New Hampshire Democrats turnout lower than 2008.

[Dawson Leery]

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/10/466357629/new-hampshire-turnout-breaks-records-but-not-on-democratic-side

"The Democrats' official tally came to 250,974. That's more than 30,000 short of 2008. "

[RobertEarl]

1. Amazing isn't it?

H has been running forever and few Democrats were inspired to go vote for her.

[SunSeeker]

4. Among the actual Dems who turned out in NH, Bernie and Hillary split the vote. nt

[Fearless]

9. Imagine that in a democratic primary!

[JonLeibowitz]

39. Screw the independents we need to win in November! n/t

[SunSeeker]

42. I wouldn't say that. But the NH Indies are not the same demo as the GE independents. nt

[JonLeibowitz]

44. True. I will say that without the NH indies, NH is most certainly a swing state come November.

Many of them may even be Dems, but have the literally independent streak in them -- that is, party politics mean little. I know if I were in NH I would be registered as an Indy. Since they have it set up so that you can register on the way in and deregister on the way out it seems ideal to me from the perspective of limiting what the government knows about me.

[Gothmog]

2. Where is the Sanders revolution?

The whole premise of the Sanders campaign is that he will generate a revolution that will change things. Turnout out so far has been lower in both Iowa and NH in 2016 compared to 2008. The concept of a revolution is not catching on

[RobertEarl]

5. He's winning

Record amount of votes in NH and record percentage.

What the smaller turnout goes to show is that H ain't doing good at all. Heck, she lost by a record amount.

[Gothmog]

15. For this so-called revolution to work, turnout needs to go up and so far it has gone down

I may be working from a different definition of a revolution than you are

[RobertEarl]

22. The revolution

Is what's to come. Right now Bernie is winning.

The revolution comes when Bernie is in office and the republicans obstruct him. Then, the people let them know they best get with Bernie.

All Bernie needs is one extra vote in 50 states to get in office. That is a simple way of looking at it, but it is true.

If you see the revolution as a massive turnout in the election for Bernie, all you have to do is look at the past year where he's gone from zero to 60% already.

[Gothmog]

25. This revolution keeps moving? Are you sure that there will be one?

If fewer people support Sanders how is that a revolution? Why should anyone hope that people who are not supporting sanders now will decide to do so in the future?

[RobertEarl]

29. Jeeez

The votes haven't been cast yet.

But zero to 60% .... looks like something is sure happening. And we have yet begun to vote!

As for fewer, H's numbers are fewer and fewer. That means fewer people support her. If her numbers are tanking already what makes you think they won't tank further? My gawd this is a disaster for her. This is embarrassing for her.

[Gothmog]

45. Here is Sanders definition of revolution

"We need a political revolution of millions of people in this country who are prepared to stand up and say, 'enough is enough' ... I want to help lead that effort."
~ Sen. Bernie Sanders

That means that millions of people need to come out and so far there are fewer votes in Iowa and NH than 2008. Where are these millions and don't they need to vote. For the revolution to succeed, Sanders needs sufficient voters to gain the attention of the GOP in Congress which will be difficult since most republicans in the House are in gerrymandered districts and are safe from any sort of pressure from this "revolution."

Again, for Sanders to be viable and be able to keep his campaign promises, it might me nice if this revolution involves some actual voters

[RobertEarl]

51. well

When he wins the nom you'll be joining us, right?

[JRLeft]

43. No one's voting for Hillary either, all this says is right now the democrats are headed for a loss

in November.

[Gothmog]

46. Did Hillary promise a revolution?

[JRLeft]

47. She promised a victory.

[Gothmog]

49. Sorry, Bernie Sanders. There is zero evidence of your ‘political revolution’ yet

From the Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/10/sorry-bernie-sanders-there-is-zero-evidence-of-your-political-revolution-yet/

Bernie Sanders recorded a resounding victory in New Hampshire's Democratic primary Tuesday. He crushed his rival, Hillary Clinton, with no less than 60 percent of the vote. If Sanders hopes not only to win the election but to achieve his ambitious progressive agenda, though, that might not be enough.

To succeed, Sanders might have to drive Americans who don't normally participate to the polls. Unfortunately for him, groups who usually do not vote did not turn out in unusually large numbers in New Hampshire, according to exit polling data.

