Okay lets have a little chat about the turnout issue..

[Peacetrain]

We seem to be literally numbers reversed from where the republicans were in 2008.. our numbers are down.. and that is just a fact.. no one is lighting the fires of turnout like they did in 2008 on our side..

We have to look this one square in the face.. our numbers would never be that good.. we have had the oval office for 8 years.. and the republicans have been total a**hats refusing to work with the President on anything..

So you have a fuming republican "supporting" electorate.. and they want change.. and so it only makes sense their numbers are going to be up... they are madder than march hares..

All that being said.. that does not mean for a second we will not win in November if we keep to it.. We have the ideas.. and we really do have the people.. they are just not engaged right now in the numbers we saw in 2008.. too busy watching the train wreck on the right is my guess..

just saying..

[randr]

1. Did you happen to see Samatha Bee's latest "Full Frontal"?

She accurately pointed out that the election of 2010 was the most important in our history. The ruling body of dis-government we have in Washington were elected that year by a non-majority of progressive votes.
12%, yes only 12% of young eligible voters showed up.
They own this world and I am sick and tired of hearing them whine about how boomers have failed them.

[Peacetrain]

2. You have to show up to play that is for sure..

[gcomeau]

5. Well

12%, yes only 12% of young eligible voters showed up.
They own this world and I am sick and tired of hearing them whine about how boomers have failed them.

Look around this forum and see how they're treated when they do show up. They have the nerve to overwhelmingly support the most progressive candidate in the race and the rest of the Democratic party vilifies them for not being "realistic pragmatists" like them and voting Clinton for more of the same because she's GOING TO WIN YOU KNOW stupid kids who can't add numbers.... and if you won't support Clinton go away we don't want you and we don't need you.


Yeah, shocker that we have turnout issues with the millennials isn't it?

[Garrett78]

8. Turnout of young people is almost always an issue.

Democratic Underground has no bearing on turnout and election results.

[gcomeau]

9. If you think that's *only* a commentary on DU

...you need to look around the rest of the country.


Yes, young voter turnout is always problematic. Should we therefore....


1. Try to encourage young voter participation to improve the situation?
2. Tell them to go fuck themselves because they want to make things better instead of just accepting that older voters know best and voting for more of the same?



eenie... meenie... minie....

[Garrett78]

12. Of course we should encourage youth participation.

But the reasons for low youth participation don't have anything to do with Internet commentary, just as Internet commentary doesn't have anything to do with Clinton being an overwhelming favorite to win the nomination.

Low youth participation pre-dates the Internet.

[gcomeau]

13. If you think that is only a commentary on *the internet*...

...you need to take a look around the rest of the country.

Seriously, pay attention.

[Lizzie Poppet]

14. The Democratic Party can only do that as a genuine liberal party.

The current center-right version is never going to motivate young people in significant numbers. Young voters are not stimulated by "voting against" candidates they don't like. They're motivated more by having someone to enthusiastically embrace and vote for. For many, that's been Bernie...but the constant refrains (for months and months) that he's an "un-electable fringe candidate" have taken their toll.

[Garrett78]

15. I don't think it's taken a toll.

I think there simply aren't enough Sanders supporters among the 30+ crowd, and younger folks historically fail to participate. If anything, hearing that Sanders is unelectable would probably motivate young people to vote, being as how they tend to be more rebellious.

[randr]

18. We should collectively fight for the removal of DWS.

Just for starters.

[merrily]

32. I have been, but it's too little and far too late. BTW, Tim Canova is

trying to primary her from the left. Primary is March 15. Donate https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/jpr4timcanova

[randr]

17. Young voters are not the only ones being mistreated here at DU

I am banned from posting in the Hill camp as are many "old time" Duer's. We have been blown away from participation in the process from way back when.
Welcome to the club.

[Garrett78]

19. As much as that may suck...

...it has no bearing on the election results. Clinton will be the nominee and it doesn't have anything to do with what takes place at DU.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. And turnout will likely rival that of 2004, or perhaps 2000

for the D side.

Tell me exactly how did that go?

And yes, they are related... personally I am hoping that this turnout issue is limited to a region of the country and the rest of the country turns out in LLLLLLARRRGEE numbers.

[randr]

41. This is what we all

HOPE. Too bad hope is just another four letter word.

[mythology]

42. And Clinton supporters are banned from the Sanders group

It's silly to talk about being blocked from a group as being mistreated. Groups are protected spaces.

[Bluenorthwest]

3. What really worries me is that the DNC and Hillary and her supporters don't seem to mind low

turnout as long as she wins. Formula for general election panic.

[PonyUp]

6. I wish I knew how many Independents have changed party affiliation to vote for Sanders. n/t

[dana_b]

10. me too

That would be interesting to know for both camps actually.

