2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumRepublicans not voting or will vote for Hillary if Trump is the nominee.
Rigell, who plans retire at the end of his current term representing Virginia, sent a letter to his supporters Monday night urging them to vote for any candidate besides Trump.
My love for our country eclipses my loyalty to our party, and to live with a clear conscience I will not support a nominee so lacking in the judgement, temperament and character needed to be our nations commander in chief. Accordingly, if left with no alternative, I will not support Trump in the general election should he become our Republican nominee, Rigell wrote.
In a January Esquire piece titled We Deserve Better Than Donald Trump, Salter wrote about his distaste for the front-runner.
Are we in such dire straits that we must dispense with civility, kindness, tolerance and normal decency to put a mean-spirited, lying jerk in the White House? Salter wrote. Of course, were Trump to succumb to a rare bout of honesty, he would confess he thinks were all just suckers. I hope were both proved wrong. I really do. Because right now that a**hole is making us all look bad.
Salter reiterated his stance in a Facebook post Sunday: I will vote for Marco Rubio in the VA primary Tuesday, and, of course, I will proudly and with enormous relief vote for him again if hes our nominee. I will vote for Hillary Clinton without hesitation if the Fascist quoting, friend of the Klan, Donald Trump is the GOP nominee.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/meet-the-republicans-speaking-out-against-trump
I am sure there are many many more like this. It seems the Republicans think Hillary would do less "damage" in their eyes to the country than Trump would do to the GOP brand. Fascinating turn of events.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)Much simpler attack strategy and he doesnt fight back as much as Hillary.
madaboutharry
(40,153 posts)for saying it out loud.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Never seen anything like it.
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)They might stay home but few will vote for her
DCBob
(24,689 posts)I think they desperately fear what Trump will do to the GOP brand should be become President.
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,111 posts)Are you a Republican?
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)So I guess I believed it. But really "how do thou know? Are you a Republican?"
You really want tyo make as fight about this?
onenote
(42,383 posts)2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)But they won't be coming out for Hillary and the dems will stay home too as we have seen already.
onenote
(42,383 posts)Trump gets 355,960 votes. Clinton gets 503,358.
Want to try out a new theory?
Oklahoma: solidly red state.
Trump finishes second with 130,141 votes. Clinton finishes second with 139,338 votes.
I think Clinton and Sanders both have a very strong chance of winning the GE in Virginia against Trump. I think neither Bernie nor Sanders has any chance of defeating any repub candidate in Oklahoma
Like I said, want to try out a new theory?
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)Way down while republican is up. And Donald is still splitting his votes four ways.
onenote
(42,383 posts)Either Sanders (despite his inability to turn out a winning vote in VA) or Clinton can defeat Trump in my state, but only if we don't stupidly follow the repub example and tear ourselves apart.
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)Republican turnout is higher now than in 08. The saner republicans and the establishment ones definitely don't want trump, not because he's a racist idiot, but because he won't play their game. The establishment rich Republicans would vote Hillary because they know she will still get what they want passed. The low info, low IQ republicans will come out in droves to support Donald and vote against Hillary.
The saner Republicans would vote for Bernie.
Will be interesting and probably devastating to the US and the world.
onenote
(42,383 posts)If there was, then Obama should have swept to victory in Texas in 2008 since Democratic turnout in the 2008 Texas primary was double the turnout in the repub primary.
Facts can be liberating if you will just let them into your life.
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)selective about the primaries and elections they participate in. The outcome you mentioned in TX in 2008 applied to that particular state. Historically, primary participation is a strong indicator of voter turnout.
There is a correlation, but variation between turnout in primaries and the General Election is increasing as voters become more selective about their participation in primaries based upon what they see as the significance of national election and of the primary to the outcome in the GE. Not surprisingly, Presidential candidates with highly motivated, unified national parties behind them tend to win while candidates in divided parties usually lose.
