New Yorker: “The Democratic-primary turnout likely isn’t all that accurate a projection of the general elections. In the first place, people usually come out to vote under two conditions… first, when races are competitive and, second, when they see a significant difference between the candidates. With a smaller field and a front-runner who has held on to that spot, the Democratic race has clearly been much less competitive than the Republican one, even if Sanders has proved to be a more relentless marathon runner than many people thought he’d be. That’s a sharp contrast with the polarized Republican contest, and with the feeling a majority of Republican voters said they harbored of having been betrayed by their party’s leading politicians.”
“A general election pitting Clinton against Trump would offer about the most Manichaean contrast imaginable in American electoral politics… And while it might not be that closely competitive—polls at this point show both Clinton and Sanders handily beating Trump in an electoral-vote contest—there’s an exception to the rule that people are more likely to vote when they perceive the contest as tight… Sometimes, voters are so horrified by a candidate that they come out to register their opposition, even when they’re reasonably confident he or she will lose.”
Save to Favorites