Trump

[SB Shock]

From May 5th:


Fact Check = True

% of National Primary Votes

2008 - McCain	47.3%
2012 - Romney	52.1%
2016 - Trump	44.1%

2016 - Trump 13,445,749
2012 - Romney 9,947,433
2008 - McCain 9,902,797

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

2016 - Trump 13,445,749
2012 - Romney 9,947,433
2008 - McCain 9,902,797

I've already addressed that data in previous posts and showed why it doesn't prove some of the things people might think at first sight. What is your point in re-posting it? What part of my previous dismissal of it do you disagree with?

[SB Shock]

I've already addressed that data in previous posts and showed why it doesn't prove some of the things people might think at first sight. What is your point in re-posting it? What part of my previous dismissal of it do you disagree with?

Sorry, I don't read or see every post.

If the popular vote is not significant, then the % that is derived from the popular vote can't be deemed significant.

All the % tell me is there were a lot of worthy candidates that drew a lot of interested voters that split the vote.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Sorry, I don't read or see every post.

That's fair enough.

If the popular vote is not significant, then the % that is derived from the popular vote can't be deemed significant.

I disagree. The significance of the two (total votes and %) is not tied together nearly as strongly as you think. Primary turnout is driven by both the competitiveness of a race (the closer the race, the more people make sacrifices to show up on voting day) as well as the level of publicity and polarization of the campaign season. It is just a matter of what percentage of the general electorate is going to be convinced to come out for a primary as well. New voters in primaries are hardly ever first time voters. They are almost always already general election voters. Historically, high or low primary turnout doesn't correlate well at all with high or low general election turnout.

On the other hand, voting percentages from primaries do have a bit more correlation with general elections. Candidates who receive the vast majority of primary votes within their party tend to also do well with their party in the general. Candidates who have very limited support in the primary often have a hard time rallying the entire party to their side by November. I think this is all pretty intuitive stuff, but I'll give you some data to support my argument.

Check out the following table showing primary and general election turnout by party. This is not showing who voted for who, just who showed up.

	P R I M A R	Y...V O T E S		G E N E R A	L... V O T E S
Year	Republican	Democrat		Republican	Democrat
1976	10.4 mil	16.1 mil		17.9 mil	30.1 mil
1980	12.7 mil	18.7 mil		24.2 mil	37.1 mil
1984		18.0 mil		32.3 mil	35.1 mil
1988	12.2 mil	23.0 mil		32.0 mil	33.8 mil
1992		20.2 mil		36.5 mil	39.6 mil
1996	14.2 mil			32.4 mil	37.1 mil
2000	17.2 mil	14.0 mil		36.8 mil	41.0 mil
2004		16.2 mil		45.2 mil	45.2 mil
2008	21.2 mil	35.9 mil		41.9 mil	51.1mil
2012	18.7 mil			41.2 mil	48.9 mil

I think it is notable that:
The 2nd biggest spike in Democrat primary turnout (1988) was also the most disappointing Democrat turnout later that same year in November.
The single biggest dropoff in Democrat primary turnout (2000) was still a very solid Democrat turnout come that November.
Even the Clinton/Obama off the charts spike in '08 (36 million primary votes is crazy high!) led to only a small increase in November turnout, and I would argue that Obama was a unique figure in US history at getting first time voters to the polls. Ain't no way in God's green earth that Trump touches the number of first time voters that Obama pulled in that year.

The 1988 Democrat primary was actually very similar in a lot of ways to 2016 for the Republicans. 5 different candidates won at least one state, and 3 different candidates won at least 7 states each! Dukakis eventually won with only 42% of the primary vote, an extremely low winning percentage. Total primary turnout was huge in '88, so one might have assumed that Democrat turnout that fall would also be strong. It wasn't. It was atrocious. In general, primary turnout and general turnout just don't correlate very well. On the other hand, primary support for the eventual nominee is a much better (if still imperfect) predictor. Dukakis only won a plurality of party votes in the primary, and he never did get the party to rally around him. I think you will see something similar in 2016 with the Republicans.

Remember, my whole premise is that Trump is in trouble with Republicans. He is going to receive a horribly low vote total amongst registered R's this fall, at least by historical standards. Romney and McCain both pulled in 93% of the Republican votes in November of their respective years. Will Trump get the vast majority? Likely yes, but even 80 or 85% doesn't sound so good when you compare it to what the past two (eventual losers) received. Clearly, there is no mathematical formula to tell us precisely how to convert primary results into general election vote totals, but I've been trying to make the argument that we have enough information to draw some general conclusions.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/presidential-campaign/272381-the-truth-about-primary-voter-turnout

[shocker3]

New Zogby poll in KANSAS: Clinton 43%. Trump 36%. Undecided 21%. I am guessing that the vast majority of undecideds are Republicans who just can't stomach voting for Trump (yet anyway).

http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/election/article83034887.html

[SB Shock]

That's fair enough.



I disagree. The significance of the two (total votes and %) is not tied together nearly as strongly as you think. Primary turnout is driven by both the competitiveness of a race (the closer the race, the more people make sacrifices to show up on voting day) as well as the level of publicity and polarization of the campaign season. It is just a matter of what percentage of the general electorate is going to be convinced to come out for a primary as well. New voters in primaries are hardly ever first time voters. They are almost always already general election voters. Historically, high or low primary turnout doesn't correlate well at all with high or low general election turnout.

