Looking at Senate Primary Turnout so far..

[wbrocks67]

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.

[wbrocks67]

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.

[wbrocks67]

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.

[wbrocks67]

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.

[wbrocks67]

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.

[wbrocks67]

NYT is saying there is still 130K votes out in the Dem primary in Cook? Not sure if it's accurate, but I don't think the current margin (51D/49R) holds

[wbrocks67]

Maryland is one of the few states so far that has had competitive primaries on both sides (GOV), so I think that one is good to look at for turnout comparisons.

[wbrocks67]

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.

Not true at all, pure Democratic turnout in KS is looking to be *higher* than GOP turnout.

https://twitter.com/williamjordann/status/1554793880180113410

Not just that, but turnout in 2018 was R+34, 67-33. It was R+24 last night, 62-38. And that of course with ballot aside, no major competitive statewide D primaries as opposed to 2018.

[wbrocks67]

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.

I still think Ron Johnson is a slight favorite, but tbf, Republicans had a very hotly contested gubernatorial primary in Wisconsin while Democrats really had nothing statewide.

Do people blatantly ignore things like this on purpose or are they just being ignorant?

[wbrocks67]

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...)

[wbrocks67]

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.

Well, I think the biggest thing is just the competitiveness. You just can't compare when one side has competitive primaries and the other side doesn't. And then comparing it to 2018, when the Dem side had a lot more competitive primaries compared to this year where they don't is just not worth it imo. If the situation is the same (i.e. in Maryland where both sides had a competitive campaign) then I think it's worth it - and in places like CA, WA, etc.

[wbrocks67]

The turnout in FL doesn't look so bad for Dems when you realize that Indies are 1/3 of the electorate and they'd be a deciding vote.

However, they could just as easily go heavily Rep in the GE.

[wbrocks67]

Democrats had quite a few contested/high-profile primaries, while Republicans basically had nothing statewide, so you have to wonder if this still applies....

I still think Ron Johnson is a slight favorite, but tbf, Republicans had a very hotly contested gubernatorial primary in Wisconsin while Democrats really had nothing statewide.

Do people blatantly ignore things like this on purpose or are they just being ignorant?

Not sure what you're point is since I'm pretty sure I posted in some other thread that this was good for the GOP.

Dems can be happy with their turnout b/c it was good, but GOP's was still better, at least raw turnout wise, with not much going on. I'm sure some of the downballot races helped, but yeah.

Essentially Dems would really need Indies to go their way to have a chance in the GE. If they're even just 50/50, there's not really a path.