Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Click on the chart above to enlarge. This is rather unexpected, isn't? The chart shows that Hillary has bested Mr. Trump in 8 states thus far while Mr. Trump beat Hillary in 2 states in terms of the number of votes received in each primary state. Even Bernie has gotten more votes than Mr. Trump in 5 states. In total, Hillary has about 600,000 more votes than Mr. Trump in the aggregate.
But wait, the Republicans have been seeing record-breaking turnout, and the Democrats have seen a sharp decline in their voter turnout. And Mr. Trump has been SO dominant. What gives?
Yes, you will undoubtedly mention that there are 2 candidates for Dems versus 5 candidates (4 now) for GOP. But logic dictates that if Mr. Trump is your #1 pick, you would vote for Mr. Trump no matter how many other candidates are running, right? And he has been whipping his GOP rivals.
Even if the field whittles down to 2 or 3, a lot of the Cruz, Rubio, Kasich and Carson supporters have said they would never vote for Trump . . . . so the usual theory about a party uniting behind its eventual nominee is not likely going to hold here, IMHO. As such, "splitting the votes now, but will consolidate later" argument is not nearly as convincing as it normally is. Moreover, some say that the higher turnout is due in large part to GOP voters who are motivated to make sure someone other than Mr. Trump becomes the nominee.
On the flip side, we can agree that, even if Webb, Chafee and O'Malley were still in the race, any votes they would receive in the primaries would be negligible . . . Thus a bigger field per se does not explain the vote splitting rationale.
Any other theories or thoughts on how this could happen? I am perplexed, to be honest.
No matter how you see it, it's still means more people took the time to vote for Hillary than to vote for Trump.
But it is still comparing apples to oranges. The variables have to be standardized. In this case they are not. Not even close. We don't know how many of those votes would still go to Hillary if there were 5 more candidates on the democratic side to choose from. We also don't know how many more votes Trump would have gotten if there were only one more candidate on the republican side to choose from.
It makes for a nice sound bite, but the information it provides is meaningless.
But it is still comparing apples to oranges. In a retrospective study, variables have to be standardized. In this case they are not. Not even close. We don't know how many of those votes would still go to Hillary if there were 5 more candidates on the democratic side to choose from. We also don't know how many more votes Trump would have gotten if there were only one more candidate on the republican side to choose from.
It makes for a nice sound bite, but the information it provides is meaningless.
Ah, but it is just as "meaningless" as the turnout comparison forecasting a GOP victory in November. . . if we actually thought about it. The point is . . . . we don't know. But it's odd that, even with 100% higher turnout in some cases like SC, Mr. Trump gets way fewer votes than Hillary. Stubby fingers, maybe?
A race of 2 versus a race that started with, what, 15? The GOP had to have an "A" debate and a "B" debate. The Democrats had Hilary and Bernie pretty much the whole time. Or was it the whole time?
No matter how you see it, when there are 5 people running, someone will be getting votes that would have otherwise gone to one of 2 candidates.
Ah, but it is just as "meaningless" as the turnout comparison forecasting a GOP victory in November. . . if we actually thought about it. The point is . . . . we don't know. But it's odd that, even with 100% higher turnout in some cases like SC, Mr. Trump gets way fewer votes than Hillary. Stubby fingers, maybe?
Mick
Any forecast is junk right now. A forecast for Trump is just as much junk as a forecast for Hillary. Pure junk at this point. Hell, one of them could get backed over by their tour bus.
Why, because it contains all facts? Sorry to confuse you with a spreadsheet.
I am not a Hillary lover . . . I dutifully mentioned that Sanders has beat Trump in 5 states, too. Fair and Balanced®.
Mick
They're not even competing at this point. You got some extra vodka? I need a refill.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
