Does primary turnout have an effect on the GE?

[Senator Spark]

Turnout has been pretty even this year

2016:

GOP: 29,075,752
DEM: 28,627,634

Primary Turnout level trends (00-12)

GOP:

2012: 18,793,770 (L)
2008: 20,138,934 (L)
2004: 7,853,863 (Re-election, W)
2000: 19,081,827 (W)

DEM:

2012: 6,158,064 (Re-election, W)
2008: 35,442,193 (W)
2004: 14,543,663 (L)
2000: 13,913,726 (L)

[Adam Griffin]

No.

[IceSpear]

Nah, it's just a function of which race is more competitive.

[Adam Griffin]

Also, your 2016 count is wrong. You're not including the caucuses. Additionally, more CA vote has come in since my post and that has likely widened the gap a bit more.

DEM: 30,383,311 (50.42%)
GOP: 29,866,681 (49.48%)

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

No.

[Virginiá]

Saw this the other day:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/192380/thought-given-presidential-election-matches-2008-levels.aspx?g_source=ELECTION_2016&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The sample size is atrocious, but it certainly looks as if there is a correlation, even if the idea of it is not quite logical right now due to lack of enough data points. The lack of 2012 results really sucks here. However, if there is a direct correlation between turnout and that specific question's polling numbers, then it would suggest we will have 2008-levels of turnout. Added formatting for emphasis because I'm just musing here.

I'd like to think turnout will be somewhere between 2012 - 2008 numbers based on the data so far.

[SillyAmerican]

Saw this the other day:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/192380/thought-given-presidential-election-matches-2008-levels.aspx?g_source=ELECTION_2016&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The sample size is atrocious, but it certainly looks as if there is a correlation, even if the idea of it is not quite logical right now due to lack of enough data points. The lack of 2012 results really sucks here. However, if there is a direct correlation between turnout and that specific question's polling numbers, then it would suggest we will have 2008-levels of turnout. Added formatting for emphasis because I'm just musing here.

I'd like to think turnout will be somewhere between 2012 - 2008 numbers based on the data so far.

Very interesting article.

Were I a Hillary Clinton supporter, I'd be concerned over the following observation:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

No:

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

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

No.

No.

No:

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

[IceSpear]

Saw this the other day:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/192380/thought-given-presidential-election-matches-2008-levels.aspx?g_source=ELECTION_2016&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The sample size is atrocious, but it certainly looks as if there is a correlation, even if the idea of it is not quite logical right now due to lack of enough data points. The lack of 2012 results really sucks here. However, if there is a direct correlation between turnout and that specific question's polling numbers, then it would suggest we will have 2008-levels of turnout. Added formatting for emphasis because I'm just musing here.

I'd like to think turnout will be somewhere between 2012 - 2008 numbers based on the data so far.

Very interesting article.

Were I a Hillary Clinton supporter, I'd be concerned over the following observation:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Didn't nearly every poll in 2012 show Republicans more enthusiastic as well? And we all know Sanders supporters were more enthusiastic in the primary.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

No.