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=&w=1484

...As for Sanders, he credited his victory to turnout. "Because of a huge voter turnout -- and I say huge -- we won," he said in his speech declaring victory, dropping the "h" in "huge." "We harnessed the energy, and the excitement that the Democratic party will need to succeed in November."

In fact, Sanders won by persuading many habitual Democratic primary voters to support him. With 95 percent of precincts reporting their results as of Wednesday morning, just 241,000 ballots had been cast in the Democratic primary, fewer than the 268,000 projected by New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner last week. Nearly 289,000 voters cast ballots in the state's Democratic primary in 2008.

To be sure, the general election is still seven months away. Ordinary Americans might be paying little attention to the campaign at this point, and if Sanders wins the nomination, he'll have the help of the Democratic Party apparatus in registering new voters. The political revolution hasn't started, though, at least not yet.

[RobertEarl]

52. I get where you are coming from now

Bernie broke the record with a 60% total. And your posts are like a broken record.

[Gothmog]

53. Sanders campaign is premised on this revolution which is not occurring

Sanders can not hope to deliver on his promises without this revolution and no one seems to be able to find evidence of it.

[Bonobo]

11. It's in front of your face.

Or is drawing independent voters not a good thing for our hopes in the GE now?

[Gothmog]

13. Lower turnout is a revolution?

This revolution causes a lower turnout compared to 2008. How will that cause any change?

[Bonobo]

18. No, drawing independents into the party is though.

Look at the numbers. Hillary lost support.

[HooptieWagon]

28. Hillary was nearly 20,000 below her 2008 votes.

And 2008 was a three-way race, 2016 only 2-way. Looks like voters are done with her.

[SunSeeker]

3. Yup, and 40% were Independents in this Dem open primary.

Among the actual Dems who turned out, Bernie and Hillary split the vote.

New Hampshire allows independent voters -- a substantial part of the voting population -- to vote in the party primary of their choosing. Interestingly, Sanders and Clinton essentially tied among Democrats -- but Sanders won independents nearly 3-to-1. Twice as many independents voted in the Democratic primary (percentage-wise) in New Hampshire than caucused with the Democrats in Iowa.

http://m.dailykos.com/stories/1482561

[RobertEarl]

6. Goes to show Bernie attracts Indies

Indies are the largest group of voters. And they luv them some Bern!!!

[SunSeeker]

8. Truly uncommitted voters, actual independents, are only about 10% of voters.

"There is a tendency to exaggerate the proportion of independents in the electorate and their impact on the election," said Alan Abramowitz, professor of political science at Emory University in Atlanta. "When you narrow it down, look at actual voters, the turnout rate among independents is lower. When you look at actual voters and look at those who are truly uncommitted, you find that you're down to less than 10 percent of the actual voters."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/independent-voters-on-the-rise-but-do-they-matter/

[Bonobo]

12. LOL. And a pretty fucking important 10%!

No, I take it back.

THE MOST important.

[SunSeeker]

14. Certainly, but the general electorate independents are not the same demo as the NH Indies. nt

[Bonobo]

19. Some of them are.

Neither you nor I know the actual numbers though.

[RobertEarl]

16. Right-ooo

And now we see they are committed to Bernie! Bernie is an Indie and they like that about him.

[SunSeeker]

27. No, we only see that NH Indies favor Bernie.

The independents of NH are a very different demographic than found in the general election.

[RobertEarl]

31. Not only that

But younger women are voting more for the old man. My gawd! What a disaster for H!!

[SunSeeker]

34. Those younger women are not going to vote for the GOP in the GE.

It is not ideal, but it is not a disaster for H in the primary.

[RobertEarl]

36. H can't win the GE

You can try and keep that fairy tale going, but it's a dead end.

The younger women are gonna put Bernie in office. They are fired up. And believe me, the boys will follow them.

[ThePhilosopher04]

7. Looks like Hillary couldn't get her supporters out ...

Bernie upheld his end with over 150k votes, smashing the record for most votes in a NH primary by either a Republican or Democrat. The real shame is Hillary received 17k fewer votes in a two person race in 2016, than she received in a three-person race in 2008. She obviously can't get it done.

