This story about the primaries in Ohio in the Sunday paper scares the hell out of me.

[doc03]

Sorry I can't give a link you can't read their paper on line unless you are a subscriber. Here are some
election statistics from eastern Ohio.

County Party Registered voters Ballots cast

Belmont Dem 9650 7499
GOP 5257 10728

Harrison Dem 1858 1539
GOP 1899 2255


Jefferson Dem 10373 7919
GOP 3732 11206

Monroe Dem 2378 2477
GOP 1151 2052



Look at Jefferson county in particular 3732 registered GOP and 11206 votes were cast for the Republicans.
Poll workers said they had people come in that had never voted in their life and said they wanted to vote for Trump and
nobody better try and stop them.

[revbones]

1. Good thing we've got Hillary to ramp up the enthusiasm!

[grasswire]

5. LOL

That's even more scary.

[quickesst]

21. Haha....

Since Hillary literally beat the dog s*** out of Bernie in Ohio, I think your sarcasm is a wee bit off target. This primary numbers crap has been beat down so much there's nothing left but skin and bones. But please carry on. Don't speculate on facts unless they agree with your opinion.

[revbones]

26. This was about turnout

But if that's what you need to say to comfort yourself..

[quickesst]

42. Yes it was about turnout...

... In the primary. The general is a whole nother ballgame. I am curious as to the sort of logic thats tells someone Bernie Sanders can beat Trump, but Hillary Clinton can't, given that she pretty much tromped Bernie in Ohio, and swept the previous super Tuesday. I've tried to wrap my head around this, but those pesky facts keep stopping me. The only thing I can think of is that the young people will come out in droves for Bernie. Unfortunately for him, that has not been the case for the primaries.

[revbones]

43. Ok, so take Sanders out of the equation

Assume he never entered the race. Assume Hillary just coasted to the nomination.

Doesn't change the fact that she isn't turning out numbers.

[quickesst]

55. Ok...

...so take Clinton out of the equation
Assume she never entered the race. Assume Bernie just coasted to the nomination.

Doesn't change the fact that he isn't turning out (near the) numbers (she has.)

See how that works?


Since the numbers are looking so great to some people for the republicans, the only logical thing to do is for the left to unite together to stop a trump presidency. Sadly, there are some who are riding on the back of willful ignorance, and will not back the Democratic nominee if a certain candidate is elected. Let me be clear. If anyone on the left believes that Hillary Clinton would be as bad or worse than Donald Trump, I will state right here and now that I believe they are being untruthful not only to everyone here, but also to themselves. What is doubly amazing to me is that there are people whose egos would not only prevent them from maintaining the status quo but would burn whatever progress that has been made over the last 8 years down to the ground. It is irrational, and it is coming, believe it or not, from people on the left.

[mythology]

24. If the primary turnout was relevant

Would the correct response be to go with the guy who is losing to the turnout you're mocking?

That seems like a suspect approach.

[Renew Deal]

29. Ohio was more enthusiastic about Hillary than Bernie

So much for packed arenas and online polls.

[revbones]

30. Who mentioned any of that?

Are you so sensitive to criticism about Hillary that you have to deflect to criticize Bernie? What will you do if she's the nominee? Will you still blame Bernie if she loses?

I'm betting yes. It's probably so much of a reflex now that you probably blame him for the bird poop on your car.

[Renew Deal]

39. You

The OP wasn't about the candidates. You brought it up. Are you so obsessed with Hillary that you have to deflect to criticize her?

[revbones]

40. I brought up Hillary.

If you can't stomach criticism of her without bringing up Bernie as some sort of deflection, then you are going to have a very rough future if she gets the nomination.

[Renew Deal]

41. You seem upset.

[onenote]

44. In Ohio, voters were more enthusiastic for Clinton than Sanders,

so I'm not sure what your point is.]

I guess we should just cancel the election and declare Trump the winner (notwithstanding the fact he didn't come close to winning the Ohio primary).

[revbones]

47. You're just being obtuse

The point the op was worried about is the turnout difference between democrats and republicans and what it means for the general election.


Yes, Hillary beat Bernie's turnout, but that's irrelevant.

Even if you combine the turnout of both of them, she isn't going to motivate people in the general election. I never mentioned Bernie, but if you need to use the fact that she got more votes there than him to contort yourself about turnout being low in Nov then you might have other problems.

Her favorables are not going to improve in Nov, her polling has flat lined. She isn't going to motivate higher numbers in Nov.

[onenote]

49. As explained here many times primary results are not predictive of general results

My response was just poking at those who are claiming the sky is falling. I'm a Bernie supporter and I don't think Ohio is lost to him just because he received fewer votes in the primary than Clinton (or Kasich or Trump).

[revbones]

50. Sure

We'll see about the turnout in Nov.

[onenote]

52. So do you think we should cancel the election

Why bother to hold general elections at all if the outcome of the primary dictates the result?

And who should be declared the winner in Ohio based on turnout? I guess its Kasich, right?

[NuclearDem]

2. Turnout in primaries is not predictive of turnout in the general.

[doc03]

7. Jefferson county had three times ballots cast for the Republicans

than registered Republicans. There is a massive amount of independents and new voters voting GOP.

