Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Republicans not voting or will vote for Hillary if Trump is the nominee.
Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.)
Rigell, who plans retire at the end of his current term representing Virginia, sent a letter to his supporters Monday night urging them to vote for any candidate besides Trump.
“My love for our country eclipses my loyalty to our party, and to live with a clear conscience I will not support a nominee so lacking in the judgement, temperament and character needed to be our nation’s commander in chief. Accordingly, if left with no alternative, I will not support Trump in the general election should he become our Republican nominee,” Rigell wrote.
Rigell, who plans retire at the end of his current term representing Virginia, sent a letter to his supporters Monday night urging them to vote for any candidate besides Trump.
“My love for our country eclipses my loyalty to our party, and to live with a clear conscience I will not support a nominee so lacking in the judgement, temperament and character needed to be our nation’s commander in chief. Accordingly, if left with no alternative, I will not support Trump in the general election should he become our Republican nominee,” Rigell wrote.
Mark Salter, former aide and speechwriter for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)
In a January Esquire piece titled “We Deserve Better Than Donald Trump,” Salter wrote about his distaste for the front-runner.
“Are we in such dire straits that we must dispense with civility, kindness, tolerance and normal decency to put a mean-spirited, lying jerk in the White House?” Salter wrote. “Of course, were Trump to succumb to a rare bout of honesty, he would confess he thinks we’re all just suckers. I hope we’re both proved wrong. I really do. Because right now that a**hole is making us all look bad.”
Salter reiterated his stance in a Facebook post Sunday: “I will vote for Marco Rubio in the VA primary Tuesday, and, of course, I will proudly and with enormous relief vote for him again if he’s our nominee. I will vote for Hillary Clinton without hesitation if the Fascist quoting, friend of the Klan, Donald Trump is the GOP nominee.”
In a January Esquire piece titled “We Deserve Better Than Donald Trump,” Salter wrote about his distaste for the front-runner.
“Are we in such dire straits that we must dispense with civility, kindness, tolerance and normal decency to put a mean-spirited, lying jerk in the White House?” Salter wrote. “Of course, were Trump to succumb to a rare bout of honesty, he would confess he thinks we’re all just suckers. I hope we’re both proved wrong. I really do. Because right now that a**hole is making us all look bad.”
Salter reiterated his stance in a Facebook post Sunday: “I will vote for Marco Rubio in the VA primary Tuesday, and, of course, I will proudly and with enormous relief vote for him again if he’s our nominee. I will vote for Hillary Clinton without hesitation if the Fascist quoting, friend of the Klan, Donald Trump is the GOP nominee.”
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/meet-the-republicans-speaking-out-against-trump
I am sure there are many many more like this. It seems the Republicans think Hillary would do less "damage" in their eyes to the country than Trump would do to the GOP brand. Fascinating turn of events.
42 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
So I guess I believed it. But really "how do thou know? Are you a Republican?"
You really want tyo make as fight about this?
selective about the primaries and elections they participate in. The outcome you mentioned in TX in 2008 applied to that particular state. Historically, primary participation is a strong indicator of voter turnout.
There is a correlation, but variation between turnout in primaries and the General Election is increasing as voters become more selective about their participation in primaries based upon what they see as the significance of national election and of the primary to the outcome in the GE. Not surprisingly, Presidential candidates with highly motivated, unified national parties behind them tend to win while candidates in divided parties usually lose.
Research and election statistics show that turnout in the contested 2000 election was down from previous years, as was participation in the Democratic primaries. Bush was appointed after the FL recount was stopped. The 2004 election, where turnout was high for both parties in both primaries and the GE, was a "wartime" election that also went to Bush. The 2008 election was dominated by the personality and transformational promise of Barack Obama. Democratic participation in primaries and the General were at recent historical highs. 2012, predictably, saw uncontested Democratic primaries and a fall off of voting in the General.
The study cited below additionally shows that divisiveness within national parties, what the authors term National Party Division (NPD), is a far greater determinant than divisive state primaries. 2016 is turning out to have one of the highest NPDs for Democrats in recent memory, which is not promising for the Candidate in the upcoming Presidential election.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-016-9332-1
Abstract
In presidential nomination campaigns, individual state primaries and a national competition take place simultaneously. The relationship between divisive state primaries and general election outcomes is substantially different in presidential campaigns than in single-state campaigns. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-016-9332-1 To do so, we develop a comprehensive model of state outcomes in presidential campaigns that incorporates both state-level and national-level controls. We also examine and compare several measures of NPD and several measures of divisive state primaries found in previous research. We find that both NPD and divisive state primaries have independent and significant influence on state-level general election outcomes, with the former having a greater and more widespread impact on the national results. The findings are not artifacts of statistical techniques, timeframes or operational definitions. The results are consistent—varying very little across a wide range of methods and specifications.