Research and election statistics show that turnout in the contested 2000 election was down from previous years, as was participation in the Democratic primaries. Bush was appointed after the FL recount was stopped. The 2004 election, where turnout was high for both parties in both primaries and the GE, was a "wartime" election that also went to Bush. The 2008 election was dominated by the personality and transformational promise of Barack Obama. Democratic participation in primaries and the General were at recent historical highs. 2012, predictably, saw uncontested Democratic primaries and a fall off of voting in the General.
The study cited below additionally shows that divisiveness within national parties, what the authors term National Party Division (NPD), is a far greater determinant than divisive state primaries. 2016 is turning out to have one of the highest NPDs for Democrats in recent memory, which is not promising for the Candidate in the upcoming Presidential election.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-016-9332-1
Abstract
In presidential nomination campaigns, individual state primaries and a national competition take place simultaneously. The relationship between divisive state primaries and general election outcomes is substantially different in presidential campaigns than in single-state campaigns. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-016-9332-1 To do so, we develop a comprehensive model of state outcomes in presidential campaigns that incorporates both state-level and national-level controls. We also examine and compare several measures of NPD and several measures of divisive state primaries found in previous research. We find that both NPD and divisive state primaries have independent and significant influence on state-level general election outcomes, with the former having a greater and more widespread impact on the national results. The findings are not artifacts of statistical techniques, timeframes or operational definitions. The results are consistentvarying very little across a wide range of methods and specifications.
http://journalistsresource.org/studies/politics/primaries/voter-participation-in-presidential-primaries-and-caucuses
Key points made in the study include:
Outcomes in other recent nominating contests were much less promising than those of 2008: The 1996 nominating races were decided by the lowest overall (Democratic and Republican primaries combined) turnout rate (17.5%) in history, a record that was broken eight years later when a mere 17.2% of eligible voters participated in the primaries. The 2004 election also established a record low for turnout in a contested Democratic race 11.4%.
ADDED BY ME(Turnouts in the GE (total Ballots Counted)http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/voter-turnout-dataIn 2008, the average state turnout rate for Republicans during the nominating contests was 11.1%, about the same as the GOP average since 1984, excluding 2004 when turnout was very low because of Bushs unopposed run for the partys nomination. For Democrats, however, the rate was 19%, higher than that for any party contest since 1972. Moreover, Of the thirty-nine Democratic primaries, twenty-seven set a turnout record for the party.
2000 - United States 55.3% (D- loss)
2004 - United States 60.7% (D-loss)
2008 - United States 62.2% (D-win)
2012 - United States 58.6% (D-win)
?attredirects=0
The Iowa caucuses in 2008 saw a record 350,000 people participate. However, In percentage terms, Iowas turnout was hardly earthshaking only one in six of the eligible adults participated. The Democratic winner, Barack Obama, received the votes of just 4% of Iowas eligible voters. Mike Huckabee, the Republican victor, attracted the support of a mere 2% of Iowa adults.
Because caucuses require more time from voters, those types of contests have historically seen lower participation rates. This was true of 2008, as well: Although caucus turnout in 2008 reached record heights, the average caucus attracted fewer than a fourth as many participants as did the average primary election.
Though 2008 saw greater inclusion rates for African-Americans and younger voters, historic patterns along the lines of educational attainment were still present: individuals with a college education were overrepresented among primary voters by a whopping 19.6 percentage points. Moreover, the Republican and Democratic electorates were alike in this respect the college educated were overrepresented by 18.9 percentage points among Democratic voters and by 20.8 percentage points among Republican voters.
The clustering of state contests early in the schedule is more than just a problem of low turnout in the late contests. It also creates a silent spring that affects all Americans, whatever their state of residence. Once the nominations are settled by Super Tuesday, the campaign loses much of its appeal. The conventions are still months away, but the primary races are effectively over, and people lose interest The cost of frontloading, then, also includes a diminution of election attention, which affects how informed Americans will become about the candidates and issues.
