The 2020 campaign season is off to an inauspicious start for Democrats. Iowa's reporting debacle has left Democrats without a clear result in their first nominating contest, sowing suspicions as to whether there will ever be an accurate count.

Things reached an extraordinary point on Thursday, with Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez calling for the Iowa Democratic Party to recanvass its results. Beyond the counting problems, Sen. Bernie Sanders’s rise means Democrats are facing the prospect of running in swing states with a socialist at the top of the ticket. Either that, or they will have to deny him the nomination in a way that will further inflame his passionate supporters, who already feel the 2016 primary was rigged against them.

But more ominous for Democrats is the mediocre turnout in the first nomination battle, which took place before anybody knew of the counting nightmare to come.

Back in 2008, Democrats were desperate to retake the White House after two terms of President George W. Bush, and they were inspired by Barack Obama’s message of hope and change. That year, 240,000 Iowans came out to caucus as Obama bested Hillary Clinton and John Edwards en route to the presidency. Going into 2020, Democrats thought they had a chance to challenge that turnout record. All over the state, they prepared for turnout that would meet or exceed the 2008 numbers. Instead, the turnout was in line with the tepid 170,000 figure from 2016.

But that alone understates the problem. For in 2016, there were effectively only two competitive candidates, and the contest took place the eighth and final year of a Democratic presidency. Partisans should have, in theory, been less energized than they are now, given that they have a hated Republican president to remove.

Yet turnout proved disappointing — despite the urgency of defeating President Trump, despite dozens of Democratic candidates crisscrossing Iowa, despite tens of millions of dollars spent to drive turnout, despite saturation media coverage of the caucuses in the state. Consider that Pete Buttigieg’s final rally before voting attracted 400 members of the media. Also, for the first time, the Democratic Party allowed Iowans temporarily living in other states or abroad to participate in “satellite caucuses.” It wasn't enough to increase turnout over 2016.

The leading campaigns boasted of sophisticated turnout operations with armies of volunteers. The Sanders campaign alone claimed it had knocked on 500,000 doors just in January. In the run-up to the campaign, Sanders tried to fight back against establishment Democrats, who argue that he’d lose a general election because his radicalism would turn off swing voters. “Our campaign is the campaign of energy, is the campaign of excitement, is the campaign that can bring millions of people into the political process who normally do not vote,” he said, arguing that he was the one who could beat Trump.

And on the night of the caucuses, the campaigns could not have asked for better weather. In Des Moines, it was not snowing, the roads were not icy, and temperatures were in the 30s, which could be considered balmy for Iowa in February.

Yet they couldn’t boost turnout beyond that of 2016.

In contrast, Trump packed in more than 7,000 people at his Des Moines event ahead of the caucus, with an overflow crowd watching his rally on a big screen outside the arena. Without any serious challenger, he still got 31,000 Iowans to show up and vote for him in the Republican caucus, winning a stunning 97% of the vote. That significantly outpaces the 25,000 people who turned out when Obama ran uncontested for reelection in 2012.

There are a number of possible explanations for the low turnout, but none of them are especially reassuring for Democrats. One is that in the run-up to the Iowa caucuses, the impeachment trial distracted from the actual election. But if impeachment were such a big winner for Democrats, then their base should be even more fired up about it. That they were not raises serious questions about the politics of impeachment.

Another potential answer is that Iowa, which went for Obama in 2008 and 2012, has become more deeply red and has fewer committed Democrats than it once did. That bodes poorly for Democrats, as this traditional presidential swing state will also be host to one of the key Senate races that Democrats are targeting in 2020. If Democrats are slated to lose Iowa, it would not only hurt their chances of retaking the Senate and the White House, but it also bodes poorly for them in other swing states that, at least in part, have similar geographic and demographic profiles.

No wonder Trump has been exuding so much confidence lately.