Looking at Senate Primary Turnout so far..

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT 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.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

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.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

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.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

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

Looking forward to seeing NV but they can't even bother to count....

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

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.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

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

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

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......

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Soild victory for Democrats in Maryland

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Nothing amazing for Dems in the turnout race tonight. They won WA as expected, but are narrowly trailing in AZ. GOP wins big in MO/KS.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

A mixed bag tonight for both sides. Dems get easily their best performance so far, netting 78% of the turnout in Vermont. But the GOP gets 57% in Wisconsin, placing serious doubt on that being a pickup opportunity for Dems. Connecticut is a little weird, as a lack of contested primaries leads me to use the SOS race. But for what it's worth, D's got 55% there.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Dems with a new high in Hawaii, getting 82% of the turnout!

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Dems with a new high in Hawaii, getting 82% of the turnout!

JMC was saying on Twitter that Dems got 88% of the turnout in 2018? Or is he going off of house races vs. statewide races? (he does that sometimes.... likes to twist the data when it make no sense, like this year basing WA statewide turnout on the House races and not the Senate race, despite much crossover voting in the house races...)

I was just referring to the fact that HI is the most democratic state for this year's  Senate Primaries. However, It does appear the GOP did even worse in 2018.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

TBH I don't really see the point in reading too much into the primary tea leaves in states not names California and Washington. On the state level there are just way too many things other than the national environment that could influence relative vote numbers such as competitiveness, registration lag, open vs. closed primaries, ballot measures, etc. (I recognize that you can't easily measure this stuff, but it does exist, if you deny it has any effect idk what to tell you.) Maybe at the end of the primaries all this stuff more or less cancels itself out in the aggregate, but for now I'm v hesitant.

The individual results don't always pan out, Hillary obviously didn't carry  LA in the 2016 General despite its primary turnout result. But the story told by the overall picture tends to be accurate (here it appears to be GOP gets a majority in the Senate).

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

In Alaska, all GOP candidates combine for just shy of 89% of the vote. However, I wouldn't put too much stock in this - a lot of Dems were clearly voting Murkowski.

In Florida, where a lack of contested primaries sends us to the Agriculture Commissioner's Race, the GOP got 54% of the turnout. A win, yes, but it's tight. Potentially encouraging. Even more remarkably, if I substitute in Senate or Governor numbers on the Democratic side, the GOP advantage narrows to 52%(!). Still don't see any way Demings or Crist actually wins, but this could mean good things for dems in closer contests.

Our only remaining big data point is New Hampshire on the 13th. I will add LA's jungle result to the map when it happens, but considering that's held concurrently with general elections in all the other states, it's not much to look at.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

GOP receives 60% of the turnout in New Hampshire.


Assuming a hold for the GOP in LA, which holds its jungle primary on election day, the final prediction by this method is a 4 seat gain for the GOP.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

This is basically the only indicator in the GOPs’ favor.

I don’t think it is particularly predictive, however. It implies the GOP base is more energized, as would be expected. HOWEVER the GOP nominated a laundry list of awful candidates in basically every senate race, and when you combine that with massive Dem fundraising advantages, incumbency advantages in many states, and Dobbs it seems very likely Rs will lose the I vote in many competitive senate races.

I do think that the results are indicative of the pecking order of races, however. For example, GA and OH were VERY R in the primaries, more so than NC / FL (which in turn were more R than PA / WI). Implies that the tiers of races probably roughly follow that pattern in the general, even though conventional wisdom says GA should be much more Dem than FL or NC (and may still be of course).

WI was more R than FL (WI was 57%, FL was 54% or so)