Anecdotally, I know that so far I, my daughter, and her boyfriend have registered as Dems and we know of three other independents who are going to register as Dems before June. My Repub sister is even going to re-register in order to vote for Bernie!

[Garrett78]

7. No it isn't.

As I wrote elsewhere:

The Dems have a 2-person race this time around (meaning there are only 2 get-out-the-vote campaign efforts going on in each state), and the Dems have had far less media coverage than the Reps this time around (thanks largely to Trump). And - this is the biggest point I wish to make - a low primary turnout doesn't translate to a low general election turnout. Even the weather and when states held their primaries in '08 vs. when states are holding them this year could be impacting turnout. Not to mention we have a pretty small sample size given how many solidly blue states have yet to hold their primaries.

2016 is a completely different dynamic than 2008. This year, we're coming off of 8 Obama years with 1 establishment candidate who is an overwhelming favorite to win the nomination. In '08, we were coming off of 8 Bush years with 2 establishment candidates running neck and neck (along with Edwards and others running). So, of course turnout will likely be down in the primaries/caucuses. That's not really a reflection on Clinton so much as a result of numerous variables mentioned above. And it bears repeating that low turnout in the primary doesn't translate to low turnout in the general.

Put it all together and the turnout numbers simply don't mean much at this juncture.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. I am already hearing this panic

[Raster]

28. They don't mind as long as she wins THE PRIMARY... but as know, just cause you win the primary...

...don't mean shit.

[JaneyVee]

4. 5 candidates = 5 GOTV campaigns.

More candidates more voters. And we're in red states.

[Hoyt]

31. Good point. Some commentator on NPR was discussing that plus 70% of Dems are

happy with either candidate. But I hope we remain concerned and vote.

[dana_b]

11. "too busy watching the train wreck on the right is my guess"

You are so right!

We were just on vacation and the three millenials in our group (including my daughter) were the ones who watched the Repubs at night. We were too busy at the pool or just chatting. The "kids" (yes, they're all adults now) are fascinated with that train wreck. But, the only thing that I will say, is that it keeps them interested. They then come to me and say "mom - we have to vote for Bernie or if not Bernie, then Hillary. We can't let them win!!".

[onenote]

16. 1988

I've written this before, but I'll do it one more time:

In 1988 the repubs were fighting to see who would follow a repub president: Bush or Dole. It was a two-person race. Only around 13 million votes were cast in the primaries.

On the Democratic side, you had a field of candidates that included Dukakis, Jackson, Gore, and Gephardt: together they got around 22 million primary votes.

Yet, when the election came, did that major difference in turnout for the two parties foretell anything? Nope. Dukakis got smoked.

The point is that extrapolating from turnout in the primaries to turnout in the General is a simplistic, unreliable exercise, as the experience of 1988 proves.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. You might want to review that

Star Member wyldwolf (41,055 posts)

Since 1972, the party with higher turnout in primaries has gone 4-7 in the general election.

Nate Silver
‏@NateSilver538

Since 1972, the party with higher turnout in primaries has gone 4-7 in the general election.

cc: @rupertmurdoch

By the way, the direct correlation was there in both 2000 and 2004, for the Rs in 2008

four losses to seven wins by the way.

[onenote]

37. In six of those 11, there was an incumbent president who was essentially unopposed.

So those aren't evidence of anything.

The other five examples:

1980 - Carter was an unpopular incumbent, with significant primary opposition (Kennedy). Democrats had higher turnout than the repubs during primary season but lost the GE.

1988 -- No incumbent, Reagan was a moderately popular outgoing repub president. Higher primary numbers for Democrats (who had multiple candidates), but they lost to the incumbent VP (who faced only one serious challenger).

1992: -- I thought about putting this in category of incumbent who was essentially unopposed. Bush was an not very popular incumbent president but he faced only moderate primary opposition from Buchanan. The Democrats had higher turnout and won.

2000 -- No incumbent. president. Clinton was a moderately popular outgoing Democratic president. The incumbent VP (Gore) faced one serious primary opponent, Bradley, who was out of the race by March 9. The Republicans had higher turnout (with McCain, who also was out of the race by March 9). The result: basically a tie (with Gore getting more popular votes despite the Democrats having lower primary turnout).

2008 -- No incumbent. Unpopular outgoing repub president. Higher primary numbers for Democrats, Democrats win.

So instead of four wins and seven losses, its more like 2 wins 2 losses and one tie. A lot of variables influence the results, not just primary turnout. And the 1988 election arguably more closely resembles 2016 (with the repub and Democratic positions reversed) than any other.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. We will see

I know there is a correlation and for all our collective sakes I HOPE that starts to correct itself in the next few contests, I know locally, some folks already have their hair on fire.

[tabasco]

38. "as the experience of 1988 proves"

Wow. One election proves a proposition on election trends? Sorry, but that is an amazing lack of critical thinking.