http://journalistsresource.org/studies/politics/primaries/voter-participation-in-presidential-primaries-and-caucuses
A 2009 study from the Harvard Kennedy School, “Voter Participation in Presidential Primaries and Caucuses,” offers important insights about voter turnout and trends. The study’s author, Thomas E. Patterson, reviews data from previous nominating contests to discern patterns of democratic involvement in the modern party system. He examines how 1970s-era party reforms and subsequent shifts in scheduling — particularly the tendency of the parties to “frontload” state primaries and caucuses earlier in the election calendar year — have affected the participation rates of voters in nominating contests.
Key points made in the study include:
Outcomes in other recent nominating contests were much less promising than those of 2008: “The 1996 nominating races were decided by the lowest overall (Democratic and Republican primaries combined) turnout rate (17.5%) in history, a record that was broken eight years later when a mere 17.2% of eligible voters participated in the primaries. The 2004 election also established a record low for turnout in a contested Democratic race — 11.4%.”
The Iowa caucuses in 2008 saw a record 350,000 people participate. However, “In percentage terms, Iowa’s turnout was hardly earthshaking — only one in six of the eligible adults participated. The Democratic winner, Barack Obama, received the votes of just 4% of Iowa’s eligible voters. Mike Huckabee, the Republican victor, attracted the support of a mere 2% of Iowa adults.”
Because caucuses require more time from voters, those types of contests have historically seen lower participation rates. This was true of 2008, as well: “Although caucus turnout in 2008 reached record heights, the average caucus attracted fewer than a fourth as many participants as did the average primary election.”
Though 2008 saw greater inclusion rates for African-Americans and younger voters, historic patterns along the lines of educational attainment were still present: “individuals with a college education were overrepresented among primary voters by a whopping 19.6 percentage points. Moreover, the Republican and Democratic electorates were alike in this respect — the college educated were overrepresented by 18.9 percentage points among Democratic voters and by 20.8 percentage points among Republican voters.”
“The clustering of state contests early in the schedule is more than just a problem of low turnout in the late contests. It also creates a ‘silent spring’ that affects all Americans, whatever their state of residence. Once the nominations are settled by Super Tuesday, the campaign loses much of its appeal. The conventions are still months away, but the primary races are effectively over, and people lose interest … The cost of frontloading, then, also includes a diminution of election attention, which affects how informed Americans will become about the candidates and issues.”
Overall voting patterns suggest a historic shift in American civic attitudes: “turnout variation is itself increasing. Sandwiched between the upswings in voting in the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections was a small increase in turnout voting in the 2006 midterm elections and a downturn in voting in the 2005 and 2007 local elections — indeed, turnout in 2007 apparently was the lowest in modern times. Today’s voters appear more selective than those of earlier generations, choosing to vote or not vote based on their sense of an election’s significance rather than out of sense of personal duty.”
Related research: A 2016 paper published in Political Behavior, “National Party Division and Divisive State Primaries in U.S. Presidential Elections, 1948–2012,” explores the relationship between divisive state primaries and general election outcomes. A 2015 study in American Politics Research, “How Presidential Running Mates Influence Turnout: The Risks and Rewards of Revving up the Base,” looks at how the selection of a vice president can affect voter turnout and vote choice. A 2012 study from scholars at Northwestern University and the University of Maryland, “Can Celebrity Endorsements Affect Political Outcomes? Evidence from the 2008 US Democratic Presidential Primary,” assesses the impact that Oprah Winfrey’s endorsement of Barack Obama in 2008 had on Obama’s votes and financial contributions.
- See more at: http://journalistsresource.org/studies/politics/primaries/voter-participation-in-presidential-primaries-and-caucuses#sthash.w71lUImu.dpuf
Key points made in the study include:
Outcomes in other recent nominating contests were much less promising than those of 2008: “The 1996 nominating races were decided by the lowest overall (Democratic and Republican primaries combined) turnout rate (17.5%) in history, a record that was broken eight years later when a mere 17.2% of eligible voters participated in the primaries. The 2004 election also established a record low for turnout in a contested Democratic race — 11.4%.”
ADDED BY ME(Turnouts in the GE (total Ballots Counted)http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/voter-turnout-dataIn 2008, the average state turnout rate for Republicans during the nominating contests was 11.1%, “about the same as the GOP average since 1984, excluding 2004 when turnout was very low because of Bush’s unopposed run for the party’s nomination.” For Democrats, however, the rate was 19%, higher than that for any party contest since 1972. Moreover, “Of the thirty-nine Democratic primaries, twenty-seven set a turnout record for the party.”
