New Hampshire Primary Sets a Record for Turnout, but It May Be Deceiving
Nearly 300,000 people cast ballots in the Democratic primary, far surpassing the 2016 turnout and breaking a record set in 2008.
By Maggie Astor
Published Feb. 12, 2020
Updated Feb. 16, 2020In Iowa last week, Democrats looking anxiously for a surge in caucus turnout — higher, some expected, than the record set in 2008 — were dismayed when the numbers barely even exceeded the much lower bar set in 2016.
New Hampshire gave them better news. But it still wasn’t really what they were hoping for.
The final precinct in New Hampshire reported its results Wednesday, bringing the total count of Democratic ballots to 296,622. That is substantially higher than in 2016, when turnout was 250,983. But taking into account the state’s growing voting-age population, it was pretty much on par with the turnout in the past two cycles in which only one party had a competitive primary — a more apt comparison.
Those cycles were 2012 (when Republicans had a competitive primary but Democrats had an incumbent) and 2004 (vice versa). Dante Scala, a political scientist at the University of New Hampshire, calculated before the primary that if turnout rates were similar this time, Democrats could expect 295,000 to 300,000 voters to turn out.
The final number was right in that range. “Not blockbuster, not below average, but just about normal,” Dr. Scala said.
Some Democrats have cited an exciting-sounding statistic: Turnout broke the record set in 2008, when 287,542 people voted in the Democratic primary. This is noteworthy, but it is mostly attributable to the fact that there are more eligible voters in New Hampshire now than in 2008. The percentage of eligible voters who participated did not change much.
Also, because unaffiliated voters can participate in primaries in New Hampshire, it is tricky to compare cycles in which both parties have competitive races — meaning unaffiliated voters have to choose between two serious contests — with cycles in which one party has an incumbent whose renomination is a foregone conclusion.
This did not mean that breaking the 2008 record was insignificant — “a lot of people did come out to vote,” said Mia Costa, a political scientist at Dartmouth who studies electoral participation, “and there was a possibility that that wasn’t going to be the case, because that’s not what we saw in the last primary here” — but the numbers did not indicate unusual enthusiasm among Democrats.
The most interesting signals can be found in the demographic breakdown of the electorate.
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who won the primary by about 3,900 votes over former Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., was buoyed by very strong support among young voters. Exit polls show that Mr. Sanders overwhelmingly won voters under 40, while voters over 40 were split between Mr. Buttigieg and Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, and that dynamic may have been decisive, Dr. Costa said.
But the results do not appear to support one of Mr. Sanders’s biggest arguments for his “electability”: that he will bring a slew of first-time voters, formerly disaffected, into the fold.
That theory would call for turnout to be high over all, and especially high in the places Mr. Sanders did best. Dave Wasserman, an editor at the Cook Political Report, estimated on Wednesday that the largest increases in turnout, in comparison to 2016, had actually come in the places where Mr. Buttigieg and Ms. Klobuchar did best.
Dr. Scala said: “One would think that if Sanders’s theory was right, turnout would be above the norm, and what I’m saying is it looks pretty normal to me. To hear Sanders tell it, there’s going to be this tidal wave of new voters. I don’t see it.”
Across the aisle, more than 150,000 voters — 151,602, to be precise — turned out for the Republican primary even though its outcome was never in doubt. That is extremely high for a noncompetitive primary. By comparison, about 54,000 people voted in the New Hampshire Democratic primary in 2012, and about 57,000 voted in the Republican primary in 2004.
Democrats, desperate to beat President Trump, have been trying to read the tea leaves of primary turnout for signs of a blue wave in November. But while trends in the primaries may be suggestive of trends in the general election, it is very difficult to draw reliable conclusions.
“I don’t think it would be inaccurate to say that this is a really important election for a lot of people, and people are going to be more fired up now than in other elections,” Dr. Costa said. “But it’s an unknowable question.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/12/us/politics/new-hampshire-primary-turnout.html
So I saw this thing about how many more people voted for Trump in NH than voted for incumbent Bush and Obama and I was like, probably some misleading Trump tweet thing, and then I was like, damn...over 150k voted for Trump, more than Bush and Obama combined got in their incumbent years. I was surprised. While Democrat turnout was better, but as the headline and article say, a little misleading. Take away, Republican turnout shockingly better, Democrat turnout a little better, maybe. Hmmm
[Edited on 2/19/2020 by nebish]
New Hampshire Primary Sets a Record for Turnout, but It May Be Deceiving
Nearly 300,000 people cast ballots in the Democratic primary, far surpassing the 2016 turnout and breaking a record set in 2008.
