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

tritsofme

(17,394 posts)
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 09:35 AM Mar 2016

538: Primary Turnout Means Nothing For The General Election

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...

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....

So it shouldn’t be surprising that Republican turnout is higher than Democratic turnout this year. Hillary Clinton is a commanding front-runner on the Democratic side, while the front-runner on the Republican side has earned only one-third of the vote and less than half the delegates allocated so far. Voters are turning out for the more competitive contest.


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

Makes perfect sense to me. It has been clear that Hillary would be the nominee for years, this was a race that only ended up drawing only B-list opponents, it was never truly competitive. While the race certainly narrowed more than Team Clinton would have preferred, the widely held perception that she would be the nominee never faded.

It is sort of similar to an incumbent president like Obama in 2012 who faced no challenger and saw tiny turnout. No one said this was an ominous sign for the party in November. Settled races draw less interest.
2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
538: Primary Turnout Means Nothing For The General Election (Original Post) tritsofme Mar 2016 OP
I've been making this point for several weeks onenote Mar 2016 #1
Low voter turnout is basically pointing to Dems being happy with either Bernie or Hillary winning... qdouble Mar 2016 #2

onenote

(42,737 posts)
1. I've been making this point for several weeks
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 09:38 AM
Mar 2016

But some people still think that primary turnout is predictive of the outcome of the GE.

Its not.

qdouble

(891 posts)
2. Low voter turnout is basically pointing to Dems being happy with either Bernie or Hillary winning...
Fri Mar 18, 2016, 09:40 AM
Mar 2016

It doesn't mean they won't show up and vote against trump. I think fear motivates people more than hatred...and trump will have the Dems, Independents and sane Republicans come out in droves in the General Election...at least in swing states.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»538: Primary Turnout Mean...