2000 - United States 55.3% (D- loss)
2004 - United States 60.7% (D-loss)
2008 - United States 62.2% (D-win)
2012 - United States 58.6% (D-win)?attredirects=0
The Iowa caucuses in 2008 saw a record 350,000 people participate. However, “In percentage terms, Iowa’s turnout was hardly earthshaking — only one in six of the eligible adults participated. The Democratic winner, Barack Obama, received the votes of just 4% of Iowa’s eligible voters. Mike Huckabee, the Republican victor, attracted the support of a mere 2% of Iowa adults.”
Because caucuses require more time from voters, those types of contests have historically seen lower participation rates. This was true of 2008, as well: “Although caucus turnout in 2008 reached record heights, the average caucus attracted fewer than a fourth as many participants as did the average primary election.”
Though 2008 saw greater inclusion rates for African-Americans and younger voters, historic patterns along the lines of educational attainment were still present: “individuals with a college education were overrepresented among primary voters by a whopping 19.6 percentage points. Moreover, the Republican and Democratic electorates were alike in this respect — the college educated were overrepresented by 18.9 percentage points among Democratic voters and by 20.8 percentage points among Republican voters.”
“The clustering of state contests early in the schedule is more than just a problem of low turnout in the late contests. It also creates a ‘silent spring’ that affects all Americans, whatever their state of residence. Once the nominations are settled by Super Tuesday, the campaign loses much of its appeal. The conventions are still months away, but the primary races are effectively over, and people lose interest … The cost of frontloading, then, also includes a diminution of election attention, which affects how informed Americans will become about the candidates and issues.”
Overall voting patterns suggest a historic shift in American civic attitudes: “turnout variation is itself increasing. Sandwiched between the upswings in voting in the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections was a small increase in turnout voting in the 2006 midterm elections and a downturn in voting in the 2005 and 2007 local elections — indeed, turnout in 2007 apparently was the lowest in modern times. Today’s voters appear more selective than those of earlier generations, choosing to vote or not vote based on their sense of an election’s significance rather than out of sense of personal duty.”
Related research: A 2016 paper published in Political Behavior, “National Party Division and Divisive State Primaries in U.S. Presidential Elections, 1948–2012,” explores the relationship between divisive state primaries and general election outcomes. A 2015 study in American Politics Research, “How Presidential Running Mates Influence Turnout: The Risks and Rewards of Revving up the Base,” looks at how the selection of a vice president can affect voter turnout and vote choice. A 2012 study from scholars at Northwestern University and the University of Maryland, “Can Celebrity Endorsements Affect Political Outcomes? Evidence from the 2008 US Democratic Presidential Primary,” assesses the impact that Oprah Winfrey’s endorsement of Barack Obama in 2008 had on Obama’s votes and financial contributions.
- See more at: http://journalistsresource.org/studies/politics/primaries/voter-participation-in-presidential-primaries-and-caucuses#sthash.w71lUImu.dpuf
Republicans coworkers who like Bernie (the "socialist"
Democrats who like Trump 
Republicans who hate Trump so much, they'll vote for the much reviled (to Republicans and Progressives) Hillary Clinton.
And she's pounding Bernie in state after state after state.
Yeah she's a "terrible candidate".
Last edited Thu Mar 3, 2016, 04:18 PM - Edit history (3)
There is a correlation, but variation between turnout in primaries and the General Election is increasing as voters become more selective about their participation in primaries based upon what they see as the significance of national election and of the primary to the outcome in the GE. Not surprisingly, Presidential candidates with highly motivated, unified national parties behind them tend to win while candidates in divided parties usually lose.
Research and election statistics show that turnout in the contested 2000 election was down from previous years, as was participation in the Democratic primaries. Bush was appointed after the FL recount was stopped. The 2004 election, where turnout was high for both parties in both primaries and the GE, was a "wartime" election that also went to Bush. The 2008 election was dominated by the personality and transformational promise of Barack Obama. Democratic participation in primaries and the General were at recent historical highs. 2012, predictably, saw uncontested Democratic primaries and a fall off of voting in the General.
