Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A (very) Brief Analysis of Primary Results (Vanity)
Myself, Data from Wikipedia | 8 June 2016 | Self

Posted on 06/08/2016 8:45:37 AM PDT by drop 50 and fire for effect

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last
To: drop 50 and fire for effect
Also consider that Trump has been running unopposed since the Nebraska primary. If there had been a full slate of candidates for the primaries held since then the GOP numbers would be even larger.

As for the Berned Bernie supporters I think a sizable number of them will move to Trump. I'm not talking about the brain dead millennials, but the rank and file democrats who voted for him because they are as fed up with the DC establishment as Trump's supporters are. It's all anecdotal, I admit, but I can't tell you how many voters I saw interviewed on news shows who said they were trying to decide between Trump and Bernie. With Bernie gone I'd bet that 10-15% of his support migrates to Trump. I also think that the same number will just stay home.

21 posted on 06/08/2016 9:31:06 AM PDT by pgkdan (The Silent Majority Stands With TRUMP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ransomed

Donald Trump might be God’s mercy to an entertainment-addicted society. If it has to have snow-cones of spectacle offered to it in order to come into a half-sensible tent, then it will.

We can’t keep up like this long term, but something has to be the turning point.


22 posted on 06/08/2016 9:32:29 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: drop 50 and fire for effect

On the surface, those numbers would point to a Trump landslide in November. But other interpretations would include:

1. Republican turn-out was so high because it was heavily contested, with 17 candidates initially. Plus, once it was narrowed, there were enough zealots for each of the candidates remaining, that it drove continued high turnout. When it narrowed to 2, the pro-Trump and anti-Trump passions were high, as were those for/against Cruz (but to a lesser extent). That kept turnout high, as the contest went on so long.

2. On the Dem side, you have the “vote for any female” block that’s been just waiting for this historic moment, so “H” got some number of enthusiasts out for her. But I think those same folks will turn out in the same numbers in November, so the lower overall turnout doesn’t bode well for her. Bernie’s was truly a movement about socialism, and the continued economic ills Obama’s “leadership” created. These malcontents are convinced of a zero-sum game: they’re facing hardships because the rich people, or something. In fact, the Dem’s entire appeal to this mass is that all ills are traced back to the greed of the 1%. But NEITHER of these groups are large in number, and the bulk of the Dems look at the current party make-up and say “that’s not me, and that’s not who I am” - so they stayed home. This should also continue in November.

So the real questions to me are:

- how many newly created and highly-motivated pro-Trump voters will there be?
- how many of the anti-Trump Repubs from the primaries will hold their nose and vote anti-Hillary (for Trump)?
- how many anti-Hillary Dems will vote for Trump?
- how many on both sides will stay home?
- wildcard: will Hillary face indictment?

I think there is more excitement and support for Trump (net of the small but vocal “never Trump” crowd) than Hillary’s “first woman president” group.

I think the Bernie supports will split - some supporting any Dem (including Hillary) before any Repub (regardless of Trump). Others, and in large numbers, will never vote Hillary - or any other ESTABLISHMENT candidate. Here, Trump could snare some defectors. But the big message here is that pro-Bernie will NOT mean pro-Hillary.

Finally, there are more registered Dems than Repubs now than in 2008 and 2012 - both in real numbers, and a percentages of voting-age people. That’s a real, structural deficit that has to be overcome by the other facts, above.

Trump in a squeeker - unless he does something monumentally stupid.


23 posted on 06/08/2016 9:38:03 AM PDT by Be Free (I believe in gun control. The more people that control their own guns, the safer we'll all be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: relictele

What muslim or other 3rd world dictator will shake her hand, let alone respect her as a POTUS? THAT is a key to why she must not win. That and her purposeful dissolution of the US...TPP.

Then, there’s the military.

We will be Venezuela.


24 posted on 06/08/2016 9:41:33 AM PDT by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Additional Reference / Covers Delegates Allotted to Date

Click on the graphic for the source. You can right click view, to see a larger version of a specific graphic.


25 posted on 06/08/2016 9:43:37 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (He wins & we do, our nation does, the world does. It's morning in America again. You are living it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drop 50 and fire for effect

My take is Hillary only needs 765,000 fraudulent votes to become the next dictator.


26 posted on 06/08/2016 9:46:36 AM PDT by VTenigma (The Democratic party is the party of the mathematically challenged)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JLAGRAYFOX
You are right about the suspicious timing of the "hildabeast wins" announcement.

I disagree that sander's supporters just gave up on that news. They are slavishly obsessed and are convinced that they are dead right. That would drive a stronger turnout not weaken one.

IMO it isn't over. They will not quit, just change direction, It's a classic revolutionary's tactic.

27 posted on 06/08/2016 9:52:10 AM PDT by pfflier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: drop 50 and fire for effect
Trump's periodic verbal diarrhea has been pretty much proven to be facts that those who oppose him try to twist and leverage w/o sticking to the truth - it has been the main downfall of those who fell as he steamrolled them. He and his lawyers vetted out the judge before he made that latest statement and those who oppose him focus on the word "Mexican" while ignoring the guy's ties to pro-illegal Mexican invaders.

As someone else pointed out, the judge would fail the jury test due to his associations....

28 posted on 06/08/2016 10:10:29 AM PDT by trebb (Where in the the hell has my country gone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
Dead voters is passé. Oh they will show up at the polls but so will millions of illegals and legal alien immigrants with the DoJ riding herd on states that don't have voter ID laws. Other states won't be permitted to question prospective voters about anything, including the 300th reappearance of the same face and maybe even same name at the voting site.
29 posted on 06/08/2016 10:51:31 AM PDT by arthurus (Het is waar. Tutti i liberalsoli o feccia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: areukiddingme1

Racism covers any disagreement with liberals or membership in the wrong social group.


30 posted on 06/08/2016 10:53:38 AM PDT by arthurus (Het is waar. Tutti i liberalsoli o feccia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kit cat

Trump cannot win in Cali because the huge number of illegals there will be herded to the polls and they have LEGAL access to the election vy virtue of the fact that they can legally vote in California for state and local issues and candidates. All those things are on the same ballot with Presidential and Congressional election choices. The registrars in Cali tell the registering illegals to go ahead and vote the whole ticket because “who will know?”


31 posted on 06/08/2016 10:58:53 AM PDT by arthurus (Het is waar. Tutti i liberalsoli o feccia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Ransomed
Nobody really seems to care that millions and millions in campaign money is spent to convince the swayable to vote one way or the other, and we still haven’t broken the bottom line 65% eligible voter turnout in 108 years. That is pretty amazing to me.
Have you considered the possibility that some of that $$$ was spent to dissuade people from voting?

32 posted on 06/08/2016 11:04:35 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion ('Liberalism' is a conspiracy against the public by wire-service ing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion

Absolutely, the money is spent to influence voting by the swayable. Convincing them to not vote is still convincing them one way or the other. But I think maybe the biggest reason is that most folks just don’t care. And maybe things would actually be worse if more people voted. Supposedly the 10% of dumbest voters decide elections, the ones that vote one and then another for reasons that they usually can’t explain coherently. So if more people voted, maybe the swing voter % just goes up.

Freegards


33 posted on 06/08/2016 11:16:02 AM PDT by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson