Is the Iowa turnout a bad sign for democrats chances?

[SN2903]

Turnout was roughly the same as 2016 and nowhere near 2008.

[Mehmentum]

Yes, it was a bad sign, but not the final word on the topic.

[|˶˙ᵕ˙ )ﾉﾞ]

In 1980 and 1988....primary/caucus turnout was higher for Dems than Reps and the Dems got BTFO in both GEs

[SN2903]

In 1980 and 1988....primary/caucus turnout was higher for Dems than Reps and the Dems got BTFO in both GEs

and in 2008 it was really good and they won big.

[RI]

It's important to remember that caucus-goers and even primary voters are a fairly small slice of the electorate.

[|˶˙ᵕ˙ )ﾉﾞ]

In 1980 and 1988....primary/caucus turnout was higher for Dems than Reps and the Dems got BTFO in both GEs

and in 2008 it was really good and they won big.

Back in 2018, people were saying the Texas Senate race wouldn't be close since the GOP primary had 3 times as much turnout as the Dem primary.

I dont think there's much of a correlation

[Brittain33]

In 1980 and 1988....primary/caucus turnout was higher for Dems than Reps and the Dems got BTFO in both GEs

Yeah but Dems won Iowa in 1988.

[|˶˙ᵕ˙ )ﾉﾞ]

In 1980 and 1988....primary/caucus turnout was higher for Dems than Reps and the Dems got BTFO in both GEs

Yeah but Dems won Iowa in 1988.

I assume he's talking about whether or not it impacts the General Election.

I've read interesting theories that suggest that primary turnout might be low because most Democrats plan on voting in 2020 and dont care who the nominee is.

[ON Progressive]

It was higher than 2016, and this is in a state Trump won by double digits. Also, it is a caucus so lots of people that might turn out for a primary simply didn't for a variety of reasons.

And as has been said above, primary turnout means nothing for determining general election outcomes.

[Adam Griffin]

Turnout was what it was because we've lost a s[inks]t-ton of older and rural Democratic voters in IA over the last 4 years. Youth turnout was dramatically up:

17-44:
2008: 40% (Obama 49%)
2016: 36% (Clinton 26%)
2020: 45% (Sanders 41%)

45+:
2008: 60%
2016: 64%
2020: 55%

So of course the prevailing narrative is "Bernie's turnout machine FLOPPED", ignoring that it's actually a good thing in general elections (and primary elections - if you're on our side) for olds to make up a smaller share and youngs to make up a larger share. If we hadn't been irrevocably losing the bumpkins to Trump over the past 4 years, turnout likely would have been very similar to 2008.

[538Electoral]

Yes.

[Politics Fan]

No caucus/primary turnout is a very poor predictor of general election results. See Republican turnout being higher in Virginia in 2016.

[Tintrlvr]

Gore won Iowa in the 2000 GE, and turnout was terrible in the caucuses that year despite being competitive.

[Interlocutor]

Yes.

Ok.

[Paul Biya isn’t going far enough]

Yes and would you please stop seeking affirmation for things you already knew just to “own the libs”. It gets annoying after a while.

[coloradocowboi]

I am not sure we have enough data to say.

On the one hand, yes because high turnout is always preferable to middling turnout.

On the others, Iowa is white af and old af and old/white turnout is a pointless metric for measuring Democratic turnout.

Nevada turnout will be a better indicator, but given that it's a caucus state still not perfect. If Colorado and California's turnout is low, that's a huge red flag because it is ridiculously easy to vote in those states.

[Beet]

Turnout was what it was because we've lost a s[inks]t-ton of older and rural Democratic voters in IA over the last 4 years. Youth turnout was dramatically up:

17-44:
2008: 40% (Obama 49%)
2016: 36% (Clinton 26%)
2020: 45% (Sanders 41%)

45+:
2008: 60%
2016: 64%
2020: 55%

So of course the prevailing narrative is "Bernie's turnout machine FLOPPED", ignoring that it's actually a good thing in general elections (and primary elections - if you're on our side) for olds to make up a smaller share and youngs to make up a larger share. If we hadn't been irrevocably losing the bumpkins to Trump over the past 4 years, turnout likely would have been very similar to 2008.

Except you forget that these olds are still going to vote for Trump in the GE.

[Adam Griffin]

Turnout was what it was because we've lost a s[inks]t-ton of older and rural Democratic voters in IA over the last 4 years. Youth turnout was dramatically up:

17-44:
2008: 40% (Obama 49%)
2016: 36% (Clinton 26%)
2020: 45% (Sanders 41%)

45+:
2008: 60%
2016: 64%
2020: 55%

So of course the prevailing narrative is "Bernie's turnout machine FLOPPED", ignoring that it's actually a good thing in general elections (and primary elections - if you're on our side) for olds to make up a smaller share and youngs to make up a larger share. If we hadn't been irrevocably losing the bumpkins to Trump over the past 4 years, turnout likely would have been very similar to 2008.

Except you forget that these olds are still going to vote for Trump in the GE.

OK? It's Iowa: we're not winning IA no matter who's the nominee.

Or are you convinced that Stumblin' Biden or Pocahontas is going to magically bring these people back into the fold?

[Hammy]

In 1980 and 1988....primary/caucus turnout was higher for Dems than Reps and the Dems got BTFO in both GEs

and in 2008 it was really good and they won big.

All that proves is that caucus turnout is meaningless.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

It showed that 2016 wasn't a fluke and the Midwest will be very competitive, which is what we already knew going by polling data.

[CookieDamage]

No. If the prevailing narrative is "vote blue no matter who" than of course primary turnout wouldn't be all that high. People would rather stay home or do something else if they are gonna vote for whatever Dem candidate is nominated. Especially a caucus system which seem like nightmares.

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

No, it's a primary election and most people thought Biden, like Hilary, was assumed the winner; consequently,  these national poll are showing enthusiasm on the part of Dems and show Dems at 50% and Trump is struggling to get to 45% like his 44% approvals

[Brittain33]

In 1980 and 1988....primary/caucus turnout was higher for Dems than Reps and the Dems got BTFO in both GEs

Yeah but Dems won Iowa in 1988.

I assume he's talking about whether or not it impacts the General Election.

I was answering with the General Election in mind. High Democratic turnout vs. Dukakis losing is less of a contradiction when you consider Iowa was a point of Democratic strength in the General Election. Not sure what you think I’m missing.