Will Trump take Ohio against Hillary in the General?

[Csainvestor]

Trump got more votes than Hillary in Ohio.
Does this then translate to a general election victory for Trump in Ohio?

[doc03]

1. Probably after saying she was going to shut down coal fired

power plants and put coal miners out of work.

[Ferd Berfel]

31. Well - SHe's Triangulated on Coal again

Clinton: 'Coal Will Be Part of the Energy Mix For Years to Come, Both in the U.S. and Around the World'
Hillary Clinton’s record is remarkably consistent, in serving the people at the top, by serving to them the people at the bottom.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/clinton-coal-will-be-part-energy-mix-years-come-both-us-and-around-world

[DavidDvorkin]

2. No.

[Csainvestor]

3. explain why not?

You can't just dismiss outright the fact that he got more votes than she did.
Are you really saying that doesn't matter at all? if so, why not?

[DavidDvorkin]

5. You don't know where the Sanders voters will go

Or how many Republican voters will switch to Hillary.

[Csainvestor]

6. Kasic, trump and Cruz got way more votes in Ohio.

The republicans got way more votes than hillary and bernie did in Ohio.

[DavidDvorkin]

9. That's been true in general in the primaries, and it is of no significance

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

[Csainvestor]

11. this is complete BS

and its more of Nate Silver hubris.

In a red state, i might agree that a higher republican turnout doesn't mean much.

But when the republicans got 2x the vote over the democrats, you don't just take that data point and throw it away.

Trump came in second in Ohio, and he got more votes than hillary.

[DavidDvorkin]

14. Your response is hubris on your part, and not a reasoned argument.

[Csainvestor]

17. what nate said makes sense in a red state.

it makes sense that turnout is higher for the republicans in south carolina for example.

Most of the contests have been held in red states, so that is why Nate and others say to ignore the data.

But when Ohio has twice the republican turnout over the democrats you don't ignore that data.
Trump got more votes than hillary, and trump came in second place.

you are hurting your own cause if you don't think with a result like this ohio isn't in play for the republicans.

[Garrett78]

21. Did you actually read the article?

The article, which was not written by Nate Silver, is backed up by quite a bit of data.

On top of that, the Republican race is considered to be more competitive and has gotten more press.

And on top of that, there are more candidates on the Republican side, so there are more GOTV campaigns in each state.

[basselope]

4. Yes, especially since Kasich will be his VP choice.

[MohRokTah]

7. No. eom

[Csainvestor]

8. The republicans got twice as many votes in ohio than the dems

Trump and Kasic got more votes than Hillary did.

You can't just dismiss that outright. Ohio is in play in the general.

[MohRokTah]

10. Primary turnout means absolutely nothing when it comes to the GE

So yeah, I sure as shit dismiss your bullshit argument out of hand.

But thanks for Trump humping any way.

[Csainvestor]

12. this is complete BS from nate silver.

nate has been full of unearned hubris this cycle.

In a red state, i might agree that a higher republican turnout doesn't mean much.

But in Ohio, when the republicans received 2x the vote over the democrats, you don't just take that data point and throw it away.

Trump came in second in Ohio, and he got more votes than hillary.

[MohRokTah]

15. Again, I dismiss your trump humping bullshit argument out of hand

You will do nothing to convince me it's anything more than a blatant attempt to put Trump on a pedestal.

[tritsofme]

23. Think about how many more votes Romney got in the 2012 primary compared to Obama...

How relevant was that to the general election outcome...exactly?

The Democratic primary race was not very competitive this year, Hillary scared away all but the C-lister challengers. Settled races draw less interest, it is no surprise a highly competitive GOP primary is drawing more turnout.

[Csainvestor]

27. he got them in red states.

that is my exact point. When supposed blue states show a 2x turnout favoring one party over the other, you understand my point.

[tritsofme]

35. Not true, Romney got more primary votes in Michigan than Obama, for instance.

To keep with your Ohio example, 1.2 million Republicans voted in the 2012 primary, and only 542k Democrats...so what did that mean...exactly for the general election outcome? Nothing. It was irrelevant.

Almost all states had higher cumulative turnout for the Republicans in 2012, and like this year it was not surprising, Democrats did not have a competitive race in either cycle.

