Predicting the 2016 Primary Election Voter Turnout in Texas


It’s time to venture out on that limb that is fraught with danger and offers little support; however, I feel compelled to go there. So here’s my prediction for turnout in the Republican and Democratic primary elections on March 1, 2016.

First, the data for voter turnout in the 15 largest Texas counties provides the basis for the projected turnout. In 2008, nearly 900 thousand Democrats voted early, either in-person or by mail, in the 15 largest counties. That year, of course, featured a hard-fought campaign between then-Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton. In 2012, when President Obama faced no opposition, turnout was only a few more than 222,000. In 2016, Democrats were more numerous as nearly 449,000 voted.  On the Republican side, turnout has not varied as much:  303,338 voted in 2008, and 343,497 voted in 2012 in the 15 largest counties. The table shows the turnout for each party in 2008, 2012, and 2016 in the 15 counties as well as the total turnout in the primary elections in 2008 and 2012:



The following table shows the percentage of the total vote provided by the early vote in each party in 2008 and in 2012:



Assuming that the vote in the 15 counties will provide approximately 35 percent of the total vote in the Democratic Party’s primary in 2016, there will be approximately 1,282,454 votes cast in the Democratic primary. Assuming that the vote in the 15 counties will provide approximately 24 percent of the total vote in the Republican primary, there will approximately 2,742,533 votes cast in the Republican primary.

We'll see how close my prediction is on Wednesday, March 2nd.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Whither the Republican Party?

Jonathan Rauch and Benjamin Wittes write in The Atlantic magazine: So we arrive at a syllogism: (1) The GOP has become the party of Trumpism. (2) Trumpism is a threat to democratic values and the rule of law. (3) The Republican Party is a threat to democratic values and the rule of law. A syllogism is, according to dictionary.com: 1. Logic. an argument the conclusion of which is supported by two premises, of which one (major premise) contains the term (major term) that is the predicate of the conclusion, and the other (minor premise) contains the term (minor term) that is the subject of the conclusion; common to both premises is a term (middle term) that is excluded from the conclusion. A typical form is “All A is C; all B is A; therefore, all B is C.”. 2. deductive reasoning. 3. an extremely subtle, sophisticated, or deceptive argument. Which definition applies here?   First, has the GOP become the party of Trump? Has he taken control of the party appa...
Read more

Choices for the Final Four (ICRC Commissions, that is)

Image
With four commission positions remaining to be filled, whom should the commissioners select? The commissioners should choose an African American male from TCCC precinct 1. Since the greatest concentrations of African Americans are located in TCCC precinct 1 (see this map ), choosing an African American from this geographic area would provide the greatest voice to the area with the highest concentration of African Americans in the city and the area that would most likely be included in a council district that would possess a plurality of African Americans. The choice should Nathaniel Bradford because of his connections to the community. An Anglo male and an Anglo female should be chosen from TCCC precinct 2. One, if not both, should be chosen from those voter precincts slightly east and west of MOPAC that featured high voter turnout in the 2012 mayoral election (see this map ). The male and female from those voting precincts who the ARP considered the most qualified are He...
Read more

In Defense of a Theory

I’m a big fan of political scientist Seth Masket, but what he wrote in defense of the theory of presidential nominations expounded in The Party Decides intrigues me. First, he notes that his initial defense caused some blowback: Last week at Mischiefs of Faction , I wrote about the book The Party Decides and the extent to which the 2016 is causing trouble for it. I argued that the Republican race isn't providing a very clean test of the theory, while the Democratic race is. This invited substantial pushback from Jonathan Chait , Justin Grimmer , and others, suggesting that I was either protecting the theory from actual testing, or that the theory itself was untestable. So I'd like to clarify a bit and suggest just what evidence we've gathered this year. Then, he goes on to explain more fully: Now, in my recent post, I focused on what I see as the central claim of the book: The party generally gets what it wants. That is, when party elites have selected a...
Read more