@DanteAtkins IA and NV caucuses have released numbers from indiv caucuses?
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel widely reported that Dem turnout was about 80,000 individuals, compared to 120,000 in 2008.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DanteAtkins
@DanteAtkins Yes. But are those individual caucus rates? No one can say whether Hillary or Bernie are outperforming 2008 w/o indiv caucus#s2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel those are cumulative numbers. 120K Dem participants in 2008, 80K in 2016. We've lost huge share of 2008 voters.4 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @DanteAtkins
@DanteAtkins You know better than this. There have been anecdotes of high volume precincts and empty ones. No one knows who's winning what.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel you can't tell me that a 33% decline in total, raw numbers is attributable to random fluctuation by caucus sites.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DanteAtkins
@DanteAtkins You might as easily be asking, "Why is Hillary doing so much worse even among (caucus) insiders than 2008"?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel yes, but HRC isn't the one setting donor records. my question is why donors don't correlate with voters. because if they did...2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DanteAtkins
@DanteAtkins I also think Dems should be seriously considering how much Trump is drawing fr Dems. Dems down 22% across 3. GOP up 22%.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel that probably accounts for part of it in open primary/caucus situations.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@DanteAtkins Which is every contest so far.
But it may also be the case that Dems, collectively, offering too little to disaffected.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.