Overall voting patterns suggest a historic shift in American civic attitudes: turnout variation is itself increasing. Sandwiched between the upswings in voting in the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections was a small increase in turnout voting in the 2006 midterm elections and a downturn in voting in the 2005 and 2007 local elections indeed, turnout in 2007 apparently was the lowest in modern times. Todays voters appear more selective than those of earlier generations, choosing to vote or not vote based on their sense of an elections significance rather than out of sense of personal duty.
Related research: A 2016 paper published in Political Behavior, National Party Division and Divisive State Primaries in U.S. Presidential Elections, 19482012, explores the relationship between divisive state primaries and general election outcomes. A 2015 study in American Politics Research, How Presidential Running Mates Influence Turnout: The Risks and Rewards of Revving up the Base, looks at how the selection of a vice president can affect voter turnout and vote choice. A 2012 study from scholars at Northwestern University and the University of Maryland, Can Celebrity Endorsements Affect Political Outcomes? Evidence from the 2008 US Democratic Presidential Primary, assesses the impact that Oprah Winfreys endorsement of Barack Obama in 2008 had on Obamas votes and financial contributions.
- See more at: http://journalistsresource.org/studies/politics/primaries/voter-participation-in-presidential-primaries-and-caucuses#sthash.w71lUImu.dpuf
onenote
(42,383 posts)A year that looks a lot like 2016, but with roles reversed:
The repubs effectively had a two person race. Only 13 million voters participated in the fight between Bush and Dole.
The Democrats had a multicandidate battle, with Dukakis, Gore, Jackson as the leading contenders and Gephardt splitting nearly 23 million votes between them.
Yet in the general, the low turnout in the two-man repub race didn't turn out to be a drag on the repubs at all and the high level of participation in the Democratic primaries didn't lead to high turnout in the General. Dukakis got smoked.
So explain how there is some inevitable correlation?
leveymg
(36,418 posts)That seems to have been the major factor along with Willy Horton and how very silly Mike looked in a tank.
I would also conclude that was another political era, one still dominated by Reagan and the Cold War. We're in a different world, literally.
Correlations aren't universal laws of cause and effect, they only hold to true to a degree within specific boundaries.
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)revbones
(3,660 posts)Plus it's mostly their establishment elites talking that crap on tv.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Which appears to be happening already.
revbones
(3,660 posts)Or the Bernie fans that can't stomach her.
My guess is that she is too despised for many to do it.
Dem2
(8,166 posts)Republicans coworkers who like Bernie (the "socialist"
Democrats who like Trump
Republicans who hate Trump so much, they'll vote for the much reviled (to Republicans and Progressives) Hillary Clinton.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Meanwhile the unwashed GOP base and the uber conservative Independents absolutely love The Donald. GOP primary turnout is up 60 percent from 2008. Hillary's primary vote on Super Tuesday was down over 30 percent. So how does any of this help the Dems?
DCBob
(24,689 posts)There is a long way to go before any of this really matters.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)The broader features are now visible - Hillary is a terrible candidate who is intensely disliked by the mass of both parties and most Independents. She's lost 30 percent of her supporters comparedvto 2008. The GOP has already picked up 3 million active members during the primaries
There's nothing good in this for her..
DCBob
(24,689 posts)And she's pounding Bernie in state after state after state.
Yeah she's a "terrible candidate".
leveymg
(36,418 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)Bernie does even better than Hillary.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/01/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-poll/
leveymg
(36,418 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)So I gave you the most recent poll I am aware of.
onenote
(42,383 posts)Trump gets 355,960 votes. Clinton gets 503,358.
Want to try out a new theory?
Oklahoma: solidly red state.
Trump finishes second with 130,141 votes. Clinton finishes second with 139,338 votes.
