"Bernie got significantly more votes in the NH primary than anyone else in either party in any year"

Go Bernie!

There are only two on the Dem side. Republicans overall had record turnout, not the Dems.

Rachel made an excellent point. If Bernie wants a political revolution, he needs to actually turnout more people than before. This is supposed to be a revolution after all.

That's not happening.

So many lectures to be thankful for.

That was what Amy Goodman said on Democracy Now the following morning. Further Sanders got over 1,000 votes (more like 2,000+ I think) from cross-over Republican votes. The Republican votes couldn't be counted, however.

I used to like you.

Bernie is taking credit for high turnout --but that Bernie fails to mention it was the
Republicans who had the high turnout--NOT the Dems. Not blame-just the facts.

With THAT in mind... Bernie did get a higher than average turnout!

What more could he have done. Not his fault nobody wanted to come out for Hillary. Another solid hit piece from you.

Trump and Clinton received way more coverage than anyone else for 2015. But at the very end of her segment she mentioned that new voter registrations in Nevada appear to be a lot better than Iowa/New Hampshire. She said that could be the manifestation of what Bernie said about inspiring bigger turnout. We'll have to see.

you know, those voters the Democratic nominee MUST get to turn-out and
vote for them in the GE.

He probably thought that the traffic jams were because of record Democratic turnout when he said that.

The montage was a good visual.

Bernie beat the previous record for vote for a NH primary candidate by over 35,000 votes.

among Democrats. So popular, in fact, that even 80% of all people who voted for Bernie in IA and NH LIKE HILLARY TOO and will be happy to vote for her in the general if she wins the nomination.

People so extreme in their dislike that they feel like you are very unusual. Thank heavens.

Nd that IS the truth!

But the ones that said his opponent had it in the bag stayed home? That too would bring down turnout on the dem side.

Wow, Bernie can't even make a comment with people screaming, "LIAR!!"

LOL!

There was a huge turnout in New Hampshire. That is true.

Democratic turnout in NH 2016 is down from 2008. That is true as well.

NH turnout in 2016 was the second highest in the state's history.

So....both are true. Doesn't mean Bernie is a liar.

FFS!

We're dealing with the same issue in Iowa. 2016 was the 2nd highest turnout in our state's history. Both Hillary and Bernie can be proud of that wonderful turnout. Just because it didn't beat juggernaut year 2008, doesn't mean it wasn't great.

Bernie had 36,000 more votes than any candidate in the New Hampshire primary ever! And that does not include the 2000 write-in votes he got from Republicans:

. 2016 Bernie Sanders 151,584
2. 2000 John McCain 115,490
3. 2008 Hillary Clinton 112,404
4. 2008 Barack Obama 104,815
5. 2016 Donald Trump 100,406
6. 2012 Mitt Romney 97,591
7. 2016 Hillary Clinton 95,252
8. 1992 George Bush I 92,271
9. 2004 John Kerry 84,390
10. 1968 Richard Nixon 80,666
11. 1972 Richard Nixon 79,239
12. 2000 Al Gore 76,897
13. 1996 Bill Clinton 76,797
14. 1980 Ronald Reagan 72,886
15. 2000 George W Bush 72,262
16. 2000 Bill Bradley 70,502
17. 1992 Pat Buchanan 65,106
18. 1984 Ronald Reagan 65,033
19. 1988 George Bush I 59,290
20. 2004 Howard Dean 57,761
21. 1996 Pat Buchanan 56,874
22. 2012 Ron Paul 56,872
23. 1992 Paul Tsongas 55,663
24. 1976 Gerald Ford 55,156
25. 1996 Bob Dole 54,738
26. 2004 George W Bush 53,962
27. 1976 Ronald Reagan 53,569
28. 1980 Jimmy Carter 52,648
29. 2012 Barack Obama 49,080

is that if you take the sum total of votes for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in 2008 NH Primary, you come up with 217,219. The total number of votes in 2016 between Sanders and Clinton is 246,836, a net gain of 29,617 when comparing the top two finishers in each year. Bernie received 39,180 more votes in 2016 than Clinton did in 2008, which is 10,000 more than the total net gain. Clinton received 9,563 less votes in 2016 than Obama did in 2008. It's very obvious that Bernie drove the higher turnout.

