As I read Michael Barone’s analysis of the primary elections and caucuses so far in RealClearPolitics, one question occurred to me. How reliable a predictor for general elections are primaries and caucuses, anyway? Here’s the relevant snippet from the post:
The upshot is the same: another long, hard slog to the nomination, but with a Clinton victory. And this time mirthless: Democratic turnout was down from 2008 in Iowa and New Hampshire, and Nevada super-analyst Jon Ralston says it sagged from 120,000 to 80,000 there. All this is assuming the FBI doesn’t weigh in.
Republican turnout was up 22 percent from 2012 in South Carolina; likewise, it was up in Iowa (54 percent) and New Hampshire (14 percent). Donald Trump has established that there is a high floor on his support — one-quarter in Iowa and one-third in New Hampshire and South Carolina. That’s enough to give him victories in many-candidate contests.
We don’t elect presidents at large. We elect them state by state. President Obama carried Florida and Ohio by less than 1% of the votes in those states and 2% of the vote in Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Virginia. Those states account for 79 electoral votes, easily more than the margin of victory.
A sharp decline in Democratic turnout and a sharp increase in Republican turnout is enough to swing the election in those states. It wouldn’t change the outcome in California or New York but it doesn’t need to.
That’s why I’ve been saying all along that the 2016 election will hinge on turnout.
This is why I’ve been saying for some time that for all his flaws Sanders is the more electable candidate. I know too many conservatives who would rather see him as president than Clinton or Trump and too many Democrats who aren’t going to bother voting if Clinton is the nominee.
It’s amusing how often the word ‘unicorn’ is thrown at Sanders supporters. Hillary Clinton needs Obama’s record turnout because she’s not gaining any new voters. If there’s a unicorn it’s her.
I tried to point this out at OTB and was informed that political science has proved that Clinton has already won the general election, or something. She seems to inspire this weird combo of unrealistic projection and patronizing contempt for all other hopeful possibilities in her followers.
I’m not sure about Trump. Clones like Michael Barone were calling for Romney to win in a landslide because of turnout. The same desperation clogging Clinton’s supporters with fear operates at an even higher level in GOP operatives.
I don’t know any conservatives who will vote for Sanders over Trump. I do know of Republicans who will vote Sanders over Trump.
Anyway, the whole conservative thing is breaking down, ideology-wise. The social conservatives still have their thing, but the rest of it, derisively called “Invade-the-world, Invite-the-world, Tax-cuts-for-billionaires” by some (initially by Steve Sailer), just isn’t holding any appeal anymore. At a debate in SC last week, Trump criticized some of W’s policies from his Presidency. The crowd booed, but the crowd at the debate was Republican Party establishment types. Almost immediately, people on-line sent things like “why are they booing?” up the trend-lines. The final result (Trump winning all the delegates by winning the state overall and each individual Congressional district) speaks for itself. This is why El Jeffe Jeb crashed & burned, and why Rubio is struggling to separate himself from Cruz. (I’m FINALLY starting to see people I know realize that Cruz is a total scumbag. Apparently his lack of charitable donations combined with the family income is really rubbing evangelicals the wrong way.) Many Republicans & conservatives are tired of a party that completely ignores their wants & desires. (I don’t expect Democrats to ever catch on en mass, as they can always fall back on “Hate Whitey” – and do, regularly.)
Anyway, I don’t see actual conservatives voting for Sanders. They may or may not vote for Trump, but they’re not going to vote for the Commie loving America hating abortions for everybody guy from the Green Mountain state.
I don’t think Sanders could win in the general election, MM, but he’s certainly got a higher potential than Hillary does. Everyone knows her, everyone has an opinion, and she inspires almost no enthusiasm, except for certain white women “of an age” and certain strangely sexless white men.
But even if Trump wins in November, I still think we’re a few years away from maximal discord in out electoral system. For all the Trump & Sanders enthusiasm, that isn’t translating to anything similar going on down the tickets (the Tea Partiers had more impact), and if you can’t disrupt Congress, big change won’t likely come.
Sanders is road kill. The fix is in.
This:
“That’s why I’ve been saying all along that the 2016 election will hinge on turnout.”
…..is perhaps more true than any other election in my memory. I simply do not know if Cruz (probably not) or Trump (probably) can get the vote sufficiently out.
Here’s a little game. If Rubio wins, who is the VP pick who can complement and get out the vote? I’m thinking a governor………
For Republicans the question is how many of the Tea Party/socons are willing to wrap themselves in the flag and stick to their principles which at this point in time means opposing any establishment candidate even if it means losing the election.
For Republicans the question is how many of the Tea Party/socons are willing to wrap themselves in the flag and stick to their principles which at this point in time means opposing any establishment candidate even if it means losing the election.
There’s more of us every day!
…
I simply do not know if Cruz (probably not) or Trump (probably) can get the vote sufficiently out.
If it’s Cruz versus Hillary, I promised my vote to Ms. Minaj. If it’s Cruz versus Sanders, I’m voting for the America hating Commie. The only reason I don’t think Cruz is the most dangerous candidate running is because I place that much importance on the dangers of dynasties to a republic.
Yes, out of habit I still think of America as a republic, and even a nation, even though I know neither is true any more.
1) An observation: The Republican Party is more democratic than then Democratic Party.
2) A prediction: Low voter turnout in the South Carolina primary will harm Clinton and help Sanders.
That may be true, Dave. The sentiment seems intense.
No one wanted to bite on a Rubio VP pick. It’s not Kasich by the way.