Something I don't understand about Tuesday's Primary Results

[politicaljunkie41910]

Kentucky - Summary Vote Results

In the Kentucky Senate race Dem's cast a total of 403,950 votes to the GOP's 355,365 total votes with 100% of the votes reported. This amounts to the Dems casting 48,585 more votes than the GOP and this is the primarys where supposedly Dems don't show up to vote. (see actual votes per candidates below). I saw this pattern repeated last night as I was watching election returns in other areas as well that the Dems were leading in several of the primaries when you compare the total votes cast by party. So why do the Dems think that we cannot win some of these offices in the General Election come November and Pollster's think that there is less than a 1% difference between Lundergan and McConnell.

Sorry I don't have more data but I tried to find more election results which show total votes cast by party and I had no luck. I couldn't spend all day looking for it, nor was I will ing to suscribe to newspapers I don't currently read. Most of the links just listed winners and losers and not total votes cast by candidates. If someone her can provide me with a link which shows election returns by office by candidate for the 2014 Primary I would appreciate it.


May 21, 2014 - 12:04AM ET (i) = incumbent = winner = runoff
U.S. Senate - Dem Primary
3736 of 3736 Precincts Reporting - 100%
Name Party Votes Vote %
Grimes, Alison Lundergan Dem 309,207 77%
Leichty, Gregory Dem 32,617 8%
Farnsley, Burrel Dem 32,311 8%
Recktenwald, Tom Dem 29,815 7%


U.S. Senate - GOP Primary
3736 of 3736 Precincts Reporting - 100%
Name Party Votes Vote %
McConnell, Mitch (i) GOP 213,881 60%
Bevin, Matt GOP 125,876 35%
Sterling, Shawna GOP 7,236 2%
Payne, Chris GOP 5,339 2%
Copas, Brad GOP 3,033 1%



http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2014/by_state/KY_US_Senate_0520.html?SITE=AP&SECTION=POLITICS

[hrmjustin]

1. The same thing happened in 2010 yet the gop won the seat.

In KY their are more registered democrats and they tend to vote in higher numbers in primaries.

However in 2010 it was an close primary in the Democratic primary and this time there was no real primary but a very good turnout. I think that this may indicate strong support for her in the general.

[politicaljunkie41910]

3. I saw these types of results repeatedly last night.

I thought the Dems don't show up during Primaries and in off years. So are you saying that the Dems do show up in Primaries but not the General Election in an off year. Are the almost 50,000 more voters who voted for Lungreen going to switch their vote for McConnell or not show up?

[hrmjustin]

8. I think in the general there will be 1.1 to1.3 million votes likely cast in KY this fall.

The people who voted in the dem primary will be there in the fall but she needs to get another 300,000 to 400,000 more democrats to the polls.

In a state like KY that is easier said then done for a democrat in a mid term. She can do it but it will be hard. The fact is primary turnout doesn't foretell general election results.

Having said that she got a lot of votes for someone who barely had a primary.

[Lurks Often]

2. KY has closed primaries

Since only those who have chosen to register with a specific party can vote in the primary, primary results don't take into account the independent or non affiliated voters in the state.

[politicaljunkie41910]

4. I guess that would make sense if the independents and 3rd parties don't vote in the primary. Thanks

I'm not use to that. I'm from California and we can vote.

[Proud Public Servant]

7. That's not the answer

See my post (#6) below.

[spinbaby]

5. Could be Dems had more interesting primaries

I know that here in PA, the governor's race got a lot of interest with a four-way race on the Democratic side and a big yawn on the Republican side. Since we can't cross over to the other party to vote in primaries, Democrats had a lot more motivation to vote.

[Proud Public Servant]

6. It's NOT independent voters

At first I was going to say that it was simply independents; independents don't vote in primaries, which are party-specific, but they do vote in general elections, and independents break Republican (Obama lost them by 5 points nationally in 2012).

But then I did some research, and discovered that there are more that 500,000 more Dems in KY that GOPers, and that all other registrations taken together (Independnt + 3rd Party) are under 250,000.

So I guess the real question is: with those numbers, how did we lose this state by more than 20 points in 2012? Clearly, I don't understand KY politics at all...

Edit - link to my numbers here: http://elect.ky.gov/SiteCollectionDocuments/Election%20Statistics/otherstats.txt

[okaawhatever]

9. War on Coal plus Black Man = 20 pt loss, in Kentucky the Dems are still generally pro Gun and coal.

I think a lot of the Dems in KY are old New Deal dems. The New Deal brought electricity to KY and many people still remember that. The Governor is a Dem and many of the local elected offices are, so I imagine that figures into the primaries as well. Obama I don't think will ever win Kentucky (he is hated there) with his policies on the environment. I think Clinton carried Kentucky, though.

[Proud Public Servant]

11. That makes sense

So Grimes + GOTV makes for a plausible win. Also explains why McConnell's using the "she'll take orders from Obama" line. Thanks!

[1StrongBlackMan]

10. Because PBO is ...

well ... "not presidential and this is Kentucky, we want our president to be, uh, presidential!"