Dem turnout 20% down from 2008

[Peter1469]

Dem turnout 20% down from 2008 (http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/04/26/exclusive-data-analysis-democrat-turnout-collapses-4-5-million-nearly-20-percent-2016-versus-2008/)

I have already predicted that the general election would go this way.


The data also show that the about 4.5 million fewer people have voted in the Democratic presidential contest this year versus 2008.

This year’s contest is a two-person race between Democratic Socialist


Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
16%




of Vermont and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Clinton is also a former U.S. Senator from New York, a position she held after eight years as first lady.

Hillary Clinton also ran for president in 2008, which makes this data all the more interesting: It’s essentially a comparison up against her previous failed race, when she was the frontrunning Democratic presidential candidate until then Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois blew past her late in the game taking the lead before winning the nomination and then eventually the presidency.

Back in 2008, as Obama battled Clinton, a whopping 23,715,866 people voted in primaries and caucuses nationwide in the states that have already voted this cycle. Fast forward to the next time there’s a Democratic primary for president, this year (since Obama was the incumbent president seeking reelection the primaries in 2012 were largely perfunctory), and turnout has dropped off significantly. Just 19,155,825 people have voted thus far in primaries and caucuses this cycle, a decrease of 4,560,041 voters or 19.23 percent.

The steep drop off is so significant on the Democratic side that the vast majority of states saw drops in voter participation in Democratic primaries and caucuses. The following contests saw less voters participate on the Democratic side in the primaries and caucuses than 2008’s contests: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Utah, Wisconsin, Vermont, American Samoa, Hawaii, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, Washington state, and Wyoming.

[texan]

Much to my disappointment I heard today that research shows this doesn't correlate to the general. But there is quite a bit more enthusiasm on the GOP side than the Clinton side. She is boring, untrustworthy and doesn't excite anyone. But she starts with the press in her pocket and a bunch of electoral votes by default.

[Peter1469]

Much to my disappointment I heard today that research shows this doesn't correlate to the general. But there is quite a bit more enthusiasm on the GOP side than the Clinton side. She is boring, untrustworthy and doesn't excite anyone. But she starts with the press in her pocket and a bunch of electoral votes by default.

That is why I see a low turn out.

[Subdermal]

I believe any of the three GOP candidates will beat her. She does not engender enthusiasm.

[Quicksilver]

https://media.giphy.com/media/Ve9pOjJRxkW2c/giphy.gif

[Peter1469]

lol

perhaps there really isn't light voter turnout for the dems.

[SurelySimple]

Dem turnout 20% down from 2008 (http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/04/26/exclusive-data-analysis-democrat-turnout-collapses-4-5-million-nearly-20-percent-2016-versus-2008/)

I have already predicted that the general election would go this way.


Exactly what are you saying?

That the Democrats will turn out 20% less than they did in 2008?

And I am assuming you mean that the result mean s a slam-dunk for the GOP with elevated from usual enthusiasm and excitement created by Trump?

Have you ever considered that major consideration to determine a winner is the number of Electoral Votes a candidate gets.......... And the electoral vote total for all the solidly Blue states is 237 only 33 short of winning...

And as those of the GOP are excited by the fantastic 40% growth of voting in the primary because of Donald Trump will result in a win over Democrats who have lost 20% compared to 2008.


I would like to remind you that it is fair to assume the excitement as a result of Donald Trump will create a similar motivational response for Democratic voters


And another consideration one must factor in is the high rate of the disapproval of Trump ....currently at 70%

For myself, I cannot see anyone winning the 2016 with that high a disapproval rate........

Folks just do not like the man

[JVV]

....

And another consideration one must factor in is the high rate of the disapproval of Trump ....currently at 70%

For myself, I cannot see anyone winning the 2016 with that high a disapproval rate........

Folks just do not like the man



And folks do not like Hillary.


It's a battle to see who disgusts the most people in November.

[del]

hillary's disapproval rating is 55%

[SurelySimple]

...and The Donald unfavorable rate is almost 70%...........seems lots of folks just can't abide the man

[SurelySimple]

And folks do not like Hillary.


It's a battle to see who disgusts the most people in November.

Sounds about right............how do things like this happen?

This whole political season is and IMO continue to be wacky

[TrueBlue]

lol

perhaps there really isn't light voter turnout for the dems.
Of course there isn't! If there was, Hillary Clinton might not have won the 4 states that she did recently! And much as some would like to say that people dislike her, etc. without any arm twisting they are still voting for her and that's very telling! Besides that, those who think this election was "rigged" from the start need to think again!
To them I would only say: IT'S THE VOTERS, STUPID! They are overwhelmingly voting FOR Hillary! And that can't be rigged since it comes directly from their heart!

