Voter turnout in Iowa was way down from 2008 for Dems. It was historically high for the GOP! Uh, oh!

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by DUCKofD3ATH, Feb 2, 2016.

  1. DUCKofD3ATH Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #1
    I won't make you wait for it:

    Perhaps the choice between a career politician facing possible federal indictment and a septuagenarian socialist from Vermont wasn’t the most compelling choice for Iowa Democrats.
    I'm sure Democrat strategists are seriously worried:

    Eight years ago, when Clinton was the favorite to defeat Barack Obama and John Edwards in the caucus, around 220,000 Democrats turned out. The Democrat turnout was almost double the Republican turnout, a clear sign of Democrat enthusiasm after 8 years of the Bush Presidency.

    This year, however, just over 170,000 Democrats turned out to caucus, in a contest that was widely regarded, and broadcast by the media, as a nail-biter. Despite a massive turnout operation by the Clinton campaign and record-breaking rallies from Berne Sanders, Democrat turnout dropped around 25 percent from 2008.

    The Republican turnout was around 180,000, the highest turnout in its history. It is also the first time more Republicans turned out when both races were contested.​
     
  2. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #2
    We'll wait for you to post this from an unbiased, reputable source.

    BL.
     
  3. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #3
    They have a number of authors, some of which are better at sourcing statistical claims than others. This one clearly has an axe to grind, so I wouldn't take much from his article. I'll also never understand your silly brand of tribalism.
     
  4. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #4
    It would be interesting to compare turnout in Iowa to turnout in the national election. Is there a correlation?

    Also, Breitbart chose the 2008 election to pin their analysis. Anyone want to guess why they're using an election with a historically large turnout to make their argument?
     
  5. DUCKofD3ATH thread starter Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #5
    Uh...it was the last presidential election where both parties were contending for POTUS's empty chair?

    Face it: There's no reason turnout should be lower for Dems this time around except that Libs and such aren't energized by their choices. That and they're not getting free Obama phones.
     
  6. bradl, Feb 2, 2016
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2016

    bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #6
    So to prove that there is no bias with this, could you also show this when there was only one party contending for POTUS, especially when each party had their incumbent as POTUS?

    I'm guessing you'd find the numbers similar.

    And I wonder why you also would care to omit 2000, unless you're afraid to find out that numbers back then destroy your entire argument.

    I also would still like for you to show your original numbers from an unbiased source. Breitbart is the only undeniable, absolute truth... to you.

    BL.
     
  7. hulugu, Feb 2, 2016
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2016

    hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #7
    Yeah, I understand the reasoning, but without larger context, we have no way of knowing how much turnout ebbs and flows from each presidential election. Context is key. As bradl noted above, looking at the 2000 election should show the correlation, but I'm guessing it doesn't and that turnout in the Iowa primary has very little to do with the general election.

    You also have to remember that the GOP is currently split between more than a dozen candidates, and while voters are likely to form up under the leader, the GOP also risks losing some voters as that whittling down occurs.

    And, the state of Iowa is demographically different from the rest of the U.S., so we won't see a potential influx of Hispanic voters until later in the season.

    Frankly, I think people make too much of Iowa. It's a weird process in a homogenous state that doesn't represent the rest of the U.S.

    See above. How much does turnout shift and, what's the correlation between turnout in Iowa and the general election. If you don't know that then your "analysis" is bunk.

    Also, good to see that the conservative panic about a 1996 program that was expanded to cellphones under the Bush administration still exists.
     
  8. DUCKofD3ATH, Feb 2, 2016
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2016

    DUCKofD3ATH thread starter Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #8
    See above. How much does turnout shift and, what's the correlation between turnout in Iowa and the general election. If you don't know that then your "analysis" is bunk.[/quote]

    As a Conservative, I'm always willing to extend a helping hand:

    Voter turnouts in each United States presidential election going back to 1960 (% of voting age population)
    1960 62.8%
    1964 61.4%
    1968 60.7%
    1972 55.1%
    1976 53.6%
    1980 52.8%
    1984 53.3%
    1988 50.3%
    1992 55.2%
    1996 49.0%
    2000 50.3%
    2004 55.7%
    2008 57.1%
    2012 54.9%

    Looks to me like the 25% drop in turnout in Iowa spells doom for the Dems if it becomes a trend.

