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.
Here's an interesting article. From the Washington Examiner -
"Despite polls showing Republicans trailing in polls, the GOP’s top leader has revealed that it has raised more money in a midterm election year than any party in history and that its voter turnout plan is beating Democrats in some key districts.
“The RNC is investing in over 70 races across the country,” said Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel. “We're already on the ground in 27 states. In California two weeks ago, there were seven races where Hillary Clinton won those districts. In six of those districts, more Republicans turned out than Democrats. That is very good for us in those primaries"
Hmm, ya never know. Either the GOP elite is very comfortable with their standing going into the mid-terms or these comments are intended to reassure the doubting faithful and the pocketbooks. The GOP where I live is almost non-existent, so I don't have a good sense of the gestalt of the GOP. I do know that suburban Democrats don't like Trump but they sure like their improved circumstances, and they love that their kids are finally moving out of their basements.
The GOP did that...not the Democrats. I'll wager this election revolves around the economy and the MSM knows it, which is why they're trying so hard to make it about illegals.
Turnout in the primary has little-to-no correlation to turnout in the general.
Take somewhat recent history. 2000 Republican primary had 19M voters. Democratic primary had 14M voters. Who garnered more of the popular vote? Of course, you might say "but but, Bush won!" No disagreement there. But, we are talking about 2018. All of these politicians are elected by popular vote.
Turnout in the primary has little-to-no correlation to turnout in the general.
Take somewhat recent history. 2000 Republican primary had 19M voters. Democratic primary had 14M voters. Who garnered more of the popular vote? Of course, you might say "but but, Bush won!" No disagreement there. But, we are talking about 2018. All of these politicians are elected by popular vote.
Oh so the Democratic enthusiasm them might not mean anything
I didn't say anything about Democratic enthusiasm previously. I'm saying I don't care what the primaries say. They aren't a measure of the general. We have zero national-level elections to gauge enthusiasm on. When I say national, I don't necessarily mean presidential. We've had a lot of primaries to look at. And I'm saying... primaries don't correlate to the general.
We have had a lot of special general elections where a Republican and a Democrat are going head to head. Those count. In those special elections, the swing towards Democrats has been nothing short of remarkable even while coming up in short in many of them. Let's dismiss PA18 and AL-Senate since the candidates had more to do with the votes than anything else (Moore was a poor candidate and Lamb was a moderate). But in red districts where there was little if any talk about scandals with these candidates (essentially generic candidates), Democrats overperformed vs historical norms as recently as 2016.
KS: 23 point swing
AZ: 20 point swing
MT: 16 point swing
SC: 16 point swing
GA: 6 point swing
One of the following happened:
Democrats showed up at the polls (higher turnout)
Republicans shied away from the polls (lower turnout)
Republicans flipped
All of the above
Albeit, I'll be the first to say - these are districts, not whole states (well MT was technically the whole state). It doesn't mean these districts will go blue in 2018 or 2020. But, what it DOES say to many people is that in 2018, since Republicans are pretty much making this a referendum on Trump (they are backing him with no pretenses), we might see:
Democrats show up at the polls (higher turnout)
Republicans shy away from the polls (lower turnout)
Republicans flip
All of the above
I take more stock in general elections that pit the two sides than in primaries. I voted in the Republican primary. I'm a Democrat. Many people I know vote in the "other primary." Not because we scabs or anything. But because there are sometimes down-ballot elections that have more meaning to me - like who is running the state education department, town mayor, etc.
Oh so the Democratic enthusiasm them might not mean anything
Anger is not enthusiasm.
Democrats are fond of saying that no president has been more hated than Trump. That's probably true. But those vitriol filled zealots who hate him enough to shout "F*** you, President Trump" in the capitol need to remember that they only get one vote - same as me.
I didn't say anything about Democratic enthusiasm previously. I'm saying I don't care what the primaries say. They aren't a measure of the general. We have zero national-level elections to gauge enthusiasm on. When I say national, I don't necessarily mean presidential. We've had a lot of primaries to look at. And I'm saying... primaries don't correlate to the general.