[NuclearDem]

10. Turnout in primaries is not predictive of turnout in the general.

[revbones]

31. Keep repeating that. Hope it comforts you later. nt

[Hortensis]

34. Reality is what it is, Revbones. People who face it early on

don't need all that much comforting later, and average no need at all far more than those who love to fool themselves.

I've literally never thought "Hillary will win!" "First the primary, then the GE." Others have plans and dreams too that get in my way. I know that from experience.

I also understand some BSers are very young, but there must be other, older far-lefters who are all too familiar with the bitterness of surprise and "betrayal" when their candidate does not win. Or worse (?) when they win and "betray" by dealing with reality with reality-based decisions. Of course there would be the abandonment of ex-heroes and starting the wait for another to come alone. It must be very dispiriting. Or is the anger invigorating?

I wouldn't be like that for the world, and when I'm not just too irritated to care I do sympathize. A bit.

[artislife]

36. Yeah, try to remember that when there are fewer dems for h

if she is the nominee. Because: Turnout in primaries is not predictive of turnout in the general.






One study and you all grasp it like it is the last tub of ice cream in the cooler.

[onenote]

45. You realize that there were more voters for Clinton than Sanders in Ohio, right?

I would think you would be the last person to take the position that the primary results predict the general election results.

[artislife]

56. You realize there are more republican voters in the primaries

so far....that is what I am talking about. The GE. Where she will not win.

[onenote]

57. For the umpteenth time, it doesn't prove diddly squat.

In five of the past 11 presidential elections there has been an incumbent running who was essentially unopposed during the primaries and who won reelection (1972, 1984, 1896, 2004, 2012)

It can be stipulated that the fact the losing party had more votes in the primaries in those elections (where there wasn't significant opposition to the incumbent) doesn't prove much of anything.

So let's turn to the other six examples:

1976 - Ford was the incumbent, having succeeded Nixon upon the latter's resignation. Reagan mounted a strong primary challenge in what was essentially a two person race, with Ford getting the nod at the convention. On the Democratic side, the race was wide open with an extraordinary number of candidates. The top vote getter, Carter, did only slightly better than Ford in terms of popular vote, but the total Democratic turnout -- pumped up by the fact that Watergate had left the repub brand very badly damaged -- topped 15 million, compared to only around 10 million for the repubs. Carter, of course, won.

1980 - By 1980 Carter had become a fairly unpopular incumbent, with significant primary opposition (from Kennedy). The essentially two man race among the Democrats had higher turnout (17 million plus) than the three man repub race (Reagan, Bush and Anderson with 11.5 million votes) during primary season but Carter lost the GE.

1988 -- No incumbent -- Reagan was a relatively popular outgoing repub president (until just before the election his favorability levels had been fluctuating between 48 and 51 percent for the year). The primary turnout was much higher for Democrats (who had multiple candidates) than for the Repubs (who had basically a two person race between incumbent VP Bush and Dole), but they lost to Bush by a very large margin.

1992: -- I thought about putting this in category of an incumbent who was essentially unopposed. Bush was a not very popular incumbent president but he faced only moderate primary opposition from Buchanan. The Democrats had much higher primary turnout and won.

2000 -- No incumbent. President Clinton was a moderately popular outgoing Democratic president but carried some baggage. The incumbent VP (Gore) faced one serious primary opponent, Bradley, who was out of the race by March 9. The Republicans had higher turnout (with Bush challenged by McCain, who also was out of the race by March 9). The result: basically a tie (with Gore getting more popular votes despite the Democrats having lower primary turnout).

2008 -- No incumbent. Very unpopular outgoing repub president Bush. Higher primary numbers for Democrats, Democrats win.

No predictable pattern of results can be discerned based solely on primary turnout. Out of six races, the party with the higher primary turnout won three times, lost twice and had a split decision (in 2000 despite lower primary turnout the Democrats had more popular votes, but lost the electoral college thanks the Supreme Court). It is obvious that a number of variables influence the results, not just primary turnout. And the 2016 election arguably has the potential to resemble 1988 (with the repub and Democratic positions reversed).

As a Sanders supporter, I'm not sure why some Sanders supporters think that the lower turnout for Democrats means Clinton can't win, but somehow wouldn't mean the same thing for Sanders. Thus far, and hopefully that will turn around, turnout for Bernie supporters is lower than for Sanders supporters.

[IdaBriggs]

11. Reg GOP: 3,732 GOP Votes: 11,206 - WTF?

That is in Jefferson.

Now look at the Dem side -

Reg Dem: 10,373 Dem Votes: 7,919

80% of our people show up, but THREE TIMES their numbers do ---

[doc03]

14. Exactly those are new voters that either never voted GOP or were previously Democrat n/t

[HooptieWagon]

32. Or are Independants.

I think OP is only looking at partial data. Need to know the # of registered Inds, # of Inds who voted, and # of same day registrations, to get a truer picture.

