A few clever souls are peddling, in comment threads, the assertion that Bernie hasn’t produced the revolution that, by Bernie’s own admission, is essential to his victory. Supposedly, this is shown by the falloff in 2016 turnout in New Hampshire from the turnout in 2008. Quoth one such comment:
turnout is down in NH by a lot compared to 2008, tens of thousands of votes...same thing with Iowa, turnout is way down.
the low turnout shows there's no revolution, in fact people are bored with Sanders and Hillary. We should kick them both out and start fresh.
Don’t let anyone peddle this bunkum to you. Did you spot the cherry picked data point? It is key to the false argument. By choosing 2008, the highest Democratic Primary turnout in New Hampshire history, the argument ignores the fact that our 2016 candidates drew more Democratic voters to the New Hampshire Primary polls than in any other year in history other than 2008.
Likewise ignored by these arguments is the fact that in New Hampshire in 2008, four serious and organized Democrats were crisscrossing the state doing GOTV, compared to yesterday’s two-way match-up. Democrats in 2008, after eight years of exile from the White House, were excited by the chance to pick a Democrat to run for the open Presidency after the horrors of Bush. The convergence of such factors drove Democratic voter turnout in New Hampshire to historic heights in 2008.
To pick just one year for comparison, with all the weaknesses doing so entails, I choose the 2000 New Hampshire Primary as much more comparable to the 2016 Democratic contest than 2008. Both 2000 and 2016 involved open seats with the White House in Democratic hands. 2000 was also a two person match-up, between Al Gore and Bill Bradley. Gore won in a squeaker. The 2016 Democratic turnout was hugely higher than in 2000. Of course, the Obama style grassroots GOTV model that Bernie has adapted for his campaign didn’t exist before 2008. Anyway, like the argument in the comments, it is complete sophistry. Figures don’t like but, well, you probably know the rest.
Which brings us back to what the New Hampshire Democratic turnout numbers actually do say about Bernie’s revolution building prowess if anything. The 2016 New Hampshire returns absolutely do not mean that Bernie’s mass movement campaign model, which, incidentally, is his governing model as well, has failed. No candidate could possibly ask an organization to deliver a better result than Bernie got in New Hampshire yesterday with the best ever Democratic turnout in a two-way race and the second best ever turnout, ever.
Whatever it was that Bernie’s Political Revolution created in New Hampshire that produced the improbable outcome yesterday, we must now learn if his organization can shake and bake the same result in multiple places in short succession. But, in any event, there is nothing bad for Bernie anywhere in the New Hampshire returns.
Also, regarding voter boredom . . . while Secretary Clinton has been on the national stage long enough that, inevitably, some voters are bored with her, there is no evidence, yet, in the vote returns or anywhere else, for that matter, that anyone is bored with Bernie, quite the contrary, actually. Anyway, New Hampshire was unmitigated good news for Bernie Sanders and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. Hillary Clinton was beaten badly in that election. She hopes to beat Bernie just as badly in contests yet to come and we shall see about that.