We have had a lot of special general elections where a Republican and a Democrat are going head to head. Those count. In those special elections, the swing towards Democrats has been nothing short of remarkable even while coming up in short in many of them. Let's dismiss PA18 and AL-Senate since the candidates had more to do with the votes than anything else (Moore was a poor candidate and Lamb was a moderate). But in red districts where there was little if any talk about scandals with these candidates (essentially generic candidates), Democrats overperformed vs historical norms as recently as 2016.
KS: 23 point swing
AZ: 20 point swing
MT: 16 point swing
SC: 16 point swing
GA: 6 point swing
One of the following happened:
Democrats showed up at the polls (higher turnout)
Republicans shied away from the polls (lower turnout)
Republicans flipped
All of the above
Albeit, I'll be the first to say - these are districts, not whole states (well MT was technically the whole state). It doesn't mean these districts will go blue in 2018 or 2020. But, what it DOES say to many people is that in 2018, since Republicans are pretty much making this a referendum on Trump (they are backing him with no pretenses), we might see:
Democrats show up at the polls (higher turnout)
Republicans shy away from the polls (lower turnout)
Republicans flip
All of the above
I take more stock in general elections that pit the two sides than in primaries. I voted in the Republican primary. I'm a Democrat. Many people I know vote in the "other primary." Not because we scabs or anything. But because there are sometimes down-ballot elections that have more meaning to me - like who is running the state education department, town mayor, etc.
People are using an old model. Many, many states have closed primaries and many more people now than previously are unaffiliated and so cannot vote in the primaries.
Colorado (my state) just this year started allowing unaffiliated voters to vote in the primary coming up next Tuesday. Those voters were sent both ballots so they could choose candidates from one party or the other (they can only vote one ballot). It will be very interesting to see how/if this boosts participation given unaffiliated voters outnumber party affiliated voters in Colorado.
Until/unless that change occurs across the country, however, I think that trying to project November turnout based on primary turnout is a fool's errand.
As for fund-raising, people are still giving to Dem candidates, they just aren't doing it on the national level.
After the debacle of 2016, particularly the reports that money meant for down-ticket races never got disbursed to candidates, who can blame them?
People are using an old model. Many, many states have closed primaries and many more people now than previously are unaffiliated and so cannot vote in the primaries.
Until/unless that change occurs across the country, however, I think that trying to project November turnout based on primary turnout is a fool's errand.
I live in an open primary state (open for now, I think they are aiming to close it). I always vote in the Republican primary. It may seem underhanded, but I vote for what I call the "least of the crazy." The winner of the Republican primary is the winner of the general in nearly all cases. So, I'd rather try and get the "least crazy" elected. However, due to the nature of primaries in states where the general isn't really contested, the crazier candidates tend to make it through to the general.
Even special elections aren't that great of a measurement for the midterms, but they ARE data points of head-to-head races. Primaries aren't. I think it was back in 1980, Carter had nearly more primary votes than ALL of the Republican candidates... yet he lost by a landslide.
Oh so the Democratic enthusiasm them might not mean anything
As a case in point, Mary Bono lost her re-election bid by 6 % (53%-47%) in the general election in 2012 after getting 58% of the vote in the primary. In California, the primary vote is historically more Republican than the general election.
Hmm, ya never know. Either the GOP elite is very comfortable with their standing going into the mid-terms or these comments are intended to reassure the doubting faithful and the pocketbooks. The GOP where I live is almost non-existent, so I don't have a good sense of the gestalt of the GOP. I do know that suburban Democrats don't like Trump but they sure like their improved circumstances, and they love that their kids are finally moving out of their basements.
The GOP did that...not the Democrats. I'll wager this election revolves around the economy and the MSM knows it, which is why they're trying so hard to make it about illegals.
Im curious, why would Trump or Republicans get credit for that ?
In the last year and a half since Trump took office, economic mobility hasnt changed , meaning Trump nor republicans can claim they got kids out the basement.
In fact, the only way you could claim the GOP or Trump was responsible for that is if some college kid got a job in a reopened steel mill, which at best maybe 2,500(quick google search) people could claim.
I dont get the point of pretending the economy was was horrible 18 months ago, That logic would mean you are arguing a mass creation of jobs and people pretending to be employed before hand.
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.
