2016 Postmortem

Cal Carpenter

(4,959 posts) Tue Mar 8, 2016, 08:00 PM Mar 2016

Exit polls: "turnout among Democrats in Michigan down"

This article seems to contradict itself, but that's what it says:

Mainline Democrats account for more than eight in 10 Democratic primary voters in Mississippi and seven in 10 in Michigan, with turnout among Democrats in Michigan down (and turnout among independents up) from 2008. In Mississippi, turnout among mainline Democrats is up from 2008.

Later, it says:

Turnout among liberals is up from 2008 in Mississippi and Michigan – and could end up as highs in both states.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/live-democrats-exit-poll-analysis/story?id=37493541

So, by "liberals" do they mean all people choosing a Dem ballot? Because if Democrats have a lower turnout than 2008 (which was a messed up primary year in Michigan) yet the polling stations are running out of Dem ballots (despite supposedly expecting a high turnout), it seems to me that there must be a hell of a lot of independents voting on the Dem ballot. But according to the first excerpt, they are only 3 out of 10 Dem ballot voters...

Otherwise I can't make sense of this. Any thoughts?

I know we're hearing a lot about overall turnout on the west side of the state being extremely high, but that area is very, very red, so I assume that has to do more with the Repub turnout. I don't know.

16 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Exit polls: "turnout among Democrats in Michigan down" (Original Post) Cal Carpenter Mar 2016 OP

No contradiction - many liberals do not identify as Democrats but as independents. Attorney in Texas Mar 2016 #1

And this is what makes it interesting. NWCorona Mar 2016 #3

Like me. Lizzie Poppet Mar 2016 #12

Are they independently tracking... gcomeau Mar 2016 #2

I really don't know Cal Carpenter Mar 2016 #6

Here's my shot pat_k Mar 2016 #10

I believe they mean Jbradshaw120 Mar 2016 #4

That is not surprising to me at all corkhead Mar 2016 #5

They ran out of Democratic ballots in Plainview OKNancy Mar 2016 #7

inexcuseable panader0 Mar 2016 #11

I wonder how much of this is a disenfranchisement effort from Hillary's side. PyaarRevolution Mar 2016 #14

If non-aligned voters can vote in the primaries ... surrealAmerican Mar 2016 #8

Hard to interpret without definitive numbers, but, in general... pat_k Mar 2016 #9

Thanks for thinking it through Cal Carpenter Mar 2016 #15

Watching the results is nerve wracking. pat_k Mar 2016 #16

Party registration does not matter in Michigan MichMan Mar 2016 #13

Attorney in Texas

(3,373 posts)

1. No contradiction - many liberals do not identify as Democrats but as independents.

Reply to Cal Carpenter (Original post)

Tue Mar 8, 2016, 08:02 PM

Mar 2016

NWCorona

(8,541 posts)

3. And this is what makes it interesting.

Reply to Attorney in Texas (Reply #1)

Tue Mar 8, 2016, 08:03 PM

Mar 2016

Lizzie Poppet

(10,164 posts)

12. Like me.

Reply to Attorney in Texas (Reply #1)

Tue Mar 8, 2016, 08:59 PM

Mar 2016

I wonder which candidate those Michigan independents will break for? I have no idea. If anything, this primary is telling me that despite having been to most every state in the Union at least once, I really, really, really don't get other parts of the country very well =/

gcomeau

(5,764 posts)

2. Are they independently tracking...

Reply to Cal Carpenter (Original post)

Tue Mar 8, 2016, 08:02 PM

Mar 2016

Actual registered affiliation and which party ballot they ask for?

(As in, lots of liberal/progressive Independents showing up wanting to vote in the Democratic primary, so they're liberals but not Democrats?)

Cal Carpenter

(4,959 posts)

6. I really don't know

Reply to gcomeau (Reply #2)

Tue Mar 8, 2016, 08:10 PM

Mar 2016

that's why I was hoping someone could shed some more light.