By Maggie Astor
Published Feb. 12, 2020
Updated Feb. 16, 2020In Iowa last week, Democrats looking anxiously for a surge in caucus turnout — higher, some expected, than the record set in 2008 — were dismayed when the numbers barely even exceeded the much lower bar set in 2016.
New Hampshire gave them better news. But it still wasn’t really what they were hoping for.
The final precinct in New Hampshire reported its results Wednesday, bringing the total count of Democratic ballots to 296,622. That is substantially higher than in 2016, when turnout was 250,983. But taking into account the state’s growing voting-age population, it was pretty much on par with the turnout in the past two cycles in which only one party had a competitive primary — a more apt comparison.
Those cycles were 2012 (when Republicans had a competitive primary but Democrats had an incumbent) and 2004 (vice versa). Dante Scala, a political scientist at the University of New Hampshire, calculated before the primary that if turnout rates were similar this time, Democrats could expect 295,000 to 300,000 voters to turn out.
The final number was right in that range. “Not blockbuster, not below average, but just about normal,” Dr. Scala said.
Some Democrats have cited an exciting-sounding statistic: Turnout broke the record set in 2008, when 287,542 people voted in the Democratic primary. This is noteworthy, but it is mostly attributable to the fact that there are more eligible voters in New Hampshire now than in 2008. The percentage of eligible voters who participated did not change much.
Also, because unaffiliated voters can participate in primaries in New Hampshire, it is tricky to compare cycles in which both parties have competitive races — meaning unaffiliated voters have to choose between two serious contests — with cycles in which one party has an incumbent whose renomination is a foregone conclusion.
This did not mean that breaking the 2008 record was insignificant — “a lot of people did come out to vote,” said Mia Costa, a political scientist at Dartmouth who studies electoral participation, “and there was a possibility that that wasn’t going to be the case, because that’s not what we saw in the last primary here” — but the numbers did not indicate unusual enthusiasm among Democrats.
The most interesting signals can be found in the demographic breakdown of the electorate.
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who won the primary by about 3,900 votes over former Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., was buoyed by very strong support among young voters. Exit polls show that Mr. Sanders overwhelmingly won voters under 40, while voters over 40 were split between Mr. Buttigieg and Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, and that dynamic may have been decisive, Dr. Costa said.
But the results do not appear to support one of Mr. Sanders’s biggest arguments for his “electability”: that he will bring a slew of first-time voters, formerly disaffected, into the fold.
That theory would call for turnout to be high over all, and especially high in the places Mr. Sanders did best. Dave Wasserman, an editor at the Cook Political Report, estimated on Wednesday that the largest increases in turnout, in comparison to 2016, had actually come in the places where Mr. Buttigieg and Ms. Klobuchar did best.
Dr. Scala said: “One would think that if Sanders’s theory was right, turnout would be above the norm, and what I’m saying is it looks pretty normal to me. To hear Sanders tell it, there’s going to be this tidal wave of new voters. I don’t see it.”
Across the aisle, more than 150,000 voters — 151,602, to be precise — turned out for the Republican primary even though its outcome was never in doubt. That is extremely high for a noncompetitive primary. By comparison, about 54,000 people voted in the New Hampshire Democratic primary in 2012, and about 57,000 voted in the Republican primary in 2004.
Democrats, desperate to beat President Trump, have been trying to read the tea leaves of primary turnout for signs of a blue wave in November. But while trends in the primaries may be suggestive of trends in the general election, it is very difficult to draw reliable conclusions.
“I don’t think it would be inaccurate to say that this is a really important election for a lot of people, and people are going to be more fired up now than in other elections,” Dr. Costa said. “But it’s an unknowable question.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/12/us/politics/new-hampshire-primary-turnout.html
So I saw this thing about how many more people voted for Trump in NH than voted for incumbent Bush and Obama and I was like, probably some misleading Trump tweet thing, and then I was like, damn...over 150k voted for Trump, more than Bush and Obama combined got in their incumbent years. I was surprised. While Democrat turnout was better, but as the headline and article say, a little misleading. Take away, Republican turnout shockingly better, Democrat turnout a little better, maybe. Hmmm
[Edited on 2/19/2020 by nebish]
My question though is whether there were any other important items on the ballot that might not have drawn voters during the Bush and Obama incumbent years? Might explain why so many more Republicans voted than in those previous elections.
Good point about what may've been on the ballot.
My assumption was that 1) Democrats will be highly energized and while primary participation can support that, people could be sitting on the sidelines who will surely turnout in the general. Perhaps more importantly 2) I do not expect Trump support to be any stronger than it was last go around, these numbers might make me rethink that and it surprises me. Of course this might not mean anything either, just something to talk about until we can vote.
