Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

ericson00

(2,707 posts)
Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:40 AM Mar 2016

UPDATE Why GOP Primary Turnout Doesn't Matter

Last edited Fri Mar 18, 2016, 07:49 PM - Edit history (1)

Everyone out there is saying stuff like "The GOP turnout is 'Reaganesque," and they have some sort of advantage.

See, here's why I like history. Let's look at how much primary turnout actually matters:

Republican turnout is up and Democratic turnout is down in the 2016 primary contests so far. That has some Republicans giddy for the fall; here’s an example, from a March 1 Washington Times article:

Republicans continued to shatter turnout records in their presidential primaries and caucuses Tuesday, while Democrats lagged behind in what analysts said was a clear indication of an enthusiasm gap heading into the general election.

And some commentators are saying that Democrats should be nervous. From The Huffington Post, last month:

But Democratic Party elites shouldn’t be high-fiving each other. They should be very, very worried. In primary after primary this cycle, Democratic voters just aren’t showing up.

But Democrats shouldn’t worry. Republicans shouldn’t celebrate. As others have pointed out, voter turnout is an indication of the competitiveness of a primary contest, not of what will happen in the general election. The GOP presidential primary is more competitive than the Democratic race.

9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
UPDATE Why GOP Primary Turnout Doesn't Matter (Original Post) ericson00 Mar 2016 OP
Apophenia Scootaloo Mar 2016 #1
no its not; its just pointing out that primary turnout means jack ericson00 Mar 2016 #8
was google broken yesterday? Scootaloo Mar 2016 #9
What? DemocracyDirect Mar 2016 #2
the point is jcgoldie Mar 2016 #4
Exactly ericson00 Mar 2016 #5
This message was self-deleted by its author jcgoldie Mar 2016 #3
The truth about primary voter turnout Gothmog Mar 2016 #6
excellent point. Thats why we gotta end this primary ericson00 Mar 2016 #7
 

ericson00

(2,707 posts)
8. no its not; its just pointing out that primary turnout means jack
Sat Mar 19, 2016, 12:00 AM
Mar 2016

and then its time our primary come to an orderly end

jcgoldie

(11,635 posts)
4. the point is
Thu Mar 17, 2016, 06:34 AM
Mar 2016

In each case the party with significantly greater primary turnout got less votes in the general.

Response to ericson00 (Original post)

Gothmog

(145,415 posts)
6. The truth about primary voter turnout
Thu Mar 17, 2016, 10:02 AM
Mar 2016

The GOP types are hoping that the lower turnout in the Democratic primaries mean that Trump will win. That is not true http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/presidential-campaign/272381-the-truth-about-primary-voter-turnout

There actually is no historic correlation between primary turnout and general election turnout. None. The highest turnout in a Democratic primary—before the outlier of 2008—was in 1988. Gov. Michael Dukakis got killed in November. Democratic primary turnout was actually lower in 1992—two million fewer Democrats voted in the primaries that year. The drop in turnout didn’t stop Bill Clinton from winning the general election convincingly.

Turnout data also shows Americans don't vote in primaries because they're excited about November. They vote in primaries when the outcome of the party nomination is in doubt. The outcome of this primary hasn't been in doubt for most Democratic primary voters despite a hard-fought race. That’s a statement that may strike people who read campaign news every day as odd, especially given the fundraising success of the Sanders campaign. Democrats have seen Hillary Clinton as our party’s likely 2016 nominee for years and her strength is beginning to catch up to this underlying reality. Turnout is lower because there has been less suspense about the outcome.

Higher Republican primary turnout is also no reason to think the GOP is growing their base. In zero states has the number of primary votes even come close to the number of Republican general election votes. Primary electorates and general electorates are just very different animals.

Look at the data from New Hampshire and Virginia. In New Hampshire, the state with the highest turnout percentage so far, there were 284,120 votes in the GOP primary, but Mitt Romney received 329,918 votes in 2012. In Virginia, just over a million votes were cast in their Super Tuesday primary, but Mitt Romney won more than 1.8 million votes in the state in 2012. Again: there is no data correlation.

Fear—far more than enthusiasm—is a huge motivating factor in many Republican voters’ minds. In a Clarity Campaign Labs satisfaction index created out of publicly available exit polls, barely 50 percent of GOP voters said they would be satisfied with the three leading candidates getting the nomination - 53 percent Rubio, 51 percent Cruz, 48 percent Trump.

Democrats on the other hand would strongly back the nominee: 78 percent would be satisfied with Secretary Hillary Clinton and 63 percent would back Sen. Bernie Sanders no matter their first choice. Smart policy and a will to win the White House drives Democrats to the polls. Gains in Republican primary turnout come from a party running scared.

There is no link between primary turnout and general election turnout. As a practical matter, the Democratic nomination process has not been in doubt since Biden dropped out. Primary voter turnout numbers here are meaningless as to general election turnout numbers
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»UPDATE Why GOP Primary Tu...