I think Clinton has a very strong chance of winning the GE in Virginia against Trump. I think neither Bernie nor Sanders has any chance of defeating any repub candidate in Oklahoma
Like I said, want to try out a new theory?
Livluvgrow
(377 posts)For the repubs pulled well over a million votes. Dems a little over 700 thousand. Enthusiasm for your candidate sucks. You need to admit it and do something. Being obtuse will not solve your candidates enthusiasm problemw.
onenote
(42,383 posts)In 2008, Democratic turnout (22+ percent) in the Texas primary was double the turnout in the republican primary (10.8 percent). And, by the way, the repub primary had 8 active candidates while the Democratic primary had two.
Yet the result in Texas? Not so great for the Democrats.
And in 2012 there were no primaries, no turnout at all for Democrats and yet we managed to win the election. How was that possible?
Primaries are primaries. The General is the General. Trying to draw conclusions from one to the other is foolhardy.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 3, 2016, 04:18 PM - Edit history (3)
There is a correlation, but variation between turnout in primaries and the General Election is increasing as voters become more selective about their participation in primaries based upon what they see as the significance of national election and of the primary to the outcome in the GE. Not surprisingly, Presidential candidates with highly motivated, unified national parties behind them tend to win while candidates in divided parties usually lose.
Research and election statistics show that turnout in the contested 2000 election was down from previous years, as was participation in the Democratic primaries. Bush was appointed after the FL recount was stopped. The 2004 election, where turnout was high for both parties in both primaries and the GE, was a "wartime" election that also went to Bush. The 2008 election was dominated by the personality and transformational promise of Barack Obama. Democratic participation in primaries and the General were at recent historical highs. 2012, predictably, saw uncontested Democratic primaries and a fall off of voting in the General.
The study cited below additionally shows that divisiveness within national parties, what the authors term National Party Division (NPD), is a far greater determinant than divisive state primaries. 2016 is turning out to have one of the highest NPDs for Democrats in recent memory, which is not promising for the Candidate in the upcoming Presidential election.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-016-9332-1
Abstract
In presidential nomination campaigns, individual state primaries and a national competition take place simultaneously. The relationship between divisive state primaries and general election outcomes is substantially different in presidential campaigns than in single-state campaigns. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-016-9332-1 To do so, we develop a comprehensive model of state outcomes in presidential campaigns that incorporates both state-level and national-level controls. We also examine and compare several measures of NPD and several measures of divisive state primaries found in previous research. We find that both NPD and divisive state primaries have independent and significant influence on state-level general election outcomes, with the former having a greater and more widespread impact on the national results. The findings are not artifacts of statistical techniques, timeframes or operational definitions. The results are consistentvarying very little across a wide range of methods and specifications.
http://journalistsresource.org/studies/politics/primaries/voter-participation-in-presidential-primaries-and-caucuses
Key points made in the study include:
Outcomes in other recent nominating contests were much less promising than those of 2008: The 1996 nominating races were decided by the lowest overall (Democratic and Republican primaries combined) turnout rate (17.5%) in history, a record that was broken eight years later when a mere 17.2% of eligible voters participated in the primaries. The 2004 election also established a record low for turnout in a contested Democratic race 11.4%.
ADDED BY ME(Turnouts in the GE (total Ballots Counted)http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/voter-turnout-dataIn 2008, the average state turnout rate for Republicans during the nominating contests was 11.1%, about the same as the GOP average since 1984, excluding 2004 when turnout was very low because of Bushs unopposed run for the partys nomination. For Democrats, however, the rate was 19%, higher than that for any party contest since 1972. Moreover, Of the thirty-nine Democratic primaries, twenty-seven set a turnout record for the party.
2000 - United States 55.3% (D- loss)
2004 - United States 60.7% (D-loss)
2008 - United States 62.2% (D-win)
2012 - United States 58.6% (D-win)
?attredirects=0
The Iowa caucuses in 2008 saw a record 350,000 people participate. However, In percentage terms, Iowas turnout was hardly earthshaking only one in six of the eligible adults participated. The Democratic winner, Barack Obama, received the votes of just 4% of Iowas eligible voters. Mike Huckabee, the Republican victor, attracted the support of a mere 2% of Iowa adults.
