2016 Postmortem

KamaAina

(78,249 posts) Thu Mar 10, 2016, 07:52 PM Mar 2016

Bernie’s Big Turnout: Michigan Shatters 44-Year-Old 1972 Voting Record In Support Of Sanders

http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/03/09/bernies-big-turnout-michigan-shatters-44-year-old-1972-voting-record-in-support-of-sanders/

Bernie Sanders’ campaign says it needs a big voter turnout to win, and that’s just what happened in the Michigan primary, Tuesday. So many voters turned out, in fact, the Wolverine State broke its previous voter turnout record set all the way back in 1972. Some 2.4 million voters showed up Tuesday, compared to 1.9 million in 1972.

Voter turnout was so high for the Michigan primary some precincts even ended up running out of ballots. People were told to wait an hour or more for more ballots to be delivered, or come back later to vote. Redford, Ingham County, ran out of ballots, as did a Kent County precinct....

Some 556,000 absentee ballots bolstered the primary results in Michigan, made up of 311,407 Republican votes and 239,197 Democratic. That’s 162,000 more absentee votes cast than in 2012. With that information in hand, the absentee votes were considered enough to project the winner for Michigan, which echoed and coincided with several circulating polls declaring both Trump and Hillary the victors....

America may just be witnessing real political revolution, here, and more than one. Whether it will be a Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders revolution remains to be seen.

Indeed.

15 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Bernie’s Big Turnout: Michigan Shatters 44-Year-Old 1972 Voting Record In Support Of Sanders (Original Post) KamaAina Mar 2016 OP

Can someone explain to me the justification for running out of ballots? merrily Mar 2016 #1

Just guessing quakerboy Mar 2016 #15

Hold it, hold it! I was to believe that the turnouts were poor. I guess that was just part of rhett o rick Mar 2016 #2

Has Ms Maddow seen this? She was blaming Bernie for the low turnout numbers. jillan Mar 2016 #3

WTF? KamaAina Mar 2016 #4

Oh ya! Months ago. :( jillan Mar 2016 #5

She was the one who reported this last night Dem2 Mar 2016 #6

1.3M Republican, 1.2M Democrat voters Dem2 Mar 2016 #7

Ronald Reagan dems? ConsiderThis_2016 Mar 2016 #10

Or Dems trying to sabotage the repukes by saddling them with Drumpf? KamaAina Mar 2016 #14

I hope Bernie picks up on this option, I'm sure they have. ConsiderThis_2016 Mar 2016 #8

Nice. H2O Man Mar 2016 #9

40% turnout in my county, which went large for Bernie. Barack_America Mar 2016 #11

K&R zentrum Mar 2016 #12

K & R AzDar Mar 2016 #13

merrily

(45,251 posts)

1. Can someone explain to me the justification for running out of ballots?

Reply to KamaAina (Original post)

Thu Mar 10, 2016, 07:56 PM

Mar 2016

I am not casting asparagus at any one town. Boston, a blue city in a blue state and my much-loved adopted home, ran out 0f ballots in 2008. How much does paper cost these days, anyway?

quakerboy

(13,920 posts)

15. Just guessing

Reply to merrily (Reply #1)

Thu Mar 10, 2016, 11:22 PM

Mar 2016

But if record turnout is 1.9 million, and you suddenly get 2.4 million, you might not have made enough ballots.

Also, if I understand right, people can switch party on site at voting time. So.. any given year, you might need 1.9 million d or 1.9 million R or half of each.. i can see how they might get it wrong.

The important thing is they seem to have ironed out the issues and gotten the ballots where they needed to be, even if some arrived a little late.

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)

2. Hold it, hold it! I was to believe that the turnouts were poor. I guess that was just part of

Reply to KamaAina (Original post)

Thu Mar 10, 2016, 08:03 PM

Mar 2016

the misinformation campaign.

jillan

(39,451 posts)

3. Has Ms Maddow seen this? She was blaming Bernie for the low turnout numbers.

Reply to KamaAina (Original post)

Thu Mar 10, 2016, 08:11 PM

Mar 2016

KamaAina

(78,249 posts)

4. WTF?

Reply to jillan (Reply #3)

Thu Mar 10, 2016, 08:13 PM

Mar 2016

Has Rachel jumped the shark?

jillan

(39,451 posts)

5. Oh ya! Months ago. :(

Reply to KamaAina (Reply #4)

Thu Mar 10, 2016, 08:16 PM

Mar 2016

Dem2

(8,168 posts)

6. She was the one who reported this last night

Reply to jillan (Reply #3)

Thu Mar 10, 2016, 08:19 PM

Mar 2016

Lol, nice move.

Dem2

(8,168 posts)

7. 1.3M Republican, 1.2M Democrat voters

Reply to KamaAina (Original post)

Thu Mar 10, 2016, 08:22 PM

Mar 2016

Yes, record breaking, but why more Republican votes in this blue state? Bernie gets only partial credit IMO.

ConsiderThis_2016

(274 posts)

10. Ronald Reagan dems?

Reply to Dem2 (Reply #7)

Thu Mar 10, 2016, 08:54 PM

Mar 2016

KamaAina

(78,249 posts)

14. Or Dems trying to sabotage the repukes by saddling them with Drumpf?

Reply to ConsiderThis_2016 (Reply #10)

Thu Mar 10, 2016, 11:11 PM

Mar 2016

ConsiderThis_2016

(274 posts)

8. I hope Bernie picks up on this option, I'm sure they have.

Reply to KamaAina (Original post)

Thu Mar 10, 2016, 08:52 PM

Mar 2016

Looking forward it seems the absentee ballot option has been a nice resource for Hillary in NE & KS. It could be beneficial because of the age divide as it relates to the campaign(s), If we don't get super Huuuge turnout Hillary's red scare peeps could very well end up telling their adult children, what's good for them. Remember... "It's OK if they don't vote for me... I'll still work for them"--HRC Pompous

"Some 556,000 absentee ballots bolstered the primary results in Michigan, made up of 311,407 Republican votes and 239,197 Democratic. That’s 162,000 more absentee votes cast than in 2012. With that information in hand, the absentee votes were considered enough to project the winner for Michigan, which echoed and coincided with several circulating polls declaring both Trump and Hillary the victors"