Since 1972, the party with higher turnout in primaries has gone 4-7 in the general election.

[wyldwolf]

Nate Silver
?@NateSilver538

Since 1972, the party with higher turnout in primaries has gone 4-7 in the general election.

cc: @rupertmurdoch

[yeoman6987]

1. Well that's not good.

[onenote]

6. Why? It suggests that turnout in the primaries is not a determining factor.

Other factors obviously are more important.

One year when primary turnout corresponded with the general result was 2008. But this year more closely resembles 1988 than 2008. In 2008 the party with the higher turnout was running against an unpopular President. In 1988, the party with the higher turnout was running against a popular president. Reagan's favorables in 1988 are not that far off of Obama's today.

[yeoman6987]

7. Oops read it wrong.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. Almost a coin toss./nt

[Gregorian]

3. Bush burnout?

We must be nerds around here, because it appears Americans aren't participating. I was burnt from Reagan. That took some time to return from.


Edit- hold everything; Colorado turnout was high.

[gcomeau]

4. Is that...

4 FOR 7?

4 AND 7?

What?


(Edit, and now I see since 1972 and do math. Must mean 4 AND 7. That's a pretty bad record.)

[wyldwolf]

5. 4 and 7 (won 4, lost 7)

[onenote]

10. In more than half of those elections there was incumbent with no real opposition

1972 -Nixon
1984 - Reagan
1992- Bush I
1996- Clinton
2004- Bush II
2012 - Obama

Not really fair to consider primary turnout when you have a incumbent who doesn't have meaningful opposition.

[NurseJackie]

8. I imagine...

... he has already taken those numbers into consideration in his prediction that Hillary will win the presidency.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. Gee I just made that exact point

thanks let me burrow this

[4139]

11. Misleading stat! Obama did not have a primary challenge in 2012; W 2004, Clinton 1996...

Nor Bush I 1992, Reagan 1984

I would like to see the stats for 2008, 2000, 1988... I believe those are the only years with no incumbent

[wyldwolf]

12. Here's a clue on two of them

Michael McDonald, a professor at the University of Florida and a voter turnout guru, notes that in 2000 the Republican primary turnout ran ahead of that for Democrats (by around 3 million votes), and yet Al Gore won the popular vote over George Bush.

Over at RealClearPolitics, Sean Trende adds that 1988 saw the second-highest Democratic primary turnout ever. But Republican George H.W. Bush went on to win the general election anyway.

[onenote]

13. Where there is no incumbent or an opposed incumbent: 2 wins, 2 losses, one virtual tie.

1980 - Carter was an unpopular incumbent, with significant opposition. Democrats had higher turnout but lost.

1988 -- No incumbent. Higher primary numbers for Democrats, but lost.

1992: -- Bush was an unpopular incumbent with slightly more than token opposition. Democrats had higher turnout and won.

2000 -- No incumbent. Gore had slightly more than token opposition. Republicans had higher turnout and won (sort of).

2008 -- No incumbent. Higher primary numbers for Democrats, Democrats win.

[AgerolanAmerican]

14. Begs an obvious question

does that include years when a popular incumbent ran all but uncontested in a primary? If so, it's not a very useful stat.

[Nonhlanhla]

15. Someone here mentioned the other day

that the lower Dem turnout might be due more to the fact that we have only two candidates in the field (and DU wars aside, many Dems are fairly comfortable with either one), while the GOP primary still has several candidates, one of whom pulls in a lot of angry voters, and the rest of whom pull in voters who are trying to counter the angry-voter candidate.

If that's the case, then the turnout issue may not be such a big problem for us in the GE. Especially since the GOP camp seems even more polarized than ours.