Because caucuses require more time from voters, those types of contests have historically seen lower participation rates. This was true of 2008, as well: Although caucus turnout in 2008 reached record heights, the average caucus attracted fewer than a fourth as many participants as did the average primary election.
Though 2008 saw greater inclusion rates for African-Americans and younger voters, historic patterns along the lines of educational attainment were still present: individuals with a college education were overrepresented among primary voters by a whopping 19.6 percentage points. Moreover, the Republican and Democratic electorates were alike in this respect the college educated were overrepresented by 18.9 percentage points among Democratic voters and by 20.8 percentage points among Republican voters.
The clustering of state contests early in the schedule is more than just a problem of low turnout in the late contests. It also creates a silent spring that affects all Americans, whatever their state of residence. Once the nominations are settled by Super Tuesday, the campaign loses much of its appeal. The conventions are still months away, but the primary races are effectively over, and people lose interest The cost of frontloading, then, also includes a diminution of election attention, which affects how informed Americans will become about the candidates and issues.
Overall voting patterns suggest a historic shift in American civic attitudes: turnout variation is itself increasing. Sandwiched between the upswings in voting in the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections was a small increase in turnout voting in the 2006 midterm elections and a downturn in voting in the 2005 and 2007 local elections indeed, turnout in 2007 apparently was the lowest in modern times. Todays voters appear more selective than those of earlier generations, choosing to vote or not vote based on their sense of an elections significance rather than out of sense of personal duty.
Related research: A 2016 paper published in Political Behavior, National Party Division and Divisive State Primaries in U.S. Presidential Elections, 19482012, explores the relationship between divisive state primaries and general election outcomes. A 2015 study in American Politics Research, How Presidential Running Mates Influence Turnout: The Risks and Rewards of Revving up the Base, looks at how the selection of a vice president can affect voter turnout and vote choice. A 2012 study from scholars at Northwestern University and the University of Maryland, Can Celebrity Endorsements Affect Political Outcomes? Evidence from the 2008 US Democratic Presidential Primary, assesses the impact that Oprah Winfreys endorsement of Barack Obama in 2008 had on Obamas votes and financial contributions.
- See more at: http://journalistsresource.org/studies/politics/primaries/voter-participation-in-presidential-primaries-and-caucuses#sthash.w71lUImu.dpuf
Who is being obtuse?
There are a lot of folks who seem to think that there is an inevitable correlation between low turnout in the primaries and the outcome of the GE and that it means the Democrats are in big trouble. I suggest that looking at the historical record rather than agenda-spun predictions might be useful.
1988 looks a lot like 2016: one party had a multi-candidate fight for the nomination with four candidates splitting around 23 million primary votes. The other party had essentially a two person race, with only 13 million votes cast during the nominating process. The first party was the Democrats who had a Dukakis, Jackson, Gore, and Gephardt fighting for the nomination . The second party was the repubs, who had basically a Bush-Dole fight.
Despite the fact that nearly twice as many voters participated in the primary process on the Democratic side, Dukakis was smoked by Bush. Why? Because the contending factions on the Democratic side never fully came together (and Dukakis was a lousy candidate to boot --easily vilified by the repubs).
The repubs aren't coming together in 2016 -- they're tearing themselves apart. Many are becoming resigned to playing the long game -- looking ahead to 2020 when, with Trump no longer viable -- Rubio can swoop in and try to unseat an incumbent President (something that does happen).
By the way, my candidate (the one I voted for in the Virginia primary) is Bernie Sanders. But it simply appears that there weren't enough enthusiastic Bernie's supporters to win in Virginia.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)I'll get links for you later. On my phone.