[hanger4]

Of course there isn't! If there was, Hillary Clinton might not have won the 4 states that she did recently! And much as some would like to say that people dislike her, etc. without any arm twisting they are still voting for her and that's very telling! Besides that, those who think this election was "rigged" from the start need to think again!
To them I would only say: IT'S THE VOTERS, STUPID! They are overwhelmingly voting FOR Hillary! And that can't be rigged since it comes directly from their heart!

Voter turnout in the Dem primary is absolutely irrelevant to whether Hillary or Sanders wins or loses.

You really don't understand how primaries work do you. It's not how many vote but whom they vote for.

[SurelySimple]

And folks do not like Hillary.


It's a battle to see who disgusts the most people in November.


I think you may be on to something

But ask myself ........

How did it come to now having to vote for the least disgusting....


Either than in the day folks were voting for the best competent.....



I must have not noticed when the change occurred......

I may have been napping...

[Bo-4]

Bla La Pete - you should have figured out by now that Dems don't for the most part do off-years, caucuses or primaries.

You'll see them in November - personally guar-an-fing-TEED. :)

[Peter1469]

Bla La Pete - you should have figured out by now that Dems don't for the most part do off-years, caucuses or primaries.

You'll see them in November - personally guar-an-fing-TEED. :)

Really? I predict a low turnout.

[JVV]

I think you may be on to something

But ask myself ........

How did it come to now having to vote for the least disgusting....


Either than in the day folks were voting for the best competent.....



I must have not noticed when the change occurred......

I may have been napping...



24-hour-tabloid-news-cycle-Kardashian-culture

[hanger4]

Bla La Pete - you should have figured out by now that Dems don't for the most part do off-years, caucuses or primaries.

You'll see them in November - personally guar-an-fing-TEED. :)
The numbers compared are to the Dem Presidential primary/caucuses of 2008. They are quite telling. The Repub numbers are way up compared to the same time period.

[Tahuyaman]

Much to my disappointment I heard today that research shows this doesn't correlate to the general. .

Actually it does, but the liberal media complex will deny that and try to drum up as much excitement for Clinton as they can.

[SurelySimple]

Of course there isn't! If there was, Hillary Clinton might not have won the 4 states that she did recently! And much as some would like to say that people dislike her, etc. without any arm twisting they are still voting for her and that's very telling! Besides that, those who think this election was "rigged" from the start need to think again!
To them I would only say: IT'S THE VOTERS, STUPID! They are overwhelmingly voting FOR Hillary! And that can't be rigged since it comes directly from their heart!


Yes

Overwhelming for history in primaries where GOP folks do not vote...

The issue we need to be focused on IMHO is...

What happens when the whole country get a chance to seek their piece....

At the start the Dems enjoy some very favorable advantages....

Like having locked in Blue state electoral votes of 200+ something needing only 33 more to win (you do the math I'm too tired to do it)

That can change in a heart beat if Trump can make inroads into the real Blue NE solidly Democratic states....


Trump says he can........

But IMO his crystal ball is a good as mine

Broken and well over the warranty coverage...

[SurelySimple]

The numbers compared are to the Dem Presidential primary/caucuses of 2008. They are quite telling. The Repub numbers are way up compared to the same time period.



How do you think that will make a difference?

[SurelySimple]

24-hour-tabloid-news-cycle-Kardashian-culture


Could be...

Plus my main source of news was Aljazeera.... and real news reporting has gone belly up... What to do now?

[Peter1469]

How do you think that will make a difference?

Voter turnout matters.

[hanger4]

How do you think that will make a difference?

Don't know if it means anything or not. Just an interesting factoid. 2008 Dem primary/caucuse voters were 20% more enthusiastic or excided or whatever than they are now and you have to credit or discredit the presumptive nominee.

[SurelySimple]

Actually it does, but the liberal media complex will deny that and try to drum up as much excitement for Clinton as they can.

Liberal media? Didn’t they die way back…

Like when Geraldo Rivera spearheaded Action News where feelings trump fact because that’s what sold and pumped ratings

IMO there is no more liberal media or conservative media……..
It is what I call international corporate media who could care less if its left or right…
But more so in the bottom line and their best interests…
I tend not to believe much of anything in American media
No one practices real journalism in this country any more
But feed folks the “feelings” or “controversies” they believe will improve their ratings
I call it topical entertainment with a twist…
All fluff without substance
So I warn yall..
Don’t delude yourself you are getting the real news

The only place you might find the real new is in the respected and well known foreign media sources

But then you are all free to believe as you wish

[Bo-4]

Really? I predict a low turnout.

