Looking at Senate Primary Turnout so far..
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:58:07 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Congressional Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  Looking at Senate Primary Turnout so far..
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Looking at Senate Primary Turnout so far..  (Read 2137 times)
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,578
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 26, 2022, 08:16:13 PM »
« edited: September 14, 2022, 09:46:41 AM by Lincoln Speaker Dwarven Dragon »




* In Indiana, both senate primaries were uncontested and there were no other statewide contests. I thus added up the votes cast for each U.S. House District where both parties had contested primaries (The 1st, 6th, 7th, and 9th) and published that comparison.

* In South Dakota and Utah, only the GOP had a contested primary for all statewide races.

* For Arizona, South Carolina, Illinois, and New York, a lack of contested senate primaries required me to use the Governor's Race.

* For California and Oklahoma, the Regular Senate Primaries were used.

* In Colorado, a lack of contested primaries has inhibited all reasonable efforts at estimating turnout, therefore it is colored 30% D, signifying an unmeasurable state currently controlled by Democrats.

* In Connecticut, a lack of contested senate and gubernatorial primaries required me to use the Secretary of State election.

* In Florida, a general lack of contested primaries required me to use the Agriculture Commissioner election.

----


If the map is correct, this is a GOP wave.
Logged
Unelectable Bystander
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,098
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 26, 2022, 11:02:23 PM »

I think what you’re forgetting is that Kentucky had a hyper-competitive R race while D’s did not, so turnout was skewed. Rand Paul, being a low quality incumbent, induced huge turnout from the famous Elliot county trying to primary him
Logged
Roll Roons
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,983
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 26, 2022, 11:05:55 PM »

I think what you’re forgetting is that Kentucky had a hyper-competitive R race while D’s did not, so turnout was skewed. Rand Paul, being a low quality incumbent, induced huge turnout from the famous Elliot county trying to primary him

Huh The only vaguely competitive federal primary in Kentucky was for the safely blue KY-03 (which ended up not being close at all).
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,578
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 27, 2022, 12:46:55 AM »

I think what you’re forgetting is that Kentucky had a hyper-competitive R race while D’s did not, so turnout was skewed. Rand Paul, being a low quality incumbent, induced huge turnout from the famous Elliot county trying to primary him

The issue isn't any one state, it's the combined message. The GOP carrying NC, PA, getting above 60% in GA, getting above 60% in OH, winning KY when it's often had a D primary turnout advantage.

Even the Indiana calculation, as odd as it is, doesn't look great either. Two Titanium D seats, a Weaker R seat, and a strong R seat averages out to high-fifties R when you would think it would be a near-tie if not a D-edge.

Obviously OR is good and ID/AR/AL is just useless noise in seats that Ds would never target ever. But the rest, when combined, speaks GOP WAVE.

I hope we see something different when we get IA and MO and IL and CO and WI and NH and AZ and NV and WA and FL. But this is the data we currently have, and Mitch McConnell loves it.
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,776
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 27, 2022, 02:02:01 AM »

It really doesn't matter that much because D's have crossed over just like in PA it's open primaries Indies can vote in either primary it's still a 303 map no matter what
Logged
MarkD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,131
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 27, 2022, 04:37:48 PM »

I'm predicting about this much turnout for MO-Sen this year, August 2: around 990,000 votes in total; about 441,500 in the Dem primary and about 544,500 in the GOP primary (and about 4,000 in Libertarian and Constitution Party combined). There doesn't appear to be any referendum on the ballot this August that will boost turnout, like in 2004 (same-sex marriage) or in 2018 (right-to-work).
Logged
Unelectable Bystander
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,098
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 27, 2022, 04:55:37 PM »

I think what you’re forgetting is that Kentucky had a hyper-competitive R race while D’s did not, so turnout was skewed. Rand Paul, being a low quality incumbent, induced huge turnout from the famous Elliot county trying to primary him

The issue isn't any one state, it's the combined message. The GOP carrying NC, PA, getting above 60% in GA, getting above 60% in OH, winning KY when it's often had a D primary turnout advantage.

Even the Indiana calculation, as odd as it is, doesn't look great either. Two Titanium D seats, a Weaker R seat, and a strong R seat averages out to high-fifties R when you would think it would be a near-tie if not a D-edge.

Obviously OR is good and ID/AR/AL is just useless noise in seats that Ds would never target ever. But the rest, when combined, speaks GOP WAVE.

I hope we see something different when we get IA and MO and IL and CO and WI and NH and AZ and NV and WA and FL. But this is the data we currently have, and Mitch McConnell loves it.


The joke is that Kentucky is the only state this wasn’t said about
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,926
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 27, 2022, 05:17:57 PM »

This is hypocritical. When Democrats have a turnout advantage in primaries conservatives say that primary turnout has no correlation to general election turnout.

