Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Democratic Primaries
Related: About this forum
Congratulations to our presumptive Democratic nominee, Joe Biden!
FactCheck Posts -Sanders Spins Young Voter Turnout in Iowa
sanders is trying to preserve the myth of his magical voter revolution and is claiming that there was increased turnout. This claim was fact checked and found to be false
Link to tweet
Sen. Bernie Sanders claimed there was a huge voter turnout among young caucusgoers in Iowa this year, saying the turnout was even higher than Obamas extraordinary victory in 2008. In fact, about 10,300 fewer young voters turned out this year than in 2008.....
Its true that an estimated 24% of this years Democratic caucusgoers in Iowa were 29 years old or younger a higher percentage than in 2008 (22%) and 2016 (18%), according to Edison Research, which conducts entrance polls at the Iowa caucus sites for major news organizations. But far more people participated overall in 2008, including more young people.
In 2016, participation in the Iowa caucuses was around 170,000 voters, Edison Research said in a blog post prior to the Iowa caucus.
But in 2008, turnout for the Democratic caucuses in Iowa reached record levels; 239,000 voters came out to participate in the caucuses that year.
That means about 52,580 people ages 17 to 29 participated in the Iowa caucus in 2008 which is far more than came out this year.
As the Washington Post reported, 176,000 people participated in the Democratic caucuses in Iowa, which means about 42,240 of the Democratic caucusgoers were 29 years old or younger. Thats about 11,640 more than participated in 2016 when Sanders was also a presidential candidate but its about 10,300 fewer younger voters than in 2008.
So, Sanders claim that young voter turnout among Iowa Democrats was even higher than Obamas extraordinary victory in 2008 is pure spin.
Its true that an estimated 24% of this years Democratic caucusgoers in Iowa were 29 years old or younger a higher percentage than in 2008 (22%) and 2016 (18%), according to Edison Research, which conducts entrance polls at the Iowa caucus sites for major news organizations. But far more people participated overall in 2008, including more young people.
In 2016, participation in the Iowa caucuses was around 170,000 voters, Edison Research said in a blog post prior to the Iowa caucus.
But in 2008, turnout for the Democratic caucuses in Iowa reached record levels; 239,000 voters came out to participate in the caucuses that year.
That means about 52,580 people ages 17 to 29 participated in the Iowa caucus in 2008 which is far more than came out this year.
As the Washington Post reported, 176,000 people participated in the Democratic caucuses in Iowa, which means about 42,240 of the Democratic caucusgoers were 29 years old or younger. Thats about 11,640 more than participated in 2016 when Sanders was also a presidential candidate but its about 10,300 fewer younger voters than in 2008.
So, Sanders claim that young voter turnout among Iowa Democrats was even higher than Obamas extraordinary victory in 2008 is pure spin.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
16 replies, 822 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (16)
ReplyReply to this post
16 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
FactCheck Posts -Sanders Spins Young Voter Turnout in Iowa (Original Post)
Gothmog
Feb 2020
OP
You mean, the way some are spinning 15.8% and 8.4% to be some kind of moral victory?
jcmaine72
Feb 2020
#8
TwilightZone
(25,472 posts)1. Well, he also claimed he won, so....
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)5. You make a valid point...
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Kurt V.
(5,624 posts)2. 24 22 18
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
Watchfoxheadexplodes
(3,496 posts)3. He also claimed
O hell I forget there have been so many.
25 trillion dollars, TRILLION hole in his grand scheme.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
jcmaine72
(1,773 posts)8. You mean, the way some are spinning 15.8% and 8.4% to be some kind of moral victory?
That level of spin goes beyond the need for simple fact-checking. That falls more under the need for a reality check.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided
Cha
(297,323 posts)10. Tt's "fact check".. exactly what the OP says it is..
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
question everything
(47,488 posts)11. Hmm.. comparing to Obama
Who else has been doing this?
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)12. That kind of spin is very status quo political technique. Establishment politics as usual, even.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Gothmog
(145,345 posts)13. New Hampshire Turnout Wasn't Driven By Bernie's Base
Thee was no magical voter revolution https://politicalwire.com/2020/02/13/new-hampshire-turnout-wasnt-driven-by-bernies-base/
February 13, 2020 at 3:02 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 294 Comments
David Wasserman looks at Democratic turnout in New Hampshire towns won by the top Democratic candidates:
His takeaway: Most of the increase in turnout was attributable to John Kasich/Marco Rubio types crossing over from 2016 Republican primary, not heightened enthusiasm of the progressive/Bernie Sanders base.
