Posted on 02/04/2020 2:04:00 PM PST by Trump20162020
Even as the Iowa Democratic Party was trying to sort out the chaos in its reporting system, a party official announced that turnout was “on pace” with what they had seen in 2016.
In other words, it was mediocre. About 170,000 people participated in the 2016 Iowa Democratic caucuses, far short of the unprecedented 240,000 voters who turned out in 2008 and launched Barack Obama on his way to the White House. What was so exciting a dozen years ago was not only how many Iowans showed up, but who they were: young people, first-time caucusgoers, an ethnically diverse mix of voters in an overwhelmingly white state.
Until recent days, there had been plenty of buzz among Democrats that this year would set a new record. There was even some loose talk that turnout could reach 300,000, which would be incontrovertible evidence of the passion that their party is feeling about the prospect of defeating President Trump in November.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Agreed.
I wonder what the reason was for delaying the results.
It wasn’t some app, that’s absurd.
Maybe to stall and figure out how get sanders out of first somehow and say all records were lost in the end?
I dunno.
I guess they realized that they had to release the real results in the end.
Or maybe i’m turning into a conspiracy whack job :)
The FBI needs to seed swing precincts in swing states with fake names to see if ‘someone’ votes the non-existent people.
We won’t have a second chance to catch the people doing voter fraud.
Great idea — although I don’t know about this being a task for the FBI.
Precincts that do fraud can’t be trusted to do the ‘seeding’... I’m not thrilled with the FBI either but there most be some honest agents still there...
They could be told we’re checking for ‘Russian Interference’...
Is pot legal in Iowa?
ROFLMAO!!!!
Yesterday it must have been FREE!!
ROFLMAO!!!!
Yesterday it must have been FREE!!
Actually, it never occurred to me to trust local authorities to do the seeding. Your point is certainly well taken, however,
Whaaaaaaat?????
According to Wikipedia, 32,000 voted yesterday.
187,000 voted in 2016.
Doesn't sound like record turnout.
Although I see now that you're correct, it wasn't nearly record-level. My bad.
Like you, I was looking for numbers.
I had to pay close attention to the wording.
Even as the Iowa Democratic Party was trying to sort out the chaos in its reporting system, a party official announced that turnout was “on pace” with what they had seen in 2016.
In other words, it was mediocre. About 170,000 people participated in the 2016 Iowa Democratic caucuses,
Thanks. “Mystery” solved.
I just want to add that
“On Par” turn out is just that, on par.
The author of this article “...should worry about the low turnout” is still just aiming for click bait.
After the SOTU, they have much more to worry about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.