How much is the democratic party like Nebish, wandering around aimlessly in the desert, looking for a sign, trying to read the tea leaves on who to vote for. No need to second guess voter turnout, Trump has risen in popularity since before impeachment and I predict he will win more electoral votes in this election. Its right there in front of you , Inspector Clouseau. The front-runner in the democratic party is not even a democrat.
How much is the democratic party like Nebish, wandering around aimlessly in the desert, looking for a sign, trying to read the tea leaves on who to vote for. No need to second guess voter turnout, Trump has risen in popularity since before impeachment and I predict he will win more electoral votes in this election. Its right there in front of you , Inspector Clouseau. The front-runner in the democratic party is not even a democrat.
I’ll say it again, you know nothing about me and I’m thankful for that.
damn...over 150k voted for Trump, more than Bush and Obama combined got in their incumbent years. I was surprised.
Not me. I saw first hand an overwhelming disproportionate amount of people in my hometown that showed a very nasty side of themselves that I never saw before, all towards Obama throughout his 8 years. people who I thought were sweet and wonderful were spewing disgusting hateful vitriol about him like it was fact, like it was nothing. it was 100% clear what was happening. I was certain his be-the-opposite-of-Obama strategy was going to work. i fully expected tens of millions of previously politically disillusioned folks who suddenly couldn’t wait to become politically active and vote - hence the failure of the polls that could only poll known voters.
[Edited on 2/21/2020 by Skydog32103]
Well, I am surprised if Trump can expand his voter tally.
My friends and acquaintances who did or will vote Trump are not nasty nor do they spew vitriol. No...I’m aware 0f those people, I just haven’t seen them in real life. People look at their own standing and if they are doing pretty good they view the President favorably. There are a lot of problems with a Trump....but a lot of people just don’t care. It isn’t that they are actively fanning the flames or foaming at the mouth like some would like to believe. No, many just like how they are doing and don’t want to change it.
Is this real life? Always felt pretty abstract to me. I call real life what and who I encounter in my day-to-day activities. Granted this will very for most people. I like to engage people face to face. Their opinions and responses in person, often all much more realistic and reasonable than message board forums. That is my real life. This is just kinda practice and experiment.
It takes a special person to wear a MAGA hat and act the part.
Those people will not win Trump the election, they might be a sizable group but they are not capable of re-electing him by themselves. It will take the rest of people who aren’t forthcoming in Trump support if there are enough of them.
For the record I have said it before and I can say it agin, I voted for Trump before and on policy I don’t mind a lot of what this administration puts forth. I’m not trying to make friends here, agreeing with Trump administration policy wins you no friends. But whatever. It’s his actions with respect to everything else that alienates me...which makes me the enemy of the Trumpsters. It’s like a no win, but I’m not trying to win. I’m just me. Everyone else be you, I really respect the view of almost all our members. I learn here. Maybe my posts create a little bit of credibility for opposing views. That is why I come here.
Nebish I've read lots of your posts and just want to understand where you went wrong. You were a Trumpocrat in 2016 and now the democrats have charmed you back to their party. I still cant see why. Thank goodness this economy is booming. For every Nebish in 2020 there are probably 3 people who dropped off assistance, have a job, are working and earning and contributing. I don't think these will be Bernie Bros. These are going to be 2020 Trumpocrats.
Nebish I've read lots of your posts and just want to understand where you went wrong. You were a Trumpocrat in 2016 and now the democrats have charmed you back to their party. I still cant see why. Thank goodness this economy is booming. For every Nebish in 2020 there are probably 3 people who dropped off assistance, have a job, are working and earning and contributing. I don't think these will be Bernie Bros. These are going to be 2020 Trumpocrats.
I am not trying to be right or wrong by you or anyone else. I'm just being me. I have never voted for a Democrat Presidential candidate in a general election. I don't know who you think I am. I have voted Republican 3x and Independent 2x since I became interested in politics in 2000. I have voted for Democrat and Republican Governors, State and Federal House and Senate candidates. The older and wiser I get the more I can see through the lies and manipulation these political parties engage in, I hate it. But I do enjoy the entertainment of it all still.
I kind of pride myself on being knowledgeable enough to have constructive conversations with both conservatives and liberals in real life. I will say, in general, liberals are more rational and when I state my opinion and explain it, they are more likely to at least understand and give what I am saying consideration. Conservatives on the other hand tend to be more closed-minded and have a very hard time acknowledging any idea other than their own can be remotely valid. There are exceptions of course. This is my experience, I'm not trying to make a blanket statement for society or anything.
