What's with the discrepancy between primary turnout and special elections?

[ProgressiveModerate]

By and large, primary turnout would indicate a good national environment for the GOP, with GOP having higher primary turnout than Dems in basically every swing state.

Yet in basically every recent special election (except low turnout TX-34), Dems have outperformed the 2020 margin to some degree (NE-01, MN-01, FL-20, that MI State House district, the  Maine and Florida state Senate seats), and they've also had a win with the abortion referendum in Kansas.

It just seems a bit strange

[MT Treasurer]

It’s amusing because I literally just had the exact same thought as you. Anyway, a major reason is the simple fact that white Democrats have become an extremely reliable/high-propensity voter group (which really shows up in these special elections, esp. those with a very organized D state party like the DFL). I’d argue that a high-profile primary election (such as we had in WI) is still a level above a low-profile special (GE) election in terms of level of engagement/general attention.

[ProgressiveModerate]

It’s amusing because I literally just had the exact same thought as you. Anyway, a major reason is the simple fact that white Democrats have become an extremely reliable/high-propensity voter group (which really shows up in these special elections, esp. those with a very organized D state party like the DFL). I’d argue that a high-profile primary election (such as we had in WI) is still a level above a low-profile special (GE) election in terms of level of engagement/general attention.

This is my main theory as well. To add on, a disproportionate amount of contentious and heated primaries primaries have been on the GOP side and even competitive Dem primaries such as MI-11 feel much less toxic and consequential.

Literally in all the top states: MI, PA, WI, AZ, GA, and NV, the GOP actually had a competitive primary for Governor and/or Senate, usually involving a Trump backed candidate, whereas Dems either had an incumbent for these seats or had consolidated very clearly around a candidate by election day. In Wisconsin for instance, the WI-Sen D primary may have seemed somewhat competitive months ago but even before Godlewski dropped out it was very clear Barnes had gotten it in the bag, and there was never the type of infighting we've seen in many GOP primaries.

[GALeftist]

Well this probably isn't all of it but it certainly is part of it. List of important competitive Republican statewide primaries so far (I will also count CDs if they are a big part of the state population):

OH-SEN
OH-GOV
NE-GOV
WV-02
ID-GOV
NC-SEN
OR-SEN
OR-GOV
PA-SEN
PA-GOV
AL-SEN
AR-GOV
GA-GOV (debatable, people thought it would be competitive at least, also GA SoS was a big deal)
CA-Top Two
MT-01
NM-GOV (debatable)
ME-02
NV-SEN
NV-GOV
CO-SEN
IL-GOV
NY-GOV
OK-SEN Special
MD-GOV
AZ-SEN
AZ-GOV
KS-Abortion Referendum (counting it, it was a major reason to turn out)
MI-GOV
MO-SEN
WA-Top Two
CT-SEN
CT-GOV
MN-GOV
WI-GOV

List of important competitive Democratic statewide primaries so far:

OR-GOV
PA-SEN (debatable)
CA-Top Two
IA-SEN (very debatable and almost certainly unimportant)
NY-GOV (debatable)
MD-GOV
WA-Top Two
VT-AL

It seems entirely unsurprising that, when almost all the meaningful competitive primaries are on the Republican side, they're going to enjoy an inflated turnout advantage. Are people really being driven to the polls to make sure Raphael Warnock stomps his token opposition by even more?

[Xing]

One possible explanation for Wisconsin could be that some of the “high propensity” voters are still registered Republicans, even if they’ve voted Democratic in recent elections, perhaps minus WI-GOV 2018. Doesn’t fully explain the Republican advantage in turnout, but I don’t think anyone expects Johnson or Michels to win by 14.

[wesmoorenerd]

Doesn't WI have open primaries? Am I just dumb or are we discounting the idea that some Democrats crossed over to the Republican primary, given it was more competitive across the board?

[Brittain33]

Could it be because the Republican Party has a bigger division now over Trump, which Trump encourages by endorsing challengers, while the Democratic Party isn’t particularly divided?

[Pollster]

Worth noting that both NE-01 and MN-01 are districts that are geographically mostly rural but are anchored by mid-size population centers (Lancaster/Lincoln and Olmsted/Rochester) that are prime territory for the GOP to collapse in, particularly in low-turnout races.

[wbrocks67]

I don't see why this is really hard to understand?

Unless there's a competitive primary, many voters just don't come out. Even if they're energized to vote in Nov in a GE. I'm sure there were many in WI yesterday who figured there was no point.

Meanwhile the specials are actually GE with outcomes that are determinate, vs voting in a primary for an incumbent who is getting 95% of the vote anyway.

[Minnesota Mike]

One possible explanation for Wisconsin could be that some of the “high propensity” voters are still registered Republicans, even if they’ve voted Democratic in recent elections, perhaps minus WI-GOV 2018. Doesn’t fully explain the Republican advantage in turnout, but I don’t think anyone expects Johnson or Michels to win by 14.

There is no party registration in Wisconsin. Higher Republican turnout in Wisconsin is no mystery, there were more competitive races there.

[It’s so Joever]

I honestly didn’t vote in the primary so I can confirm what others are saying. Part of it was because I was in Europe at the time but also because I didn’t see much of a point. The races are honestly uncontested. In retrospect I do regret not voting in the GOP primary since I could do that (I’m an Indy)