Trump vs Clinton in a finale?

Hide & Watch

:)

[SurelySimple]

Don't know if it means anything or not. Just an interesting factoid. 2008 Dem primary/caucuse voters were 20% more enthusiastic or excided or whatever than they are now and you have to credit or discredit the presumptive nominee.


Yes I have heard the same thing.... and folks attribute all the excitement to the new face Donald Trump

What make you think his presence in the race will not do the same for turning out the Dems in equal or larger numbers..

Sure are a lot of folks who played no part in the primaries where 70% of the nation hate the man

I sure as all have no idea of how/what will make folks come to vote but would no make to much of what was because it don't mean it will be

But we are talking primaries not the real deal

[Peter1469]

Trump vs Clinton in a finale?

Hide & Watch

:)

If it is Trump v. Clinton I predict high voter turn out for Trump. Lower for Hillary.

If it is Cruz v. Clinton I predict an all around low voter turnout.

[hanger4]

Yes I have heard the same thing.... and folks attribute all the excitement to the new face Donald Trump

What make you think his presence in the race will not do the same for turning out the Dems in equal or larger numbers..

Sure are a lot of folks who played no part in the primaries where 70% of the nation hate the man

I sure as all have no idea of how/what will make folks come to vote but would no make to much of what was because it don't mean it will be

But we are talking primaries not the real deal

"What make you think his presence in the race will not do the same for turning out the Dems in equal or larger numbers"

His presence in the primaries sure hasn't increased Dem turnout. Remember their numbers are 20% down. Reckon he caused that ??

[SurelySimple]

"What make you think his presence in the race will not do the same for turning out the Dems in equal or larger numbers"

His presence in the primaries sure hasn't increased Dem turnout. Remember their numbers are 20% down. Reckon he caused that ??


Because recent polls... like more than one... have Mr. Trumps "I don't like the man" at 70%...

I sort of believe that might be a good motivational reason to shut the TV off and go out to vote

[hanger4]

Because recent polls... like more than one... have Mr. Trumps "I don't like the man" at 70%...

I sort of believe that might be a good motivational reason to shut the TV off and go out to vote

Why are you attempting to make this thread about Trump ?? does the 20% drop in Dem primary turnout concern you and you deflect ??

[SurelySimple]

T thought we were talking about the 2016 election vis a vie the candidate Mr. Trump the reason foe all the excitement...

And as to the 20% drop I do not have any answers but the ones claimed/provided on TV....

AS far as to what I it all means...

1. who really knows
2. I have no strong feelings as to what it all means

[Peter1469]

T thought we were talking about the 2016 election vis a vie the candidate Mr. Trump the reason foe all the excitement...

And as to the 20% drop I do not have any answers but the ones claimed/provided on TV....

AS far as to what I it all means...

1. who really knows
2. I have no strong feelings as to what it all means

Typically large drops in interest are caused by a lack of leadership. IOW, a large percentage of democrats are not motivated enough to vote.

[SurelySimple]

Typically large drops in interest are caused by a lack of leadership. IOW, a large percentage of democrats are not motivated enough to vote.

I never knew that

How can you tell?

[Tahuyaman]

Liberal media? Didn’t they die way back…


No. They are still out there.

[SurelySimple]

No. They are still out there.

Believe me.... its all a myth...

For myself anything I read or hear in US media I take the Harry Truman point of view...

"I'm from Missoura ... Prove it"

So if it is important for me to find out...

I check the foreign press....

And what I have found both sides lacking.... no so much about what they were reporting on.... But what they left out

Now there the rub young lady... For me it is "to tell the truth; the whole truth" and some how it just does not happen enough for me to believe...

In what I read/hear until I can confirm it from an independent source....

But that's me... What can I say?

[Peter1469]

I never knew that

How can you tell?

Tell what? That duds don't motivate people? Leaders do. 25 years of military service. Extensive reading of history and military history.

[SurelySimple]

Tell what? That duds don't motivate people? Leaders do. 25 years of military service. Extensive reading of history and military history.

Thank you for your service

[Tahuyaman]

Believe me.... its all a myth...

For myself anything I read or hear in US media I take the Harry Truman point of view...

"I'm from Missoura ... Prove it"

So if it is important for me to find out...

I check the foreign press....

And what I have found both sides lacking.... no so much about what they were reporting on.... But what they left out

Now there the rub young lady... For me it is "to tell the truth; the whole truth" and some how it just does not happen enough for me to believe...

In what I read/hear until I can confirm it from an independent source....

But that's me... What can I say?

Seriously, you need to be convinced that the mainstream broadcast and print media are overwhelmingly liberal?

[SurelySimple]

Seriously, you need to be convinced that the mainstream broadcast and print media are overwhelmingly liberal?

This is somewhat off subject...

But yes liberal and conservative media is in fact now corporate media...

And they decide what news you will get...

And of croutes they maintain outlets which seem conservative and others liberal...

And for the postpose of ginning up debate and controversy.....


Because when folks are all nutty about the other side doing this and that...

No one can really know what's really going on....

This is nothing new..

The southern plantation owners encouraged slave and white trash to hate each other so as to keep them busy with fighting with each other the owners has less of a problem maintaining control....

Sorry to burst your balloon but the media is controlled by large international corporations who are doing the same as the old southern slave owners did

So what you think you see is now what you get an d more than likely published to piss yall off and to hate them damn beading heart liberals...

And that's the way it is..

[Peter1469]

This is somewhat off subject...

But yes liberal and conservative media is in fact now corporate media...

And they decide what news you will get...

And of croutes they maintain outlets which seem conservative and others liberal...

And for the postpose of ginning up debate and controversy.....


Because when folks are all nutty about the other side doing this and that...

No one can really know what's really going on....

This is nothing new..

The southern plantation owners encouraged slave and white trash to hate each other so as to keep them busy with fighting with each other the owners has less of a problem maintaining control....

Sorry to burst your balloon but the media is controlled by large international corporations who are doing the same as the old southern slave owners did

So what you think you see is now what you get an d more than likely published to piss yall off and to hate them damn beading heart liberals...

And that's the way it is..

You are correct that the media is controlled by global business interests. However, their US ventures lean towards the democrats. There is no doubt that their on-air talent is hard left at the 90% range.

[SurelySimple]

You are correct that the media is controlled by global business interests. However, their US ventures lean towards the democrats. There is no doubt that their on-air talent is hard left at the 90% range.


Nice try.......they could care less who think it favors one over the other...........Now if it is what you suggest....The big corporation are just providing more of liberal slant for yall can complain about and feel misunderstood and taken advantage of....

For example do you know these forces were first introduce the phrases....

as "fly over states" for example and "Wingnut" and Liberal"

William Safire wrote a long piece about the origins of these slurs and insults

You can see it explained in a short piece at:
http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2014/11/political-insults/

not perfectly on point but gives one of an idea of what the hill is really going on

[Peter1469]

Nice try.......they could care less who think it favors one over the other...........Now if it is what you suggest....The big corporation are just providing more of liberal slant for yall can complain about and feel misunderstood and taken advantage of....

For example do you know these forces were first introduce the phrases....

as "fly over states" for example and "Wingnut" and Liberal"

William Safire wrote a long piece about the origins of these slurs and insults

You can see it explained in a short piece at:
http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2014/11/political-insults/

not perfectly on point but gives one of an idea of what the hill is really going on

You just point out what I have been saying for a long time. The both main parties, the democrats and the republicans, are controlled by the same people. The Establishment. Any differences between the two parties is designed to bring the fringe groups into the program. They can bicker on small issues. But the goal is to get the US to spend itself off the fiscal cliff so it can be brought into the international community. Under the control of people who think democracy is something you will never have.

[Cigar]

Keep Hope Alive :laugh:

[Cigar]

Black Women Rally Behind Hillary Clintonhttps://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-NT228_BLACKW_M_20160427140953.jpg
Hillary Clinton never goes very far without black women sharing the stage, introducing her around or casting ballots for her in outsize numbers—and they are a prime reason she stands on the cusp of claiming the Democratic presidential nomination.

Black women have long played a big role in Mrs. Clinton’s life and career, and now their expanding roles in politics—as voters, officeholders and activists—have lifted the Clinton campaign in multiple ways.

Exit polls show turnout by black women in Democratic primaries is significantly higher than turnout by black men, in several cases more than double. And black women have overwhelmingly supported the former senator and secretary of state over rival Bernie Sanders, with 90% or more of them voting for her in some states. In New York, she took 79% of their votes on her way to an easy victory, the exit polls show.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/black-women-rally-behind-hillary-clinton-1461866619