contributed to a candidate does it not stand to reason that you WOULD vote that candidate? Because of so many machines and because I've NEVER trusted the Clintons something just doesn't add up.

There have been questions about several Primaries where the count was close, I feel Bernie probably won. SC is a different kettle of fish. My grand kids who are millennials keep asking me "What's happening?" They know they voted, they know their friends voted here in Florida already who DO support Bernie. But, it's already being said CLINTON will win. She's here right now, down south with her BFF DWS!

We use machines and I've worked as a poll worker and ever since we've gotten machines I've questioned the people in charge what happens to the votes they put in separate lock boxes that weren't counted during the day. I always make it a point to sign up for the last shift so I can be there when voting is done. I'm always told that the votes needed to be hand counted because the machine rejected them. I've NEVER been able to find out IF THEY ACTUALLY got counted!

So, I'm suspicious about this whole mess. These machines are a HUGE problem and it's been proven that they can be hacked. So "MAYBE" the numbers are down... OR MAYBE NOT!

CO had a record turnout and Bernie won. MA had BILL CLINTON at polling places for a REASON and I really doubt Bernie lost! I KNOW this sounds like I'm a sore loser, but I HAVE seen suspicious things that happen with the machines. It's apparently not hard, but nothing gets proved, if at all until AFTER someone wins.

So, decide for yourself this is just how I feel from what I've actually seen.

[marions ghost]

22. "suspicious things happen with the machines"

--thank you for weighing in on the reality of what DOES happen these days in American elections.

'Win at any cost' is alive and well and enhanced by unverifiable voting machines.

[ChiciB1]

24. Just Sayin' AND I Have No Reason To Lie... n/t

[marions ghost]

25. With ya

Also agree totally about MA--REALLY intolerable behavior from Bullhorn Bill.

Says a lot about the lack of election integrity in America -- if people think that very visible act of vote manipulation is tolerated, I hate to think what's tolerated behind the scenes.

[KingFlorez]

20. If primary turnout is any indicator, Sanders isn't a big turnout draw

If we look at the 2008 primary, Obama really was bringing more voters on the books and turnout was at record levels, but that isn't happening with Sanders.

[w4rma]

28. He isn't very far under Obama's 2008 numbers in the states that he wins.

Which happen to be states that are in play in the general election.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511399834

[Dem2]

26. Yeah, in '08 Democrats were eager as heck to be rid of Bush and had 2 exciting candidates.

Republicans had Romney and a few nutcases in '12, with little chance of tossing out the incumbent in '12.

After 8 years of Obama, the Republicans are excited at a chance to win an election they are favored in historically. Add to that a maniac nationalist Nazi-like figure, which we know they are susceptible to, and viola! Excitement.

Means jack shit for the fall unless somehow the Nationalist psycho can keep his fervent supporters beating up minorities and still winning. If that happens we're in deep trouble. I think the excitement Bernie brings will have dissipated by November and Trumps attacks may have turned people against him by then, same with Hillary - I don't see a significant difference there, sorry. Besides, if Bernie WAS the figure many make him out to be, we'd be getting record turnout - so that argument falls flat on it's face.

[gwheezie]

27. Neither one of them is turning out

Let's be honest rather than delusional about which candidate is going to bring more dem voters to the GE. There is no evidence of that.

[amborin]

29. Vote for Bernie or You Get Trump

[Attorney in Texas]

37. In an election dominated by voters demanding change, we lose if we offer a status quo establishment

candidate up against an anti-establishment Republican candidate promising significant change.

[Onlooker]

30. Hopefully it's because most Democrats are content with either Bernie or Hillary

The fact is that it's either both candidates who are not generating enthusiasm (except among their base -- Hillary, black people, and Sanders, white young people) or most Democrats don't feel the need to vote because they are happy with either choice, unlike the Republicans who are afraid of at least one of their options. Hopefully it's the latter. If not, we have two weak candidates.

[Attorney in Texas]

33. I think that a lot has to do with the fact that the DNC hid our debates and is not encouraging young

voters and by promoting the anti-democratic super delegate system.

In a sad irony, the Republican nominating process is significantly more democratic than the Democratic process.

I hope your more optimistic explanation is correct.

[Onlooker]

35. I'm not worried about the superdelegates

Hillary was leading 2:1 with superdelegates in 2008, but in the end Obama won them 2:1. If Bernie leads in elected delegates, he will win the nomination or else the Democratic Party is completely screwed. The fact is the Bernie supporters, win or lose, are the future of the Party.

[Attorney in Texas]

36. I'm also not worried about super delegates in a steal-the-election way. I agree with you that the

overwhelming majority of super delegates are true small-d democrats who would not exercise their vote to deny the nomination to the candidate who has the pledged-delegate lead going into the convention. In addition to the fact that this would be anti-democratic, most of the super delegates are realists and they know that using a party elite vote to disenfranchise the primary voters would doom our nominee and inflict ballot-wide harm.

My concern about the super delegates is that (1) on the face of the issue, it looks awfully anti-democratic and (2) the way these super delegate endorsements are used, it is intended to mute the voice of the grassroots.

While few super delegates are either morally bankrupt enough or strategically stupid enough to disenfranchise the grassroots, the perception that they would do so for the establishment candidate is harmful in itself (the threat is harmful even if it is mostly bark and no bite).

[Vote2016]

39. How big are Hillary's rallies where the crowd is NOT there to see Katy Perry? Who shows up when

Hillary is the headline act?

[NCTraveler]

40. Yeah, if there is one thing we know about him...

It that his enthusiastic supporters showed up for him in great numbers. Errrr.... wait a sec.... ummm....

[oasis]

41. The specter of a rebooted Scaliafied SCOTUS will energize Democrats.

Way too much at stake this time around.

[Cobalt Violet]

43. The party establishment would rather Cruz then Bernie.

Totally disgusted with the Dem party atm. Not sure the damage can be undone.

[Vinca]

44. Both parties seem to be going to hell. We need a couple of more viable parties in this country.

The Democratic/Republican lock on politics no longer works.

[Cobalt Violet]

45. Seems to be a big change is underway.

The status quo is failing too many people on both sides.

[Darb]

46. It's "than", not "then", and unfortunately, that pales in comparison

to the abosulute ridiculousness of your post.

[Cobalt Violet]

49. Welll being a spatial person, I never gave 2 fucks about words and numbers.

But hey, at least I don't have the problem of not being able to see the forest from the trees!

[mythology]

52. No you don't see the forest if you think the DNC would prefer Cruz

Really that's just absurd on its face.

[Cobalt Violet]

53. They are pushing and supporting a candidate who can't win him.

BERNIE is the better one to run against any republican by far.

[Darb]

47. I thought Bernie was crushing the turnout thingy?

Revolutionary.

[Kaleva]

48. Solid evidence that the Bernie Revolution is a dud.