David Wasserman looks at Democratic turnout in New Hampshire towns won by the top Democratic candidates:
Pete Buttigieg: +26.5%
Amy Klobuchar: +25.2%
Bernie Sanders: +12.0%
His takeaway: Most of the increase in turnout was attributable to John Kasich/Marco Rubio types crossing over from 2016 Republican primary, not heightened enthusiasm of the progressive/Bernie Sanders base.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
MH1
(17,600 posts)14. A couple times today I've seen "gaslighting" associated with Sanders' campaign
It really does fit.
Adds to the bad taste.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
Gothmog
(145,345 posts)15. No, radical policies won't drive election-winning turnout
The concept of a magical voter revolution is debunked
Link to tweet
Sanderss explanation of why this is not a problem is simple, and he has repeated it endlessly. When a member of the Los Angeles Times editorial board asked him whether a candidate as far to the left as you would alienate swing voters and moderates and independents, the senator replied: The only way that you beat Trump is by having an unprecedented campaign, an unprecedentedly large voter turnout. Faiz Shakir, Sanderss campaign manager, adds: Bernie Sanders has very unique appeal amongst [the younger] generation and can inspire, I think, a bunch of them to vote in percentages that they have never voted before.
This has remarkably little empirical support. Take the 2018 midterm elections, in which the Democrats took back the House (a net 40-seat gain), carried the House popular vote by almost nine points and flipped seven Republican-held governorships. Turnout in that election was outstanding, topping 49 percent the highest midterm turnout since 1914 and up 13 points over the previous midterm, in 2014 and the demographic composition of the electorate came remarkably close to that of a presidential election year. (Typically, midterm voters tend to be much older and much whiter than those in presidential elections.) This was due both to fewer presidential drop-off voters (people who voted in 2016 but not 2018) and to more midterm surge voters (those who voted in 2018 but not 2016) ..
This analysis shreds an implicit assumption of Sanders and other members of the turnout-will-solve-everything crowd: that if they polarize the election by highlighting progressive issues, their nonvoters will show up at the polls, but none of the nonvoters from the other side will. That view is also contradicted by many political science studies. Stanford political scientists Andrew Hall and Daniel Thompson, for example, studied House races between 2006 and 2014 and found that highly ideological candidates who beat moderates for a party nomination indeed increased turnout in their own party in the general election but they increased the opposition turnout even more. (The difference was between three and eight percentage points.) Apparently, their extreme political stances did more to turn out the other side to vote against them than to turn out their own side to vote for them.
The turnout equation does not necessarily return positive results for a candidate like Sanders. The reverse is more likely. It is truly magical thinking to believe that, in a highly polarized situation, only your side gets to increase turnout. And if the other side turns out in droves, you might not like the results a warning Democrats would be wise to heed.
This has remarkably little empirical support. Take the 2018 midterm elections, in which the Democrats took back the House (a net 40-seat gain), carried the House popular vote by almost nine points and flipped seven Republican-held governorships. Turnout in that election was outstanding, topping 49 percent the highest midterm turnout since 1914 and up 13 points over the previous midterm, in 2014 and the demographic composition of the electorate came remarkably close to that of a presidential election year. (Typically, midterm voters tend to be much older and much whiter than those in presidential elections.) This was due both to fewer presidential drop-off voters (people who voted in 2016 but not 2018) and to more midterm surge voters (those who voted in 2018 but not 2016) ..
This analysis shreds an implicit assumption of Sanders and other members of the turnout-will-solve-everything crowd: that if they polarize the election by highlighting progressive issues, their nonvoters will show up at the polls, but none of the nonvoters from the other side will. That view is also contradicted by many political science studies. Stanford political scientists Andrew Hall and Daniel Thompson, for example, studied House races between 2006 and 2014 and found that highly ideological candidates who beat moderates for a party nomination indeed increased turnout in their own party in the general election but they increased the opposition turnout even more. (The difference was between three and eight percentage points.) Apparently, their extreme political stances did more to turn out the other side to vote against them than to turn out their own side to vote for them.
The turnout equation does not necessarily return positive results for a candidate like Sanders. The reverse is more likely. It is truly magical thinking to believe that, in a highly polarized situation, only your side gets to increase turnout. And if the other side turns out in droves, you might not like the results a warning Democrats would be wise to heed.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden