2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Anyone catch the Rachel Maddow show tonight? She called out Bernie for misleading about turnout. [View all]Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)Based on examining wiki and other data and adding up tabulated Dem NH votes for individuals here are the rounded counts I get for Dem votes cast in NH since 1992.
1992 168k
1996 65k (rough estimate)
2000 147k
2004 220k
2008 287k
2012 49k
2016 251k
Important trends to note: voter turnout has generally been on the decline since at least 1972.
http://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Voter-Turnout-in-Presidential-Primaries-and-Caucuses_Patterson.pdf
This uptick in voter turnout in 2004 and 2008 (record year) has a clear major determinant: historically extreme Dem voter antipathy for George W. Bush.
Another determinant for high turnout in 2008 was young voter appeal for President Obama. Another factor in 2008 was that after eight years of GOP occupation of the WH, history indicated a change to a Dem president, which led to a vast number of Dem candidates, all with tail-wind GOTV efforts. But clearly the biggest factor was George W. Bush. In 2008, HRC won NH, so high turnout can in no way be completely attributed to Obama, but rather the over-arching determinant was the historically rare repugnance of Dem voters for Bush.
The 2016 turnout is second only to the anomalous 2008 turnout and DESPITE eight years of a very popular (for registered Dems) Dem president in the WH. The most obvious reasons for high Dem voter turnout in 2016 are a feeling that America has been on the wrong track for decades, in terms of a corrupt electoral system, a quagmire foreign policy in the Middle East and most importantly stagnant wages and wealth inequality. The 2016 result indicates a paradox: while Dem popularity of President Obama is very high, a great number of independent, Dem (and indeed GOP) voters are angry and dissatisfied with the American status quo.
So by any objective standard, a Dem turnout of 251k in NH is fairly characterized as huge. Rachel is often very good, but she also plays it fast and loose on occasion, as does every other pundit and journalist in the corporate media, almost without exception. To claim that the record turnout of 2008 somehow diminishes the historic result in 2016 is not supported by reasonable analysis. If she said what you claim she said, I give her a big Pinocchio on this one.