I can't tell if they are using the word 'liberal' casually (eg an assumption that anyone who takes a Dem ballot is 'liberal'), or as a self-identifier from a poll question.

pat_k

(9,313 posts)

10. Here's my shot

Reply to Cal Carpenter (Reply #6)

Tue Mar 8, 2016, 08:55 PM

Mar 2016

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1447583

Jbradshaw120

(80 posts)

4. I believe they mean

Reply to Cal Carpenter (Original post)

Tue Mar 8, 2016, 08:07 PM

Mar 2016

As a percentage of those casting ballots in the dem primary.

corkhead

(6,119 posts)

5. That is not surprising to me at all

Reply to Cal Carpenter (Original post)

Tue Mar 8, 2016, 08:10 PM

Mar 2016

In 2008 I wasn't embarrassed to be a Democrat.

OKNancy

(41,832 posts)

7. They ran out of Democratic ballots in Plainview

Reply to Cal Carpenter (Original post)

Tue Mar 8, 2016, 08:28 PM

Mar 2016

Had to wait two hours to get replenished.

panader0

(25,816 posts)

11. inexcuseable

Reply to OKNancy (Reply #7)

Tue Mar 8, 2016, 08:57 PM

Mar 2016

Everyone should be able to vote, for the candidate of their choice, without this kind of totally preventable snafu.

PyaarRevolution

(814 posts)

14. I wonder how much of this is a disenfranchisement effort from Hillary's side.

Reply to OKNancy (Reply #7)

Tue Mar 8, 2016, 09:04 PM

Mar 2016

Given that a lot of the times when the turnout is big it tends to benefit Bernie. Does it screw Hillary supporters like you too? Yes but there are times the Hillary campaign has made bad decisions. I think most Hillary fans will agree that Hillary usually handles herself fine in the debate but Debbie finagled the debate times to be at the worst possible time at the beginning.

surrealAmerican

(11,360 posts)

8. If non-aligned voters can vote in the primaries ...

Reply to Cal Carpenter (Original post)

Tue Mar 8, 2016, 08:38 PM

Mar 2016

... wouldn't most voters choose to be non-aligned. Why have party-specific registration?

pat_k

(9,313 posts)

9. Hard to interpret without definitive numbers, but, in general...

Reply to Cal Carpenter (Original post)

Tue Mar 8, 2016, 08:53 PM

Mar 2016

It means this to me
------------------------

If

Turnout is Down for all Democratic voters.
Turnout is Up for subset who meet whatever their definition of liberal is.

Then

Turnout must be Way Down for the "not-liberal"/"mainline voters.

If the assumption is that the folks who meet the "liberal" definition will be more likely to vote for Sanders, and the folks who meet the "not-liberal"/"mainline" definition are more likely to vote Hillary, then relative turnout numbers are better for Sanders.

With this assumption, and the fact that, presumably, polling models use past turnout as a predictor of this year's turnout, then predicted outcome would underestimate Sanders actual totals.

How much the underestimate would be depends completely on the magnitude of the difference between the turn out for the two types of voters, and the degree to which the two types of voters tend to favor one candidate over the other.

FWIW

Cal Carpenter

(4,959 posts)

15. Thanks for thinking it through

Reply to pat_k (Reply #9)

Tue Mar 8, 2016, 09:45 PM

Mar 2016

I think you are right with the 'liberal' identifier. I wish the article had a link to the actual numbers/results, but I didn't see one. This article just jumped out at me in contrast to all the anecdotes from precinct workers and voters online that made it seem like turnout was ridiculously huge.

But now, the real votes are being counted which is waaaaay more interesting...

I'm still curious to see what the demographics are when full exit poll results show up.

pat_k

(9,313 posts)

16. Watching the results is nerve wracking.

Reply to Cal Carpenter (Reply #15)

Tue Mar 8, 2016, 10:07 PM

Mar 2016

BTW. You may be aware of it, but there is a great little interactive map on census, gov for viewing demographics by county.

http://michigan.us.censusviewer.com/client. Can look at demographics by county

When combined with How Democrats Voted: Size of lead" interactive chart on nytimes.com, can really get a good sense of what's going on.

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/michigan?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region%C2%AEion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

MichMan

(11,915 posts)

13. Party registration does not matter in Michigan

Reply to Cal Carpenter (Original post)

Tue Mar 8, 2016, 09:01 PM

Mar 2016

Party registration means nothing. When you go into the polling center and fill out the form with name and address, you check whether you want a D or R ballot, and that is what they hand you.

Unless you are an independent, I don't like this system. Too easy to crossover and cause mischief if there is an unopposed incumbent running.

Reply to this discussion