And so far the primaries have been less competitive for Democrats.
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,578
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 08, 2022, 01:28:59 AM »

BUMP.

Democrats get a much needed win in California, with Padilla and a few no name dems collectively getting more than 60% of the Jungle Primary vote (I used the regular election). They lose in Iowa, but get around 45% of the turnout.

However, in South Dakota, the GOP gets the darkest shade possible as Dems fail to have a single contested primary for any relevant office.
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,578
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: June 14, 2022, 10:50:56 PM »

added in the GOP's big wins in SC and ND.

Looking forward to seeing NV but they can't even bother to count....
Logged
Senator Incitatus
AMB1996
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,471
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.06, S: 5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: June 14, 2022, 10:56:53 PM »

The R advantage in NV should be absolutely massive, relative to its lean.
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,776
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: June 15, 2022, 12:38:27 AM »

The R advantage in NV should be absolutely massive, relative to its lean.

LoL, Rs love CCM she has lead in all but 5 straight polls, it's open primaries anyone can vote, there are Indies voting in R primaries
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,578
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: June 15, 2022, 01:23:34 AM »

NV added.

This map is so bleak. I wouldn't be shocked to see Dems lose the turnout battle in Colorado or Connecticut at this point.
Logged
wbrocks67
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,751


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: June 16, 2022, 08:33:12 AM »

NV added.

This map is so bleak. I wouldn't be shocked to see Dems lose the turnout battle in Colorado or Connecticut at this point.

Most of these competitive states in the general are having uncompetitive primaries for the Democrats. It's a total apples to oranges comparison.
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,578
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: June 16, 2022, 09:18:57 AM »

NV added.

This map is so bleak. I wouldn't be shocked to see Dems lose the turnout battle in Colorado or Connecticut at this point.

Most of these competitive states in the general are having uncompetitive primaries for the Democrats. It's a total apples to oranges comparison.

Historically it's a decently accurate measure. For instance in 2018, the only states where one party won the primary turnout and the other won the General were OH, AZ, and MT. https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=309121.msg6582778#msg6582778
Logged
wbrocks67
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,751


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: June 16, 2022, 09:28:58 AM »

NV added.

This map is so bleak. I wouldn't be shocked to see Dems lose the turnout battle in Colorado or Connecticut at this point.

Most of these competitive states in the general are having uncompetitive primaries for the Democrats. It's a total apples to oranges comparison.

Historically it's a decently accurate measure. For instance in 2018, the only states where one party won the primary turnout and the other won the General were OH, AZ, and MT. https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=309121.msg6582778#msg6582778


right, but you'd have to go back to each state to see if there was a competitive primary or not.
Logged
Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,986
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.13, S: -0.87

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: June 16, 2022, 10:31:34 AM »

NV added.

This map is so bleak. I wouldn't be shocked to see Dems lose the turnout battle in Colorado or Connecticut at this point.

Most of these competitive states in the general are having uncompetitive primaries for the Democrats. It's a total apples to oranges comparison.

Historically it's a decently accurate measure. For instance in 2018, the only states where one party won the primary turnout and the other won the General were OH, AZ, and MT. https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=309121.msg6582778#msg6582778

And in all 3 of those races the Republican candidate ran a bad campaign.
Logged
MT Treasurer
IndyRep
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: June 16, 2022, 11:18:39 AM »

Can you add the %-ages and/or margins as well?

As far as how reliable this metric is, obviously - as always - you’re better off looking at patterns than extrapolating from the results of one single state. This year, the pattern has been remarkably stable even after the Roe v. Wade leak and in states in which both sides had competitive primaries (and not just for Senate, e.g. in MT).
Logged
wbrocks67
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,751


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: June 16, 2022, 11:25:26 AM »

Can you add the %-ages and/or margins as well?

As far as how reliable this metric is, obviously - as always - you’re better off looking at patterns than extrapolating from the results of one single state. This year, the pattern has been remarkably stable even after the Roe v. Wade leak and in states in which both sides had competitive primaries (and not just for Senate, e.g. in MT).

I mean, I don't really see why the Roe v Wade thing would effect primaries. A general, sure, but I don't see it having much impact on intra-party primaries.
Logged
MT Treasurer
IndyRep
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: June 16, 2022, 11:42:36 AM »

Can you add the %-ages and/or margins as well?

As far as how reliable this metric is, obviously - as always - you’re better off looking at patterns than extrapolating from the results of one single state. This year, the pattern has been remarkably stable even after the Roe v. Wade leak and in states in which both sides had competitive primaries (and not just for Senate, e.g. in MT).

I mean, I don't really see why the Roe v Wade thing would affect primaries. A general, sure, but I don't see it having much impact on intra-party primaries.

