No, it doesn’t. Or at least, it’s not the only plausible conclusion.
~240,000 people turned out to vote in 2008. Using delegate count as a first-order approximation of the number of supporters each candidate turned out gives the following.
Candidate |
delegate % |
estimated voters |
2008 turnout
Obama |
37.6 |
90,240 |
edwards |
29.8 |
71,520 |
clinton |
29.5 |
70,800 |
others |
3.2 |
7,680 |
EDIT: It turns out the AP numbers were delegate counts multiplied by 100, not actual votes. So scratch that table.
And for comparison from the AP via David Michigan:
candidate |
delegate % |
AP voter Count |
2016 Turnout
clinton |
49.8 |
69,610 |
Sanders |
49.6 |
69,284 |
O’malley |
0 |
758 |
other |
0 |
43 |
And use this one, using the same sort of math as the 2008 table.
candidate |
delegate % |
estimated supporters |
2016 Turnout, based on Democratic Party estimates
Clinton |
49.8 |
85,212 |
sanders |
49.6 |
84,870 |
o’malley |
0.54 |
924 |
other |
0.03 |
51 |
Hillary Clinton turned out ~15,600 more voters than she did in 2008.
Bernie Sanders turned out ~15,600 more voters than John Edwards back when he was popular and saying many of the same things Sanders is saying now — remember “Two Americas”? His subsequent fall from grace doesn’t mean that in February 2008 he wasn’t a serious contender, and regarded by at least some of us as the “most progressive” candidate running.
Martin O’Malley entirely fails to be Barack Obama.
See, the 2008 Obama campaign is the “gold standard” of Iowa campaign organizations. More paid people, more volunteers, high-tech matching of contact methods to voters — and that forced Clinton and Edwards to pour in lots of resources.
It’s worth noting that turnout didn’t drop that much for Democrats in 2012 even though the real President Obama wasn’t quite what many hoped for from Candidate Obama. 2008 turnout in the general was 57.1%; in 2012, 54.9%. 54.9% is a pretty normal number for the last 30 years or so of presidential elections.
The question is whether the drop in Iowa turnout represents a catastrophic reduction of 42% in voter enthusiasm, or a consequence of having two strong campaigns rather than two strong campaigns and one stuff of legend campaign. I suspect it’s more than latter than the former. I do not advocate complacency, but I do advocate not panicking yet.