Only 14K votes in North Dakota, or about 15% of the people who voted for Hillary Clinton there in 2016.
By contrast, Idaho had 108K votes, or 57% of Clinton voters. So turnout was 3-4x higher on a population-adjusted basis.
By contrast, Idaho had 108K votes, or 57% of Clinton voters. So turnout was 3-4x higher on a population-adjusted basis.
What's the difference? ND had a party-run primary/caucus, hybrid, with only a handful of locations open across the (very large) state and limited voting hours. Idaho had a regular primary. Making it hard to vote changes the composition of the electorate a lot.
In 2016 and now in '20, Sanders clearly benefits from caucuses or caucus-like primaries. His supporters are dedicated and enthusiastic — a good thing! But this is a prominent factor in why he was more competitive in '16 and (with far fewer caucuses in '20) is less so this year.