The difference is in 2008, there were at least 7 other nationally known candidates still on the ballot, in addition to Obama and Clinton, accumulating 70,323 additional votes, largely thanks to the ground game of John Edwards, who turned out 48,699 to the polls. About 9,000 more than the total Dem turnout different between 2008 and 2016 (39,600).

Do you have a link to that list?

by any candidate, regardless of political party. To say he wasn't successful in turning out the vote is laughable on it's face. The difference between 2016 and 2008 is Hillary Clinton was not as successful in turning her vote out, and there was no John Edwards in the race.

Iowa was such a farce that we have no idea what the actual vote totals were, nor do we know how many stayed home due to the impending blizzard.

the necessary attention to is : Indeed the republicans turned

out in larger numbers. That is the issue, not Bernie and not

HRC.If the Dems cannot turn out for either or both their

candidates, then we have to look at the strong possibility

that neither of our candidates may win.Yes, Bernie got the

22% lead, but the repugs are mad after 7 years of Obama,

or any other dem in the WH. I still think that the POTUS won,

because W was discredited ( no matter whether HRC or he won).

Thus, thinking clearly, nobody should take any dem win for granted.

We need enthusiasm to win. Very risky to nominate Clinton...this election is too important!

Barack Obama wasn't just the first black nominee with a chance to go all the way, he was a rock star. A global rock star. People would have crawled on glass to go vote for him. If Hillary thinks she was part of the attraction back then, she'd better think again. This election is a more typical election even though a woman is running. Bernie's very popular, but nothing like the Obama rock star phenomenon. Hillary might be a woman, but she's also someone running for the second time and that doesn't generate great excitement. I think the numbers have been pretty good, but they should be compared to presidential elections other than 2008.

Can't deny the latent racism even in the Democratic party

Based on examining wiki and other data and adding up tabulated Dem NH votes for individuals here are the rounded counts I get for Dem votes cast in NH since 1992.

1992 168k
1996 65k (rough estimate)
2000 147k
2004 220k
2008 287k
2012 49k
2016 251k

Important trends to note: voter turnout has generally been on the decline since at least 1972.

http://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Voter-Turnout-in-Presidential-Primaries-and-Caucuses_Patterson.pdf

This uptick in voter turnout in 2004 and 2008 (record year) has a clear major determinant: historically extreme Dem voter antipathy for George W. Bush.

Another determinant for high turnout in 2008 was young voter appeal for President Obama. Another factor in 2008 was that after eight years of GOP occupation of the WH, history indicated a change to a Dem president, which led to a vast number of Dem candidates, all with tail-wind GOTV efforts. But clearly the biggest factor was George W. Bush. In 2008, HRC won NH, so high turnout can in no way be completely attributed to Obama, but rather the over-arching determinant was the historically rare repugnance of Dem voters for Bush.

The 2016 turnout is second only to the anomalous 2008 turnout and DESPITE eight years of a very popular (for registered Dems) Dem president in the WH. The most obvious reasons for high Dem voter turnout in 2016 are a feeling that America has been on the wrong track for decades, in terms of a corrupt electoral system, a quagmire foreign policy in the Middle East and most importantly stagnant wages and wealth inequality. The 2016 result indicates a paradox: while Dem popularity of President Obama is very high, a great number of independent, Dem (and indeed GOP) voters are angry and dissatisfied with the American status quo.

So by any objective standard, a Dem turnout of 251k in NH is fairly characterized as “huge.” Rachel is often very good, but she also plays it fast and loose on occasion, as does every other pundit and “journalist” in the corporate media, almost without exception. To claim that the record turnout of 2008 somehow diminishes the historic result in 2016 is not supported by reasonable analysis. If she said what you claim she said, I give her a big Pinocchio on this one.

And many of their Unaffiliated voters tend to lean/vote right. Lots of Libertarian types in NH

Additionally, the R's had a large number of candidates to choose among. That gave them a turnout of 284,120.

On our side, there were only 2 candidates, yet we still had the second highest Dem NH primary turnout on record with 250,974.

After a two term Dem president loathed by the GOP, of course a high turnout is expected. Coupled with general dissatisfaction, because of the sense that America is on the wrong track, of course turnout is high on both sides. History would normally say the GOP should recapture the WH after eight years with a Dem, but this is definitely not history as usual this year. The animus against Obama simply has fueled the GOP turnout. The surprise is the massive Dem turnout, which shouldn't occur after eight years in the WH.

What they're seeing isn't always what they've been led to believe.

Indeed Bernie error-ed in his statement