    Edit: As for Iowa's ability to predict the nominee, it's iffy:

    Seven democrats in 10 caucuses who won in Iowa have ended up winning their party's nomination, according to the Des Moines Register. (Two were incumbents who ran unopposed.)

    Six Republican winners in Iowa, out of nine contests there, have gone on to win the GOP nomination. (Three were incumbents who ran unopposed.)

    So a win in Iowa can give a candidate momentum, but by no means guarantees the party's nomination.
    It's that lack of momentum that I'll bet is worrying Dem strategists tonight.
     
  9. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #9
    You're comparing apples to pineapples.

    This is the overall voting turnout for the general election, but how does that correlate to the voting turnout in Iowa and the winners and losers from each party?

    Find me the turnout numbers for Iowa from 1988 to 2012 based on party affiliation and we'll make some comparisons.
     
  10. DUCKofD3ATH thread starter Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #10
    Check out the post now and see if it answers your points. Took longer than I expected to find what I needed.
     
  11. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #11
    Certainly, a win in Iowa tends to transfer to wins in the rest of the primaries on the Democratic side, but you can't use that to leap to the general election.

    Turnout in Iowa does not appear to transfer to turnout in the general. And, 2008 had the highest turnout in elections since 1968. That means that 2008 could be a unicorn, a freak occurrence that can't be used to measure later elections.

    Or, the article could be right, but it's based on a knee-jerk reaction rather than analysis on what voter turnout in Iowa means for the general.
     
  12. DUCKofD3ATH thread starter Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #12
    If last night's turnout was historically high, as many news orgs were predicting, it would be reasonable to expect that momentum to carry through to the election.

    That it was the reverse, a severe drop in turnout, seems to portend dire results for the Dems unless they can turn things around. (Or unless the GOP monumentally screws the pooch.)
     
  13. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #13
    Ahh.. yes. All their free "Obama phones" courtesy of Ronald Reagan.

    Saint Ronnie was apparently a prophet too since he could predict 25 years into the future to know who was going to be President in 2009 so he could name the Lifeline Assistance Program after him.
     
  14. DUCKofD3ATH thread starter Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #14
    The LAP is a nice idea in theory, but taxpayers are heartily sick of being tapped on the shoulder to pay for bennies that get abused:

    Lawmakers also raised questions about how the program is perceived in their home states. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said he heard many stories of people using their Lifeline service for “illicit” purposes and said his constituents were “sick and tired” of waste in the program.​
     
  15. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #15

    Breitbart as a source - you complain of "liberal"-biased media and then post "conservative"-biased media as your sources. I find that to be quite amusing.

    And the word really is "Democratic" - why don't we try to write like intelligent adults instead of those educated in liberal unionized public schools, yes? ;)
    --- Post Merged, Feb 2, 2016 ---
    Have you ever bothered to wonder why Democrats have been less enthused, is it because they're constantly so feeble that they prefer to compromise, which in turn has the supporters complaining? Like how Republicans all felt betrayed when Bush was a RINO?

    Face it - your ignorance is pathetic. Especially with the years of corporate welfare and their getting more than free phones, and - certainly - Obama catering to the GOP (I've written about it before, don't be a lazy American by not reading it).
    --- Post Merged, Feb 2, 2016 ---
    Well, some claim Obama is Reagan's 9th term...

    http://www.blackagendareport.com/co...it-bill-clintons-3rd-or-it-ronald-reagans-9th

    Either way, Ducky's drank too much kool-aid and bathed in the reality distortion field.
     
  16. DUCKofD3ATH, Feb 2, 2016
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2016

    DUCKofD3ATH thread starter Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #16
    I complain about biased liberal media because it tailors their stories to help the Democrat party. I also provide examples of such bias.

    Your observance that Breitbart leans conservative is true. But you neglected to show where the article was factually biased.

    It's true that Democrat turnout took a serious nosedive compared to eight years ago.