[onenote]

53. The way it works in Ohio: you don't register by party

but you are deemed to be affiliated with a party based on which party's ballot you select in the primary. If you don't want to be affiliated with a party, you can't vote in the primary. The number of "registered" voters for a particular party reflects the choices made in a previous election.

The Ohio election is particularly hard to read because of the presence of a "favorite son" -- Kasich, who smoked the rest of the field.

It's a lot like the Tennessee primary in 1988 when Gore crushed Dukakis and the Democrats clobbered the repubs in terms of primary turnout. But in the General, the repubs crushed the Democrats.

[NuclearDem]

15. Ohio's an open primary. People don't have to be registered Republicans to vote in their primary.

Kasich is the governor there and a lot of people voted in the Republican primary either to stop him or stop Trump.

[IdaBriggs]

22. Those are still terrifying numbers.

But maybe it was all about Kasich and Trump.

I am curious as to the numbers in that county in previous presidential primaries and then actual elections. Hopefully the DNC has those numbers and is looking into them --

DOH! Briefly forgot - DNC = incompetent twits. Sigh.

Urk. I go back to and

[onenote]

46. Moreover, it is common in Ohio counties for most voters to be "nonpartisan"

(that is not registered as a Republican or a Democrat). Consequently it is not uncommon for the number of votes for either a Democrat or a Republican to exceed 100 percent of the number of voters registered to that particular party.

[revbones]

13. Yeah, that'll help her supporters sleep at night. nt

[NuclearDem]

17. Knowing how elections work is a good thing.

[doc03]

3. Damn I had them in nice neat columns and they come out scatered. I hope you all

can understand the numbers. The first number is registered voters the second is ballots cast.

[IdaBriggs]

12. Those are some of the scariest numbers I have ever seen. nt

and

[mountain grammy]

28. I figured it out, but didn't want to..

yes, I think this is pretty disturbing.

[pampango]

4. I was a poll worker in Ohio. Nobody threatened me but a couple of guys wanted to vote for Trump but

were not sure which party he is in. I know some Democrats that voted for Kasich in the primary just to stop a Trump.

[randr]

6. And there are still Democrats who think Trump can not win

[doc03]

9. Trump can definitely win and it scares the hell out of me. n/t

[randr]

27. It should be scaring the shit out of all of us

So far all I can see of the Hillary crowd is their collective asses in the air while they celebrate the "end" of the Republican Party.
The reality is that the "end" of all "political parties" is at hand.

[artislife]

37. Oh, I believe it for sure.

I get the disgust that a portion of his followers feel towards politics as usual.

Both parties have removed themselves from the general population.

[peace13]

16. OK, in Ohio you have to be registered before Election Day to vote.

It should not be legally possible to have more votes than registered voters.

[doc03]

19. Those were the ones registered in the privious election cycle. On the day of the

election you can tell them which ballot you want Dem or GOP.

[HooptieWagon]

33. And Indies werent included in the numbers.

[onenote]

48. The only numbers shown are registered Democrats and Republicans

prior to the primary. At least that is how I understand it.

Most voters in Ohio are "nonpartisan" (not registered as either a Democrat or Republican). That's because when you register to vote you don't register with a particular party. Your party affiliation is established when you get to the polls and ask for a ballot. So how many registered voters are affiliated with a particular party in the OP is the number based on the previous election. Next election those numbers will reflect the number asking for a ballot.

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/elections/forms/4010.pdf
http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/en-us/declareorchangeparty.aspx

[peace13]

54. Thanks.

Forgot about the I's

[brooklynite]

18. Seriously, this isn't a worry...

...first of all, Primary voters are ALWAYS a minor share of General Election voters. If you look at 2008, the TOTAL number of Primary votes cast (D & R) was less than the votes that John McCain got.

Second, Primary votes are cast by Party activists, and the OUT Party will always have more enthusiasm to "vote out" the IN Party during the Primary phase. 538 did an analysis that shows there's no correlation between Primary Party turnout and the votes that the larger turnout Party gets in the GE.

[doc03]

20. Lets hope n/t

[hack89]

23. The Republicans have a competitive primary race, the Democrats don't

you would expect a larger Republican turnout.

[Snotcicles]

25. That fishy. nt

[fun n serious]

35. Yep. It's scary. We should all be scared.

I do not think Trump should be taken lightly. That is why I pledge to vote blue no matter who in the General. I am for Hillary but should Bernie pull off a hail Mary. I will stump for him no problem no green no holding my vote hostage.

[yardwork]

38. This was expected in Ohio. It was predicted that independents would vote in the R primary.

Kasich is governor of OH. The Republican primary drew a lot of independents, as expected.

[onenote]

51. Explaining these numbers

The OP is using misleading numbers, albeit unintentionally.

In Ohio voters do not register by party. Party affiliation is established only at a primary and only when the voter asks for the ballot of one party or the other. If you want to remain unaffiliated, you can't vote in the party primary (although you may be able to vote on other matters in the election).

http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/en-us/declareorchangeparty.aspx

Since the OP couldn't link to the story, it's not clear where the number of registered voters for each party came from. But it would seem that they would have to be based on a prior primary (adjusted for people dropping off the rolls entirely)