Republicans turned out in record numbers for the primaries, Democrat's numbers down

[Artdeco]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...-turnout-62-year-dem-primary-turnout-21-year/

Interesting, I see the Republicans as frightened by a Hillary presidency, and the Democrats frustrated with Hillary, the Sanders supporters, while vocal are younger voters and typically don't vote anyway.

Trump is a dumpster fire, but he's their dumpster fire, and Hillary is so polarizing, I think the Democrats are going to stay away.

It's going to be interesting for sure.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Oh nos!

It does make sense it would be pretty unusual and epic to have two Presidents of the same party twice in a row.

 

[Strk]

I like how they complain about spin while ignoring the reason for the "massive increase" for the GOP was extremely shitty numbers in 2012.

 

[HomerJS]

Trump being the result of GOP record turnout is like McDonalds being the #1 restaurant.

Says a lot.

 

[dullard]

You shouldn't compare apples and oranges.
1) Having over a dozen candidates vs. two candidates (three if you count O'Malley who withdrew early) means comparing the results of completely separate events with completely separate rules yields no meaningful information.

2) The democrats had their second highest primary turnout ever. That isn't a sign the democrats are sitting home.

3) Democrats went in droves to the GOP when possible just to run against Trump. That doesn't mean they'll vote Trump in the actual election.

4) If you insist on comparing apples to oranges, then use these numbers: Trump 13.3 million votes, Clinton 15.8 million votes.

 

[Artdeco]

You shouldn't compare apples and oranges.
1) Having over a dozen candidates vs. two candidates (three if you count O'Malley who withdrew early) means comparing the results of completely separate events with completely separate rules yields no meaningful information.

2) The democrats had their second highest primary turnout ever. That isn't a sign the democrats are sitting home.

3) Democrats went in droves to the GOP when possible just to run against Trump. That doesn't mean they'll vote Trump in the actual election.

4) If you insist on comparing apples to oranges, then use these numbers: Trump 13.3 million votes, Clinton 15.8 million votes.

Good point.

 

[fskimospy]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...-turnout-62-year-dem-primary-turnout-21-year/

Interesting, I see the Republicans as frightened by a Hillary presidency, and the Democrats frustrated with Hillary, the Sanders supporters, while vocal are younger voters and typically don't vote anyway.

Trump is a dumpster fire, but he's their dumpster fire, and Hillary is so polarizing, I think the Democrats are going to stay away.

It's going to be interesting for sure.

There is no correlation between greater primary turnout and general election success. What primary turnout mostly tells us is how competitive the primary was.

 

[werepossum]

Trump being the result of GOP record turnout is like McDonalds being the #1 restaurant.

Says a lot.

Yeah, but in this case McDonald's is competing against Turdburger.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

How did the final GOP primary totals measure up against 2008. It was behind 2008 levels in March. Wondering if it caught up but haven't had time to look into it.

 

[Jhhnn]

There is no correlation between greater primary turnout and general election success. What primary turnout mostly tells us is how competitive the primary was.

More in-depth-

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/03/trump-touts-gop-turnout/

The notion that more Dems will stay away because of Hillary than Repubs staying away because of Donald seems silly. As the OP pointed out, Trump is a dumpster fire. Hillary isn't that at all.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

The correct word is "Trumpster Fire"

 

[theeedude]

This mountain of Republican primary votes gave birth to the mouse of Trump nomination.

 

[nageov3t]

while true, there's no correlation between primary turnout and general election turnout.

the fact is, the Republicans had a much more contested and high-profile election... on the Democratic side, Hillary had been the front-runner for over a year leading up to the primaries and never faced a serious challenge after Biden decided he wasn't going to run.

the Democratic race was protracted by design, but if the Democratic primary operated under the same ruleset as the Republican primary (ie: winner take all states vs everything proportional), Clinton would have locked up the nom like a month or two before Trump did.

 

[Moonbeam]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...-turnout-62-year-dem-primary-turnout-21-year/

Interesting, I see the Republicans as frightened by a Hillary presidency, and the Democrats frustrated with Hillary, the Sanders supporters, while vocal are younger voters and typically don't vote anyway.

Trump is a dumpster fire, but he's their dumpster fire, and Hillary is so polarizing, I think the Democrats are going to stay away.

It's going to be interesting for sure.

Not to mention that my immaturity makes it difficult to control my rage that flushing antiques in my party voted for the Wall Street lady. Have you seen that she is the first democrat supported my the wealthy because Trump is out to renegotiate all their cushy deals. He's going after the wealthy woke sanders would have. How often does a rage vote also make sense?

 

[nickqt]

The Blue Wall is real.

 

[agent00f]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...-turnout-62-year-dem-primary-turnout-21-year/

Interesting, I see the Republicans as frightened by a Hillary presidency, and the Democrats frustrated with Hillary, the Sanders supporters, while vocal are younger voters and typically don't vote anyway.

Trump is a dumpster fire, but he's their dumpster fire, and Hillary is so polarizing, I think the Democrats are going to stay away.

It's going to be interesting for sure.

The other way to look at it is Trump has been doing his best to turn out the hispanic/women/minority vote for anyone but him, yet the results could still be a lot better.

 

[Strk]

You shouldn't compare apples and oranges.
1) Having over a dozen candidates vs. two candidates (three if you count O'Malley who withdrew early) means comparing the results of completely separate events with completely separate rules yields no meaningful information.

2) The democrats had their second highest primary turnout ever. That isn't a sign the democrats are sitting home.

3) Democrats went in droves to the GOP when possible just to run against Trump. That doesn't mean they'll vote Trump in the actual election.

4) If you insist on comparing apples to oranges, then use these numbers: Trump 13.3 million votes, Clinton 15.8 million votes.

Better yet, he only got slightly more than Bernie

 

[Jhhnn]

The other way to look at it is Trump has been doing his best to turn out the hispanic/women/minority vote for anyone but him, yet the results could still be a lot better.

I'm sure his efforts will bear fruit in November. It'll be terrific.