Because it supposedly energized Democrats and left-leaning independents/moderates who had been or otherwise were going to stay disengaged? If they’re this angry, I think we’d have seen at least a small movement in the margins since then, but we didn’t - mostly because the people most upset about this were already extremely reliable Democrats. Again, it’s the same story in virtually every state, whether contested or uncontested primaries, "extreme" or "less extreme" candidates, swing state or not — a massive, double-digit shift in favor of Republicans compared to the margins in 2018 (primary turnout) and in some cases even 2020 (presidential race).

This also refutes the theory that Republicans are far less reliable voters ("low-propensity") than Democrats in regular elections in the post-Trump era.
Logged
wbrocks67
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,751


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: June 16, 2022, 11:59:00 AM »

Can you add the %-ages and/or margins as well?

As far as how reliable this metric is, obviously - as always - you’re better off looking at patterns than extrapolating from the results of one single state. This year, the pattern has been remarkably stable even after the Roe v. Wade leak and in states in which both sides had competitive primaries (and not just for Senate, e.g. in MT).

I mean, I don't really see why the Roe v Wade thing would affect primaries. A general, sure, but I don't see it having much impact on intra-party primaries.

Because it supposedly energized Democrats and left-leaning independents/moderates who had been or otherwise were going to stay disengaged? If they’re this angry, I think we’d have seen at least a small movement in the margins since then, but we didn’t - mostly because the people most upset about this were already extremely reliable Democrats. Again, it’s the same story in virtually every state, whether contested or uncontested primaries, "extreme" or "less extreme" candidates, swing state or not — a massive, double-digit shift in favor of Republicans compared to the margins in 2018 (primary turnout) and in some cases even 2020 (presidential race).

This also refutes the theory that Republicans are far less reliable voters ("low-propensity") than Democrats in regular elections in the post-Trump era.

Yes, in the general it absolutely could. But I don't think you're average person who is not that energized who was then energized by the decision is going to run to necessarily vote in a primary that may also already be sewed up.
Logged
MT Treasurer
IndyRep
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: June 16, 2022, 12:03:18 PM »
« Edited: June 16, 2022, 01:16:33 PM by MT Treasurer »

Yes, in the general it absolutely could. But I don't think you're average person who is not that energized who was then energized by the decision is going to run to necessarily vote in a primary that may also already be sewed up.

Fascinating how many qualifiers ("was then energized", "necessarily", "that may also already be sewed up") you needed to describe this powerful, all-important voting bloc.
Logged
Xing
xingkerui
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,303
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -3.91

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: June 16, 2022, 01:38:58 PM »

This is fine for looking at the big picture, though not predicting actual margins.
Logged
wbrocks67
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,751


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: June 16, 2022, 01:44:09 PM »

Yes, in the general it absolutely could. But I don't think you're average person who is not that energized who was then energized by the decision is going to run to necessarily vote in a primary that may also already be sewed up.

Fascinating how many qualifiers ("was then energized", "necessarily", "that may also already be sewed up") you needed to describe this powerful, all-important voting bloc.

you realize a lot of people don't vote in primaries, right? even if they are "energized"? that's my point. a primary is completely different from a general, and doesn't have that big of an important outcome most of the time, so someone who is really motivated by things going on isn't necessarily going to vote in a primary, and that has no bearing really on November/the general election. I know many people who are passionate and vote in every GE. But primaries? very hit or miss.
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,578
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: June 29, 2022, 06:13:38 PM »

6/28 update:

A lot of trouble here due to a lack of contested senate primaries.

- Oklahoma is the most straightforward, with the Regular Senate Primary being contested on both sides. Rs got 69% of the turnout.

- In New York, an uncontested set of Senate Primaries throws us to the Governors Race, where Dems got 65% of the turnout.

- In Illinois, Duckworth was unopposed, so we'll again use the Governors Race. This was actually uncomfortably close - Ds received just 51% of the turnout(!).

- Utah, where only GOP primaries were contested (if any were at all) across the board, joins South Dakota in the 100% R category.

- Colorado, the state I was most looking forward to seeing, is actually impossible to evaluate. Only the GOP had contested primaries statewide, but obviously putting it in 100% R is wildly inaccurate given how the state has been trending. Doing what I did with Indiana doesn't make sense either - due to the districts where both parties had contested primaries also being safely GOP, the resulting metric would be 69% R. Comparing all contested house primaries for each side, including districts where only one side was contested, yields an even more junk measure of 72% R. I also looked at a measure where I use the districts where both sides were contested, plus add the turnout from Diana DeGette's primary to the D side (the only other contested D Primary), and even that yields 54% R - which might be right, but it just sort of feels odd publishing such a crude measure. So, I'm left with no other choice but to mark the state unmeasurable. Seriously, why couldn't some random farmer run against Bennet or Polis or Griswold? This could be one of the most competitive races and we can't get any measurement of it...... Cry
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.056 seconds with 11 queries.