On the other hand, voting percentages from primaries do have a bit more correlation with general elections. Candidates who receive the vast majority of primary votes within their party tend to also do well with their party in the general. Candidates who have very limited support in the primary often have a hard time rallying the entire party to their side by November. I think this is all pretty intuitive stuff, but I'll give you some data to support my argument.

Check out the following table showing primary and general election turnout by party. This is not showing who voted for who, just who showed up.

	P R I M A R	Y...V O T E S		G E N E R A	L... V O T E S
Year	Republican	Democrat		Republican	Democrat
1976	10.4 mil	16.1 mil		17.9 mil	30.1 mil
1980	12.7 mil	18.7 mil		24.2 mil	37.1 mil
1984		18.0 mil		32.3 mil	35.1 mil
1988	12.2 mil	23.0 mil		32.0 mil	33.8 mil
1992		20.2 mil		36.5 mil	39.6 mil
1996	14.2 mil			32.4 mil	37.1 mil
2000	17.2 mil	14.0 mil		36.8 mil	41.0 mil
2004		16.2 mil		45.2 mil	45.2 mil
2008	21.2 mil	35.9 mil		41.9 mil	51.1mil
2012	18.7 mil			41.2 mil	48.9 mil

I think it is notable that:
The 2nd biggest spike in Democrat primary turnout (1988) was also the most disappointing Democrat turnout later that same year in November.
The single biggest dropoff in Democrat primary turnout (2000) was still a very solid Democrat turnout come that November.
Even the Clinton/Obama off the charts spike in '08 (36 million primary votes is crazy high!) led to only a small increase in November turnout, and I would argue that Obama was a unique figure in US history at getting first time voters to the polls. Ain't no way in God's green earth that Trump touches the number of first time voters that Obama pulled in that year.

The 1988 Democrat primary was actually very similar in a lot of ways to 2016 for the Republicans. 5 different candidates won at least one state, and 3 different candidates won at least 7 states each! Dukakis eventually won with only 42% of the primary vote, an extremely low winning percentage. Total primary turnout was huge in '88, so one might have assumed that Democrat turnout that fall would also be strong. It wasn't. It was atrocious. In general, primary turnout and general turnout just don't correlate very well. On the other hand, primary support for the eventual nominee is a much better (if still imperfect) predictor. Dukakis only won a plurality of party votes in the primary, and he never did get the party to rally around him. I think you will see something similar in 2016 with the Republicans.

Remember, my whole premise is that Trump is in trouble with Republicans. He is going to receive a horribly low vote total amongst registered R's this fall, at least by historical standards. Romney and McCain both pulled in 93% of the Republican votes in November of their respective years. Will Trump get the vast majority? Likely yes, but even 80 or 85% doesn't sound so good when you compare it to what the past two (eventual losers) received. Clearly, there is no mathematical formula to tell us precisely how to convert primary results into general election vote totals, but I've been trying to make the argument that we have enough information to draw some general conclusions.

Your premise wouldn't work in 2008 - depending on the estimate BO either just got 50.1% or trailed Hillary in popular vote %.

I will agree with u on one thing - the Republican Party is in big trouble with or without Trump.

[SB Shock]

New Zogby poll in KANSAS: Clinton 43%. Trump 36%. Undecided 21%. I am guessing that the vast majority of undecideds are Republicans who just can't stomach voting for Trump (yet anyway).
http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-...e83034887.html

The poll should be warning signal to the Republican party. But looking at the demographics of the poll.

High School graduate voter is under represented here: 14% - actual vote in 2012 was 23% [this is core trump voter]

The breakout by ideology is off (2012 in parenthesis:

Republican 44% (48%)
Democrat 28% (27%)
Ind 29% (24%)

Gender is off
Female 53% (50%)
Male 47% (50%)

The hot button issue was education [wonder why] - so if they resolve that here in the next month does that change the dynamics at all?

[SB Shock]

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-bl...-voter-turnout

That is a good article (I have read it before) - the key is enthusiasm. Anecdotally I don't see enthusiasm for Republican nominee. But the thing Trump does have going for him is Hillary. 538 had this graphic out the just this week on Trump

[SB Shock]

Here is summary of the popular vote broken down, but Red, Blue and battleground states.

[SB Shock]

[wu_shizzle]

New Zogby poll in KANSAS: Clinton 43%. Trump 36%. Undecided 21%. I am guessing that the vast majority of undecideds are Republicans who just can't stomach voting for Trump (yet anyway).
http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-...e83034887.html

1) Zogby has a terrible track record over the last 10+ years.

2) The poll was commissioned by the Kansas Health Foundation who advocates for Public Health spending and specifically expanding entitlements.

If the Dems think Hillary is winning KS they're more than welcome to waste their resources here.

[SB Shock]

Here is Bush in 2000 primaries

[WstateU]

I'm the envy of my neighborhood...

[1972Shocker]

New Zogby poll in KANSAS: Clinton 43%. Trump 36%. Undecided 21%. I am guessing that the vast majority of undecideds are Republicans who just can't stomach voting for Trump (yet anyway).
http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-...e83034887.html

Sam Brownback's performance as Governor is certainly not doing Trump any favors and Trump needs all the help he can get. But with friends like Brownback who needs enemies.