Numbers and self-discipline

  

"Let me give you a couple of numbers. In 2008 the Republicans turned out a total of 20,799,209 in 45 Primaries. In 2016 (and I only have numbers for 40 of the 45 Primaries), the Republicans have 27,204,900. Before the night is over the Republicans will have more than 30 million votes.

The Democrats, by contrast, had 36,919,660 votes for their candidates in the 2008 battle that featured Obama and Clinton. The 2016 numbers fell off a cliff. Through 40 contests the Democrats only have 23,799,193. The Democrats will be lucky to reach 30 million when the night is over.

So, do you think a move with the Republicans increasing voter turnout by almost 12 million and the Democrats shrinking by about 7 million is meaningless?"  Larry Johnson

-------------

IMO there are two ways to look at the US political situation as of 8 June, 2016:

1.  The numbers cited above by Larry Johnson are pretty clear and the pattern persists.  IMO the growth in Republican primary voters is largely the result of an electorate in rebellion against the establishment parties.  basically, these numbers are the result of shrinkage in the US employment rate and the resulting loss of income for both blue collar working class people and recent university graduates who are heavily burdened with loan debt and unable to find employment commensurate with their newly acquired skills.  The former group heavily supports Trump and is largely indifferent to the memetic attacks on Trump that are now non-stop in the Borgist media.  This group is likely to continue to support Trump.  The unhappy college kids have largely supported Sanders but now have been frustrated in their hopes.  Where will this group go?  Who knows?  This over all situation would seem to favor Trump.

2.  OTOH there is Trump himself, a man seemingly devoted to the task pf shooting himself in the foot every day.  Will he learn to discipline himself?  That might happen but I would not bet on it.

If Trump does not clean up his act and quickly he will become a massive liability that threatens GOP control of the US Senate and its present dominant position in state governments.

If that happens the GOP establishment will have no choice but to find some way to dump him so that it can try to save its larger interests.  I have heard a rules change at the convention discussed today, a change that might ensure a second ballot with a lot of freed delegates.  pl 

http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/79137/watch-tonights-primary-turnout/

Comments

[Peter]

The vast majority of Bernie supporters will ultimately vote for Hillary in the end. Bernie will be very vocal about how the Democratic party must now get behind their candidate in order to "beat Trump." Obama will also throw more public support behind Hillary leading up to the election (obviously).

It's a pipe dream to think that all of these frustrated Bernie supporters will show up on election day and vote third party. Most will be convinced to vote for Hillary and the rest won't show up at all.

[turcopolier]

Peter

I don't think I said anything about Bernyites' probable votes. You nicely ignored the rise in Republican voting and the decline in Democratic voting. Johnson's Democrat numbers aggregate the votes cast for HC and Bernie. pl

[jsn]

The Democrats are too certain the left has no place to go and have been running their primary on voter suppression. They are deliberately alienating Sanders supporters thinking they will be so horrified of Trump they will vote for Hillary. I'm one of those Sanders supporters and I find Hillary a great deal scarier than Trump. As a commenter over at Naked Capitalism put it, Hillary is a trap and "if I had my leg caught in a trap I like to think I'd have the courage to chew my leg off to save my life." Trump may be chewing my leg off, but at least I'll be out of the trap.

[DC]

The Rs would be wise to dump Trump, if they are interested in their Party and our Republic. A Kasich/Nikki Haley ticket would destroy Clinton in November. Certainly, I would vote that ticket. If that doesn't happen, I see little honorable choice but to write in Sanders, or perhaps consider Jill Stein of the Green party (I must admit, I haven't looked very deeply into the G's platform). The main point being that both of our mainstream parties are broken; and Peter is simply incorrect that citizens of character can be expected to hold their noses and vote for either one of the D/R rotten candidates.

[jeff roby]

Stein got about 0.36% of the votes in 2012, per the FEC. She's now polling around 3.0%. It is traditional that 3rd party candidates see a serious drop between their polling results and the actual election, due to the lesser evil scare tactics.

Two factors may be different: (1) many Democrats do not consider Hillary the lesser anything; and (2) we don't know the fallout from Sanders OFFICIALLY failing to receive the nod.

So Stein is a wildcard. If her total substantially increases over 2012 (or over Nader's 2.74%), that would indicate trend, impacting more than would be indicated than a reading of the raw numbers.

And so far Stein is being largely frozen out of media coverage. The defection of Sanders voters gives her a news hook, and the ice is beginning to break (Gentlemen's Quarterly and Rolling Stone). Let's fasten our seatbelts.

[Jack]

Sir

I would like to make two points.

One, Trump can't change who he is. He's not going to go toe to toe with Hillary on wonky policy details. So, IMO, he'll continue the campaign that won him the primary into the general. This will likely cause deep embarrassment and consternation among the establishment Republicans. However, they miss the fact that Trump is bringing forth a more passionate voter and in larger numbers than their past standard bearers.