[Fearless]

10. Now that's an interesting statistic!

[litlbilly]

40. His intention was to say dems dont vote, he should have said they wont vote for HRC

Wow what a backfire on a dumb op

[SunSeeker]

23. She got 38% of the vote. That's about the same as she did in 2008 (when she got 40%). nt

[Art_from_Ark]

30. But she was running against 7 other candidates in 2008

39.1% was good enough to lead that field.

But she was only running against one candidate this time.

[Juicy_Bellows]

24. This is the take away. Well done. Nt.

[beam me up scottie]

50. Yeah I don't think the op thought this through.

[AZ Progressive]

17. Democrats in 2008 were fed up with 7 years of Bush

And now, the Republicans have been fed up with 7 years of Obama.

[moondust]

37. Indeed.

And the way to overcome that extra Republican fervor is to run the Dem candidate that will inspire the greatest Dem turnout. Bernie has been making the case that he is that candidate.

[TTUBatfan2008]

26. Gonna be a problem in November...

GOP has more enthusiasm in their favor at the moment. Flip-flop of 2008 situation. I suspect the Establishment machine will get the job done for Clinton in the primary, but I think that also means the youth vote will be disenfranchised to an extent.

[RobertEarl]

32. H can't win a GE

She can't even win NH or really even Iowa. She's toast. We should not be imagining the Unicorn of H winning the GE.

[TTUBatfan2008]

33. Based on the turnout numbers so far...

...it looks like the general election will be tough for the Democrats no matter what. Hillary is likely the nominee, but the FBI investigation is a bigger deal than any Establishment person wants to admit. She is the only major party candidate to ever run for POTUS in the middle of an open FBI investigation and the Establishment of this party wants to act like it means zero. 100+ FBI agents looking into it and there is nothing to it.

Younger people are being called stupid, naive, etc. I think her decision on this email server was one of the stupidest things I've ever seen. It begs the question whether her judgment is actually worth a damn. This on top of Iraq War, Libya/Syria, NAFTA, gay rights, etc. How could she put herself into such a bad spot on something so simple? It is not hard to follow the rules on your emails. The "bubble effect" level of delusion in the Establishment is amazing to me.

[Number23]

35. Holy shit. That's absolutely ridiculous

The lack of enthusiasm for the Dem candidates on full display.

New Hampshire showed its' behind this week. Most of the international press branded it the victory of the "fringe candidates."

[silvershadow]

38. Well if that is the case, it can be attributed at least partly to the fact the party is so

out of touch with its' roots, and with middle America the chickens have now come home to roost. Win, lose, or draw, Bernie is the best chance of returning to us actually standing for something. If he doesn't make it, you can say goodbye to everything we all ever knew as America. I firmly believe that. Btw, Hillary isn't even a factor in my thinking at this point, except that if she is our nominee I will vote for her, having no other alternative.

[OZi]

41. Why would turnout be high

when the only 2 candidates are - "inevitable" vs "unelectable?" 2008 had more choices than that if memory serves.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

48. Well, a lot of the ones who did turn out voted for Sanders and shunned Hillary.

What does that say?

[newblewtoo]

54. There should be some sobering moments

looking at the data:

1. Record for total turnout: Combining all voters — Democrats and Republicans — it was a record for a New Hampshire primary. In all, 538,094 people cast ballots. That beats the 2008 record of 527,349.

2. The Republican record was shattered: The final tally for GOP ballots cast was 284,120 votes. That beats out the 2012 Republican primary tally of 248,475.

3. Not the highest ever: That was, however, about 3,000 or so votes shy of the overall highest turnout on either side — the 2008 Democratic primary (287,556).

Republicans candidates literally filled the airwaves, mail, and phones, with commercials. Here is the latest party registrations:

Democratic 229,202
Republican 260,896
Undeclared 383,834
Total 873,932


http://sos.nh.gov/NamesHistory.aspx

Actual vote totals can be found here:
http://www.wmur.com/politics/2016-full-new-hampshire-presidential-primary-election-results/37649066

Populists won in both parties with Sanders taking more Democratic votes than Trump in a crowded Republican field with more voters.