politics @lemmy.world • 11 months ago

This Year’s Iowa Caucus Is On Track For Lowest Turnout Since 2000

www.nytimes.com

105

This Year’s Iowa Caucus Is On Track For Lowest Turnout Since 2000

www.nytimes.com

theprogressivist to

politics @lemmy.world • 11 months ago

Voters at some locations overcame the extreme weather to make strong showings, but turnout overall fell short of expectations.

A New York Times analysis of the results released so far estimated that the final turnout will be around 110,000 voters. As of 11:30 pm Eastern time, about 105,000 votes had been recorded. That would be significantly below the 187,000 Republicans who voted in 2016, which was a record turnout. About 122,000 voted in 2012, 118,000 in 2008 and about 87,000 in 2000.

The Trump train is losing major steam. Only 18% of the GOP turned out to vote yesterday. Trump only got half of that GOP vote lol.

Chat

Flying Squid
link
fedilink
7•11 months ago
I said this yesterday and got downvoted, but I’ll say it again- if you aren’t crazy, why are you going to go in sub-zero weather to sit in a room and vote for DeSantis in a non-anonymous vote?

politics @lemmy.world

[email protected]

Create a post

You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News