Second, this election will be true to form and decided by a few states in the mid-west and south-east. I believe Ohio, Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania will decide the outcome. Possibly North Carolina could also be a swing state. Hillary will win the majority of the blacks, hispanics, other ethnic minorities and many white women. The question is how many of those women? If Trump peels of a few, she may not be able to get more than him in those states. We do know however that the Borgist media, the Republican neocons as well as the financial elite will be fully backing Hillary with the intent of painting Trump as dangerous. This will be a vicious campaign on both sides. I believe the odds have to be in Hillary's favor but I would not under-estimate Trump and the anti-establishment mood among the white working class.

[turcopolier]

Jack et al

You, too, have ignored the numbers. pl

[Walter Jeffers]

Attributing Trump's support (for the most part) to anything besides his opposition to illegal immigration is wrong. Middle America has awakened to the demographic threat that millions of third world people from Latin America/Africa/Asia pose to this country's fundamental system.

Kasich/Haley both actively seek to expand the invasion.

On the positive side, if the demographics shift, there will be less intervention in third world conflicts. Pedro from Oaxaca could not care less about Israel's right to exist.

[BabelFish]

Jack,

The so called democratic constituencies do not vote in numbers and it appears to be declining. The current governor of Florida would be Charlie Crist if just 50% of the African American voters, registered as democrats, had voted in the last gubenatorial election. Just in one county, although a populous one.

Even Bernie commented that 'poor people don't vote'. As enraged as Millennials are about student debt and the bank shenanigans dealt with in the movie 'The Big Short', they appear not to vote. Until we can vote on smart phones, apparently they can't be bothered to look up from their texting to do so.

Yeah, I'm grumpy about it.

[Fred]

Walter,

The first Hispanic to win a presidential primary was United States Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. The MSM and the Democrats, however, keep reminding us that all true Hispanics are going to vote democratic. Which might be news to Ted and his other senate colleague, Marco Rubio of Florida and the millions of people who voted them both into office.

[Jack]

Sir

Do you believe the discrepancy of the swing in turnout will continue into the general?

[Peter in Toronto]

This future format of the great American experiment hinges on this election.

We know what to expect with Shillary: broadly following the same foreign policy path carried over from Clinton, to Bush and now with Obama, that is to say, a Middle Eastern foreign policy monopolized by Israeli agents, antagonization of Iran and Russia, numerous, ruinous proxy wars in contested, failing states like Ukraine, expansion of the legal framework in support of globalist trade and the etheric, un-bound trans-national capital, depleting North America of any vestiges of industry resulting in social upheaval at home.

On the home front expect more "progress" in identity politics, class warfare, gender warfare, oppression Olympics and further eroding the foundations of society.

An establishment Republican is virtually no different, since they are owned by the same high net worth individuals.

[JiuJitsuMMA]

DC,

I support Sanders & I know most of the other Sanders supporters like me will throw their support to Green Party Dr. Jill Stein, who has the same platforms as Bernie -she
is actually more of a peace, anti-war candidate than Bernie & wants diplomacy
-she wants less foreign intervention, no more wars, etc

I know it will be more of a protest vote but current voting rules in most states are if you write in 'Sanders', your vote will NOT be counted unfortunately because they don't count write-ins per the rules (dumb rule, I know)

She's actually for CUTTING taxes for the middle-class & has the same gun policies as Sanders (she says people can own guns with background checks & sensible local regulations)

-she actually has less baggage than Sanders (she has never called herself a 'democratic socialist' so the Republicans can't demonize her as a 'commie' or 'socialist')

She's for
1) no more wars except for actual self-defense
2) a GI Bill-type benefits for all US citizens of free university & a public-option universal healthcare or similiar Medicare-for-citizens plan
3) LOWER taxes for the middle-class with higher taxes on the top 1% & Wall St bankers
4) cutting sales taxes, NO VAT
5) energy independence free from the Middle East & oil by investing in Green Energy
6) end the war against marijuana, legalize/decriminalize it as seen successfully in Colorado, Cali, Netherlands, Portugal, etc
7) pro-choice

Because the US issues it's own fiat currency & owns it's own central bank unlike the EURO-using countries,
this allows the US to create money to fund it's investments/spending without higher taxes (this is how Japan, Singapore, & China can have 15%-30% tax rates while having massive gov 'deficit' spending, because all gov spending is income for the private sector)

Increased demand/spending stimulates increased hiring & increased production, which increase supply of goods & services that offsets the increased money supply & keeps inflation LOW,
ie,
if you double the number of apples, prices of apples stay relatively the same even as you double money supply
.. see more Modern Monetary economics at link below:

Economics myths deubnked here (verified by Federal Reserve officials & Nobel Prize Laureates) 1) http://moslereconomics.com/mandatory-readings/innocent-frauds/
2) https://mythfighter.com/2009/09/07/introduction/

Green Party & Jill Stein on issues here:
1) http://www.jill2016.com/plan
2) http://www.ontheissues.org/Jill_Stein.htm
3) http://www.bustle.com/articles/159282-jill-stein-versus-bernie-sanders-on-the-progessive-issues-that-matter-most

[Charles Michael]

Yes, obviously,
Question is: are these numbers related to a huge numbers in abstentions from Democrat side and/or increase in Republicans participation.
And other question, considering the large number of abstentions at final stage (November)how will this clear trend translate.

