538: Primary turnout means NOTHING with regard to the General Election

Primary turnout is connected with how competitive the primary is -- it isn't predictive of turnout in the general, despite what the Rethugs want to think.

To use a personal example, I didn't make the effort to go the the WA state caucus in 2008 because I liked both candidates and would have been happy to support either one. I also didn't go to the 2012 caucus in which Obama ran unopposed.

That did NOT mean I wasn't determined to vote in the general.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/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, from a March 1 Washington Times article:

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.

SNIP