So I've said this before and I'll say it again, I voted for Trump for a few different reasons perhaps the most important one was that he was not a politician and in fact I hoped he was not a Republican (which was openly questioned by many at the time). I wanted a President that would not be representing a party or some mandated platform. A President that might strike some deal with the Democrats when it fit Trump's agenda and I wanted him to get enough bipartisan support on big things. Trump was a deal maker right? Of course none of that ever happened and maybe it never can again. But that is who I am. I don't want one party rule and I hate the big tent parties. So it was probably fantasy to think that this was even possible, but probably more than anything else that was a leading reason I voted for him. There are policy positions that I align with, but at the same time I'm not opposed to every Democrat agenda item and actually think compromise is healthy for our country. Nobody is in it to compromise nothing anymore. We are pretty much doomed at some point...I don't care what party is ultimately in power, this country is tearing itself apart.
Thank goodness this economy is booming.
We should be thanking Obama for signing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 that jumpstarted this whole thing.
Remember the good old days when Republicans opposed that because of the debt it would cause? I miss the good old days when Republicans cared about debt and deficit spending.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Turnout for the Nevada Democratic caucuses was 105,195, the Nevada State Democratic Party said on Monday, surpassing the 84,000 voters who participated in the 2016 Nevada caucuses.
Saturday’s turnout fell short of the record 118,000 people who participated in the 2008 caucuses.
Nebish I've read lots of your posts and just want to understand where you went wrong. You were a Trumpocrat in 2016 and now the democrats have charmed you back to their party. I still cant see why. Thank goodness this economy is booming. For every Nebish in 2020 there are probably 3 people who dropped off assistance, have a job, are working and earning and contributing. I don't think these will be Bernie Bros. These are going to be 2020 Trumpocrats.
The economy is booming? The economy is no more booming than it was when Trump took office....It's creeping along at the same rate of growth it was when the previous president left office. It's the one thing Trump hasn't completely f#cked up...Although it seems this week he made a good effort at torpedoing it too.
Trump claimed he, in his infinite knowledge of economic, trade policy, etc. could grow the economy at a yearly rate well above what he's actually accomplished. He literally claimed he'd get it up around 6-8% growth annually. In reality it's stayed between 2.5 and 3%....
Much of that has been propped up by a stimulus package charged to the American credit card, i.e the annual deficit, by that ridiculously skewed toward the rich tax cut McConnell and Ryan shoved through Congress a few years ago.
Nebish I've read lots of your posts and just want to understand where you went wrong. You were a Trumpocrat in 2016 and now the democrats have charmed you back to their party. I still cant see why. Thank goodness this economy is booming. For every Nebish in 2020 there are probably 3 people who dropped off assistance, have a job, are working and earning and contributing. I don't think these will be Bernie Bros. These are going to be 2020 Trumpocrats.
The economy is booming? The economy is no more booming than it was when Trump took office....It's creeping along at the same rate of growth it was when the previous president left office. It's the one thing Trump hasn't completely f#cked up...Although it seems this week he made a good effort at torpedoing it too.
Trump claimed he, in his infinite knowledge of economic, trade policy, etc. could grow the economy at a yearly rate well above what he's actually accomplished. He literally claimed he'd get it up around 6-8% growth annually. In reality it's stayed between 2.5 and 3%....
Much of that has been propped up by a stimulus package charged to the American credit card, i.e the annual deficit, by that ridiculously skewed toward the rich tax cut McConnell and Ryan shoved through Congress a few years ago.
Markets going down is part of the Democrate hoax Chain....I'm kidding, but he said that. He also said the markets were selling off due to Democrat candidates comments. Also not true. Trump and some of his supporters are the only people who might believe that. Not sure Trump would actually believe it, he just wants people to think it, some are gullible enough to do so. Not sure what "effort" Trump made in torpedoing the economy, or really I think you were referring to the stock market drop...some people have cited the weeknight press conference as shaking markets and confidence. On that point I would like to point out the futures the following morning were positive until the sell-off resumed. There is probably no point in arguing this because I really don't want to offer defense to Trump, just pointing out a differing perspective.
Sustained 3% GDP would be great! We have not hit that. I think you would agree, had he not went down the trade fight road that GDP probably would've been a higher, maybe just a few basis points or so. We might disagree on this next point, which I'm fine if we do, I wanted the trade fight and welcome it with Sanders should he be elected President because I am pretty sure Trump and Sanders on trade will be very similar. With that said, I think the trade fight was counterproductive to the short-term GDP numbers. Maybe it will yield some positive results in the longer run. In any event, my point is, he could've just let things be with China and trade and not done a thing and we likely would've seen more economic growth. Your larger point remains.
