1 - agree 2 - Turnout is on pace to be the same as in 2016. I'm not sure if I place too much stock in that. I don't care enough to show up for the preliminary (whoever wins is fine or I'm not overly excited about any of them) but I do care to show up for the final.
Democrats were banking on a significant bump in turnout in 2020. Much like the 2018 "blue wave". Turnout reflective of the snoozer of 2016 is not a good sign
DEM prediction isn't worth much I also didn't know they were expecting that for the Iowa caucus. I wonder where that story came from - DNC? Grassroot? Some media head?
If turnout is the issue im going to blame burn out And i rhymed. Too many debates, too many candidates. More rhyming, kind of.
This seems like the most likely outcome. Pete did to Bernie what Obama did to Hillary in 2008 on Super Tuesday - outsmarting him and understanding delegate math. Pete seems to have done two things well. First, he positioned himself really well to be people's 2nd choice - he gained a massive number of voters in the 2nd round. And second, he understood the importance of competing all over the state. Sanders ran up numbers in certain areas, but that doesn't help him with delegates. Pete was viable everywhere and appears to have collected more delegates by competing in rural areas/etc. The caucus system really is an interesting look at 2nd choices. Biden failed miserably here - he actually *lost* votes in the second tally, which means he wasn't viable in lots of places, and where he was, people didn't move to him when other candidates weren't. Bernie also didn't do great on 2nd choice options, which supports the idea that he has a lot of committed voters, but not a lot of additional support out there. If this race goes to Bernie vs anti-Bernie, that doesn't bode well for him. He needs this race to stay fractured as long as possible.
Turnout for caucuses is a little overrated and not a good measure of anything. These things only turn out committed voters who have many hours to go through the process so it's not really representative of regular voting. 2008 also was unique in that the caucus was in early January when a lot of people were still on holiday/etc and might have juiced turnout (no idea if this is the case). New Hampshire will be a much better indicator of any turnout concerns.
Is this the only thing you got? Talk up your own candidate instead of tearing down the others. If Sanders can't win Iowa over Pete that should tell you something.
other folks saying similar things: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...s_groundhog_day_for_the_democrats_142312.html
And here we go. Why should we believe that, especially after you posted that garbage about Pete earlier.
Let's take a step back and realize how historic this moment is. An openly gay man is in contention to win the presidency in a country that legalized gay marriage less than 5 years ago! Pete is normally a stoic guy, but even he is choking up at how far this campaign has come. Pete is well on his way to winning Iowa. A small-town mayor has outperformed accomplished senators and a former Vice President. His message is resonating with Americans despite his previously low national profile and it's time that the party recognizes he is the best moderate candidate to put forward. Throughout this process, Pete has shown great instincts in framing progressive policy with moderate/conservative language, deciding to roll out a suburban/rural-centered campaign strategy in Iowa, and even in his decision to give that speech yesterday. Once his internal math showed a clear victory, It was a smart political move for Pete to announce victory. His campaign is predicated on an Iowa bump, and he rightfully is doing his best to capture as much of it as possible. I wish that the progressive wing of the party would take a step back and listen, actually listen, to his platform. Instead, they just characterize him as sneaky and a threat to their preferred candidate. The democratic party is a coalition of minority groups - you have to include and engage all of them to win. I worry that we are at the point of no return, that we are too polarized to come together, but of the field, Pete is the candidate with the language, platform, and vision to do so.
