538: Primary Turnout Means Nothing For The General Election

[brooklynite]

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.

Indeed, history suggests that there is no relationship between primary turnout and the general election outcome. You can see this on the most basic level by looking at raw turnout in years in which both parties had competitive primaries. There have been six of those years in the modern era: 1976, 1980, 1988, 1992, 2000 and 2008.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/primary-turnout-means-nothing-for-the-general-election/

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. very good article.

I will save it for the inevitable OP's that say, "We are doomed."

[Doctor Jack]

3. The republicans could run the most inexperienced, unelectable, loose cannon bigot in the country

and the dems would still think we are going to lose in a landslide.....oh wait

[Doctor Jack]

2. We see this type of overwhelming anxiety among democrats every election

You start to get numb to it after awhile. If you look back at 2012 and 2008, it was pretty obvious the dems were going to win the presidency but if you were hanging around here in the middle of those elections, everything was a sign of doom and gloom. You can disprove this source of worry but something else will pop up to replace it. Hand wringing in the natural state of a liberal. I love liberals and I want them to run this country but they can also be a real downer to hang out with.

[merrily]

4. IIRC, liberal Demcrats were not the only Democrats wringing their hands in 2008.

But thanks for helping prove my point, Doctor. Jack.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=340303

[reformist2]

5. It's so obvious that they're trying to put out the fires of burning questions. But they're failing.

Why? Because everyone knows that in 2008, the enthusiasm for Obama definitely carried over to the general election, and was a factor in Obama's victory.

So now that turnout is down, establishment Dems can't admit that it might be a problem. Especially since the Repug numbers are up. But enthusiasm matters. It always will, no matter how many statistics you throw out there.

[Bluenorthwest]

6. They were the 'Hillary Wins Michigan in a Landslide, It's The Math' website, right?

Low turnout is very bad and means there is no real reason to bother past Bernie. It's the primary, then I'll get a ballot in Nov, mark it and that's the end of the whole involvement thing. I hated Reagan, you guys love him. I'm not helping you elect more Reagan. No fucking way on earth.