    It's true that GOP turnout was historically high.

    Here...have a Kleenex.

    It's a verbal tic that takes the form of a misspelling. Don't you dare mock my handicap!

    In other words, Democrats are not enthusiastic about their choices this time around because they're lackluster and Obama was a total letdown.

    Absolutely agree with you.

    When you spin like that, do you experience time dilation?
     
  17. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #17
    Why wouldn't you want empolyers to be able to contact their employees?

    And of course there's waste in the programme. Phones are massively expensive in America.
     
  18. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #18
    It was also modified by Bush to include mobile phones. Depending on the service, you can find "basic" talk and text for <$25/month. It's also subsidized through earmarked funds rather than revenues from income or property tax. It's kind of a strange thing to zero in on.
     
  19. DUCKofD3ATH thread starter Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #19
    Perfunctory apologies if your post wasn't intended for me.

    Of course taxpayers want those with Obama phones to get calls from employers! That's one of the main reasons the program was instituted. But it's the abuse of the program that Sen. Manchin and his constituents were upset about.

    That conclusion doesn't make sense. Waste in the program has nothing to do with how expensive the phones would be since the people getting the phones get them for free.
    --- Post Merged, Feb 2, 2016 ---
    The free Obama phones have cost the taxpayers more than $2 billion buckadingdongs, and abuse is rampant:

    Nearly half of the 6 million people who received free cellphones and communications services through the government-funded Lifeline program last year apparently were ineligible or did not respond to certification requests, a new report shows.
    ...
    The Federal Communications Commission tightened the rules on the phones last year, requiring carriers to confirm subscribers were eligible. The FCC estimated that 15 percent of users would be weeded out, but found instead that at least 41 percent could not confirm their eligibility.
     
  20. Snoopy4 macrumors 6502a

    Snoopy4

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    #20

    Well, when your choice is the crazy uncle and the hackling aunt, I'd imagine most would just pass on Thanksgiving Dinner if given the chance.
     
  21. DUCKofD3ATH thread starter Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #21
    Are you talking to me? Because it looks like you're already carrying on a conversation with the air.
     
  22. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #22
    I wanted to look up that figure, and for whatever reason I messed up my arithmetic. Your source pegs it at an average of $30/yr/line in fees. Wiki suggests there are around 320 million active numbers, and without administrative overhead $2.2 billion per year would cover around 18.3 million lifeline customers. I still think 320 million active lines sounds high. You would require around 73,000,000 paying phone customers to keep that solvent, so I don't think it would run into general tax funds. I can understand why you dislike any abuse of the program.


    I was mostly commenting on Breitbart, because I've read a number of their articles that happened to intersect with a topic on here. As I mentioned their writers vary quite a bit. I don't really care for their analyses. My primary reason to quote them is to show that another source didn't omit something very obvious due to liberal leanings. Some of their authors are good about sourcing statistical assertions. This one didn't, which makes me skeptical as to the reason for it.

    I wasn't referring to you with the "axe to grind" comment. I was referring to the article's author.
     
  23. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #23
    I'd believe this story a lot more if it came from someone analytical and unbiased like Five Thirty Eight.

    As it is, none of the top three Republican candidates are crowd-pleasers. Rubio may make anti-immigration voters stay home. Cruz is already pretty much of a pariah even to some Republican voters. And Trump has a sizable number of people who say they'd never vote for him.

    Not saying any of those reasons would make Republicans vote for Hillary or Bernie, but it might make them take a pass on this election.
     
  24. DUCKofD3ATH thread starter Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #24
    That's a possibility, but given the historically high Republican turnout in Iowa, it seems more likely that the Right is fired up this cycle and will turn out no matter who who the final candidate is.
     
  25. balamw Moderator

    balamw

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Location:
    New England
    #25
    MOD NOTE: When your verbal tic has an established Wikipedia thread https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet) describing it as an epithet it makes it a slur and thus a mild form of trolling. Please try to avoid using this term. You can save yourself some keystrokes and use the Dem/Dems abbreviation or even just (D).

    B
     

Share This Page