[onenote]

40. No. It proves that there is no reliable correlation.

Everyone cites 2008 as proof you need high turnout in the primaries to win the GE. I pointed out a very obvious example where that wasn't the case.

In fact, in the past 5 elections that did not involve an incumbent who was essentially unopposed for the nomination, the party with higher turnout in the primaries has won twice, lost twice and, in 2000, it was basically a tie (the party with the higher primary turnout lost the national popular vote but won, thanks to the Supreme Court, the electoral vote.

But people continue to wring their hands over the primary turnout as if it and it alone determines the outcome of the GE.

[ucrdem]

23. Whose fault would that be?

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. I shan't blame the voter,

forgetaboutit.

[ucrdem]

26. Hadn't crossed my mind. And thanks again South Carolina Dems!

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. You can thank then in November as well

after the votes are counted and low turnout has a pretty good relationship to losing the WH.

[ucrdem]

33. You flipped from "I shan't blame the voter" in record time. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. You said you would thank them

so I told you who to thank... in the only sense you are capable of understanding

I blame the DNC for nominating a weak candidate and a bunch of forces that you are not willing to consider, Suffice it to day some locally are starting to talk of this... and they are not happy. And no, they are not blaming the voters, They are blaming the DNC... and the state party.

[Cal33]

43. I agree fully. The DNC not only endorsed Hillary. To help Hillary, their Chairperson DWS also used

every dirty trick to bring Bernie down. The DNC is supposed to treat all Democratic candidates
equally. Vice-Chair Tulsi Gabbard got so disgusted that she quit her job in the DNC and
switched over to supporting Bernie Sanders.

[kristopher]

25. Here is the best view on the topic I've ever seen.

I just read it about an hour ago.

Brian | February 21, 2016 at 3:10 pm |
Here is what I think is the most important issue. In 2008, Clinton dominated the Democratic National Committee using the same machine politics she is using today. So to win, Obama built a new, separate organization, and didn’t allocate much of those funds to congressional races. Because of this, the DNC did not have money to pour into critical races nor get out the vote and Republicans won 69 seats. Today, the DNC has 63% of the permanent staff it had in 2007. (115/183)

The Clinton vs. Sanders race is doing the same thing. Clinton is again using machine politics to control the DNC, and Sanders supporters have run campaigns to kill donations to the DNC to force changes and make the system fair.
Someone needs to hit the democratic presidential candidates with this problem as a debate question. Ask them what they are going to do about it, and ask why anybody should vote for either of them if they are just going to continue to rip apart funding for the congressional offices that matter more.
Hilary – When are you going to stop wrecking the DNC and killing democrats in Congress by treating DNC as your personal fiefdom?
Sanders – How are you going to ensure that congressional seats are funded if you get elected?

And separately, for Barack Obama: You became the first black president, great. But by spitting off a huge donor pool and hoarding it, you destroyed your chances of working with congress completely, put Republicans in charge, and made climate change denial the norm in Congress. So what are you going to do about that from this point forward? How will you rectify that?

First comment below article at http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2016/02/krugman-gang-4-need-apologize-smearing-gerald-friedman.html

[madfloridian]

27. Voter registration is down. That's one reason.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election/dem-voter-registration-leading-turnout-article-1.2545420

Compare to when Dean was chair and leading the 50 state strategy.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-07-voter-registration_N.htm

I blame Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her personal interests in this primary. Register all those new voters and they might vote for Bernie.

[Raster]

30. DWS is a Clinton bootlicker with no clue about consequences...

....She has failed the Democratic Party MISERABLY as Chair. Perhaps she did good for other interests... for us? Not so much.

[merrily]

34. Turn out is no mystery. The Dem candidates are Hillary Inevitable and a candidate whom DWS helped

keep a secret and whom almost every Democratic office holder and pundit has been saying for two years or more has zero chance of defeating Hillary or winning the general and Democrats and media have been libeling. Do the math.

Democrats did this to themselves (and to us).

[noamnety]

36. Voter ID laws might be part of it.

Millennials are less likely to own cars or have a driver's license.

Dealing with the DMV can be a pain in the ass - but we do it because we need a driver's license. If you aren't driving .... I'm not sure the motivation is the same to get a state ID just to vote. And a lot of us register to vote as we are getting our driver's license - so it impacts both the ID requirement at the polls and the registration itself.

"From 2007 to 2011, the number of cars purchased by people aged 18 to 34, fell almost 30%, and according to a study from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, only 44% of teens obtain a driver’s license within the first year of becoming eligible and just half, 54% are licensed before turning 18. This is a major break with the past, considering how most teens of the two previous generations would race to the DMV for their license or permit on the day of their 16th birthday."

http://www.fastcoexist.com/3027876/millennials-dont-care-about-owning-cars-and-car-makers-cant-figure-out-why