The 2016 Blast The latest POLITICO scoops and coverage of the 2016 elections. Email Sign Up

Tweets from https://twitter.com/politico/lists/team-politico



Bernie Sanders and his wife Jane, gesture at supporters as they take a walk in New York's Times Square, Tuesday, April 19. | AP Photo PolitiFact rates Bernie's voter turnout claims 'Mostly False'

It is one of Bernie Sanders' most repeated lines on the trail: "We win when voter turnout is high, we lose when it is low," he often says, particularly in the run-up to caucuses and primaries, such as the one in delegate-rich New York on Tuesday.

But that claim is "Mostly False," according to a fact check and analysis by PolitiFact published Tuesday, finding that while the Vermont senator has won several states thanks to large turnout, his overall argument is "pretty thin."

Dividing turnout in the 2016 primaries and caucuses by the number of votes President Barack Obama received in the 2012 general election, the outlet found that Sanders won in the three states with the largest relative turnout: Oklahoma, New Hampshire and Vermont. But Hillary Clinton won in the states with the fourth- and fifth-highest turnout rates, by that metric, Illinois and Massachusetts.

Sanders also won the contests with the 10 lowest turnouts, all caucuses: Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, Washington state and Wyoming.

"Ignoring the large number of low-turnout caucuses Sanders won would be cherry-picking," the article continues, noting that the average turnout rate for a state Clinton carried is 44 percent, while the average turnout for a Sanders victory is just 31 percent.

PolitiFact also measured turnout by comparing the figures from 2016 to those of 2008, the last contested Democratic primary. By this metric, Sanders won the states with the seven highest increases in turnout over eight years, but apart from Michigan, they are all caucus states. Turnout has, in fact, fallen in all but those seven states.

"The statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, so we rate it Mostly False," the analysis concludes.