[nashville_brook]

36. whoa, came in second AND received more votes than HRC?! this is DWS's strategy

to keep the primaries, essentially, an invite-only affair.

it's pure fantasy on the part of some, to believe that primary voting has no impact on GE voting. it's like saying that planting seeds has no impact on whether you'll grow a garden. who knows? a garden might pop up? who's to say? stranger things have happened.

[Broward]

13. Very good chance, yes, because of her past support

for job-killing free trade agreements.

[geek tragedy]

16. Hillary got more votes than Trump did in Texas. Yeeee-hawwww! nt

[tritsofme]

18. No, turnout in the primaries is irrelevant to the general.

Primary Turnout Means Nothing For The General Election
Republican turnout is up and Democratic turnout is down in the 2016 primary contests so far. That has some Republicans giddy for the fall; here’s an example...

But Democrats shouldn’t worry. Republicans shouldn’t celebrate. As others have pointed out, voter turnout is an indication of the competitiveness of a primary contest, not of what will happen in the general election. The GOP presidential primary is more competitive than the Democratic race.

Indeed, history suggests that there is no relationship between primary turnout and the general election outcome. You can see this on the most basic level by looking at raw turnout in years in which both parties had competitive primaries. There have been six of those years in the modern era: 1976, 1980, 1988, 1992, 2000 and 2008....

So it shouldn’t be surprising that Republican turnout is higher than Democratic turnout this year. Hillary Clinton is a commanding front-runner on the Democratic side, while the front-runner on the Republican side has earned only one-third of the vote and less than half the delegates allocated so far. Voters are turning out for the more competitive contest. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/primary-turnout-means-nothing-for-the-general-election/

[CincyDem]

19. nope.

For reasons I' still not able to clearly explain, a lot of Dems crossed the great Blue/Red divide to vote for the Donald. I guess they wanted to bury Kasich (albeit unsuccessfully).

So I'm not buying the more votes than Hillary. November is a different world in Ohio and the only think it'll have in common with the primaries is the calendar year at the end of the day. March 2016 and November 2016 - different planets.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. LOL

Hillary Clinton won more votes than Trump in Texas, Virginia, and Florida. By your logic she will win those states in the general election.

Please cite the Republican(s) who won the White House while losing Texas, Virginia, and Florida?

[Csainvestor]

24. hillary won't win texas.

Ted cruz demolished her in texas. Kasic got way more votes in Ohio than Hillary did.

My point is that you would expect a primary in texas to have a higher turnout for the republicans.
In red states, one would expect a much higher republican turnout.

Look at MA as an example.
The democrats had 2x the turnout over the republicans. But in Ohio the republicans has 2x the turnout over the dems.

Most of the primaries so far have been held in red states, that is why republican turnout has been much higher. Ohio is the first large battleground state, and the results do not look good for the dems.

In Michigan Republican turnout and democratic turnout were basically even. But the turnout in Ohio is an outlier.

I would argue turnout in Michigan means this state might be in play as well.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. You are conflating two different cohort groups.

Primary and general election cohort groups aren't the same, the latter is infinitely larger.

[speaktruthtopower]

22. Trump is an unpredictable wild card..

that makes both parties nervous right now.

[Vinca]

28. Ohio Democrats crossed over to vote for Trump because they think he'll be easy to beat.

If that's true, we don't know the real count so it's anyone's guess.

[LonelyLiberalOhio]

29. Hillary can't win Ohio without HUGE black turnout.

Guess what, that just will not happen.

[FarPoint]

30. Hillary will take Ohio....

Strong, strong support in Dayton, Toledo, Columbus, Youngstown, Cleveland, Cincinnati.

[Trust Buster]

32. ANOTHER PRO-TRUMP THREAD. HE'S NOT A DEMOCRAT !!!!!!!

[Politicalboi]

33. Hillary's NOT going to be in the GE

So don't worry about it.

[Adrahil]

34. No. NT

[brooklynite]

37. No, for this basic reason: the Primary electorate is not the General Election electorate

The Primary electorate is a subsample of the most activist members of each Party. This time round, the Party activists are looking forward to replacing President Obama, just as the Democratic activists looked forward to replacing President Bush in 2008. However, most voters don't bother to participate in the Primary process. In 2008, there were 55.6 M votes in the Republican AND Democratic Primaries; that's less than the 59 M votes McCain got alone, and far less than the 65 M Obama got. So Primary turnout tells you very little about what the total electorate will don.