From what I read Trump has brougth a full new segment of voters, supporting him during the primary.
On the contrary the Democrat party to protect Hilary Clinton entitlement has permanently done its best to minimize the voters capacity to express their choice.

From a poll (BBC tonigth) the Sanders supporters woukd vote 52 % for Clinton, 15 % for Trump, other for others candidates or don't know yet.
And the Sanders rebellion is not over yet, by far.

[Kooshy]

Colonel, I think you are totally corect in your analysis, I have exact same take, with difference of the young college voters will choose not to vote. IMO this group are discusted of both nominees.

[Will Reks]

Pat,

I do not take any issue with the numbers. A writer for 538 explored this trend some months ago. His take seems to be that the Republican primaries saw greater turnout because they were far more competitive and that it is not a great indicator of general election performance.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/primary-turnout-means-nothing-for-the-general-election/

I think the GOP would be risking chaos where they to steal the nomination from Trump. He's not the type to roll over and his core supporters would be furious.

Something to consider with Trump is that he seems to alienate one voter for every one he might attract to the voting booth. He may have good luck in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania but may end up in trouble in Florida due to the high Latino population.

HRC, however, is a very weak candidate and he still has a chance, however slim. We will see if there are a lot of previously missing white voters who live in places where they can make a difference for Trump.

[turcopolier]

Charles Michael

"are these numbers related to a huge numbers in abstentions from Democrat side and/or increase in Republicans participation." What else would they be, or don't you like the possibilities? pl

[turcopolier]

will reks

"His take seems to be that the Republican primaries saw greater turnout because they were far more competitive and that it is not a great indicator of general election performance." that sounds like a weak explanation to me. pl

[turcopolier]

Jack

How can it not? The question is "how much? pl

[505thPIR]

Imagine if you will a Trump Presidency. Here is one angle to consider: His business empire such as it is. Who is going to run it? He certainly won't have the time to do so. Sooo, likely, one of his kids. I betcha big bucks that he won't be able to keep his fingers out of it. Will surely have some back-channel stuff going on. There is probably a good chance that he will run in to a conflict of interest situation and either by blunder, ignorance or even deliberately influence the process. The Clinton foundation stuff could be "Trump Change"....Also, what an inviting angle for foreign intelligence services to get some kind of leverage on him or his minions. Interesting indeed.

[ked]

No, Col, it is not meaningless. However, it is not necessarily meaningful either. Primary turnout may not be reliably applied linearly to the general election - especially in these days of hyper-gerrymandered districts and open primaries and easy party-switching. Not to mention the behaviors we will observe in the campaign.

The analysis you make (as I understand it) suggests that greater turnout this cycle will be Trump-populist in nature. I believe that some of that segment will lose drive by Nov, even as some of "silent centrists" emerge to secretly vote for his opposition.

I expect highly dynamic events (wild theatrics / public tantrums / party-palace coups / October Surprises (Weekly! on America's Got Crazy!)... the upshot of which will be a greater than typical turnout in Nov (a pretty low standard) that will yield a predictable outcome (seen from the future, looking backward, considering the long arc of trends and choice our polity makes). Should be entertaining ... maybe both parties will collapse from exhaustion... & not revive.

[turcopolier]

ked

An interesting theory of how the numbers however large may be meaningless. pl

[ked]

One would have to take a closer look, but many of the flood of GOP votes in the primaries are in states that are already solid for the GOP (most of the South, Plains & (some) West. That extra participation does not yield electoral votes.

You are on target concerning the importance of swing states. Which are they? & How they might swing? 130M voted in the '12 General... will 10% more come out this go-'round? We may see turnout unequaled since the turn of the 19th century - when it was on a downtrend rather than upward (as for the most recent three). We haven't experienced four consecutive increases in turnout since FDR.

This will be a hard one to predict / project via the usual means statisticians employ. However, things will become clear no later than about about three weeks prior to the election itself... if these candidates make it that far.

[Jack]

Good point Fred. The Cubans in Florida have traditionally voted Republican.

The question is how many hispanics in Ohio, Michigan Pennsylvania, North Carolina? Will they vote in sufficient numbers for the Borg Queen?

[LG]

To me the numbers are telling. It is not just that Republican voters are angry, they seem to have been so even in the last election. The rising numbers seem to show that GOP voters feel that they've finally found a candidate that responds to their concerns. No more Mitt Romney secretly sneering at them.

The opposite is the case for the democrats. The declining numbers indicate that they aren't much enthused by either candidate.