The study cited below additionally shows that divisiveness within national parties, what the authors term National Party Division (NPD), is a far greater determinant than divisive state primaries. 2016 is turning out to have one of the highest NPDs for Democrats in recent memory, which is not promising for the Candidate in the upcoming Presidential election.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-016-9332-1
Abstract
In presidential nomination campaigns, individual state primaries and a national competition take place simultaneously. The relationship between divisive state primaries and general election outcomes is substantially different in presidential campaigns than in single-state campaigns. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-016-9332-1 To do so, we develop a comprehensive model of state outcomes in presidential campaigns that incorporates both state-level and national-level controls. We also examine and compare several measures of NPD and several measures of divisive state primaries found in previous research. We find that both NPD and divisive state primaries have independent and significant influence on state-level general election outcomes, with the former having a greater and more widespread impact on the national results. The findings are not artifacts of statistical techniques, timeframes or operational definitions. The results are consistent—varying very little across a wide range of methods and specifications.
http://journalistsresource.org/studies/politics/primaries/voter-participation-in-presidential-primaries-and-caucuses
A 2009 study from the Harvard Kennedy School, “Voter Participation in Presidential Primaries and Caucuses,” offers important insights about voter turnout and trends. The study’s author, Thomas E. Patterson, reviews data from previous nominating contests to discern patterns of democratic involvement in the modern party system. He examines how 1970s-era party reforms and subsequent shifts in scheduling — particularly the tendency of the parties to “frontload” state primaries and caucuses earlier in the election calendar year — have affected the participation rates of voters in nominating contests.
Key points made in the study include:
Outcomes in other recent nominating contests were much less promising than those of 2008: “The 1996 nominating races were decided by the lowest overall (Democratic and Republican primaries combined) turnout rate (17.5%) in history, a record that was broken eight years later when a mere 17.2% of eligible voters participated in the primaries. The 2004 election also established a record low for turnout in a contested Democratic race — 11.4%.”
The Iowa caucuses in 2008 saw a record 350,000 people participate. However, “In percentage terms, Iowa’s turnout was hardly earthshaking — only one in six of the eligible adults participated. The Democratic winner, Barack Obama, received the votes of just 4% of Iowa’s eligible voters. Mike Huckabee, the Republican victor, attracted the support of a mere 2% of Iowa adults.”
Because caucuses require more time from voters, those types of contests have historically seen lower participation rates. This was true of 2008, as well: “Although caucus turnout in 2008 reached record heights, the average caucus attracted fewer than a fourth as many participants as did the average primary election.”
Though 2008 saw greater inclusion rates for African-Americans and younger voters, historic patterns along the lines of educational attainment were still present: “individuals with a college education were overrepresented among primary voters by a whopping 19.6 percentage points. Moreover, the Republican and Democratic electorates were alike in this respect — the college educated were overrepresented by 18.9 percentage points among Democratic voters and by 20.8 percentage points among Republican voters.”
“The clustering of state contests early in the schedule is more than just a problem of low turnout in the late contests. It also creates a ‘silent spring’ that affects all Americans, whatever their state of residence. Once the nominations are settled by Super Tuesday, the campaign loses much of its appeal. The conventions are still months away, but the primary races are effectively over, and people lose interest … The cost of frontloading, then, also includes a diminution of election attention, which affects how informed Americans will become about the candidates and issues.”
Overall voting patterns suggest a historic shift in American civic attitudes: “turnout variation is itself increasing. Sandwiched between the upswings in voting in the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections was a small increase in turnout voting in the 2006 midterm elections and a downturn in voting in the 2005 and 2007 local elections — indeed, turnout in 2007 apparently was the lowest in modern times. Today’s voters appear more selective than those of earlier generations, choosing to vote or not vote based on their sense of an election’s significance rather than out of sense of personal duty.”
Related research: A 2016 paper published in Political Behavior, “National Party Division and Divisive State Primaries in U.S. Presidential Elections, 1948–2012,” explores the relationship between divisive state primaries and general election outcomes. A 2015 study in American Politics Research, “How Presidential Running Mates Influence Turnout: The Risks and Rewards of Revving up the Base,” looks at how the selection of a vice president can affect voter turnout and vote choice. A 2012 study from scholars at Northwestern University and the University of Maryland, “Can Celebrity Endorsements Affect Political Outcomes? Evidence from the 2008 US Democratic Presidential Primary,” assesses the impact that Oprah Winfrey’s endorsement of Barack Obama in 2008 had on Obama’s votes and financial contributions.
- See more at: http://journalistsresource.org/studies/politics/primaries/voter-participation-in-presidential-primaries-and-caucuses#sthash.w71lUImu.dpuf
Key points made in the study include:
Outcomes in other recent nominating contests were much less promising than those of 2008: “The 1996 nominating races were decided by the lowest overall (Democratic and Republican primaries combined) turnout rate (17.5%) in history, a record that was broken eight years later when a mere 17.2% of eligible voters participated in the primaries. The 2004 election also established a record low for turnout in a contested Democratic race — 11.4%.”
ADDED BY ME(Turnouts in the GE (total Ballots Counted)http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/voter-turnout-dataIn 2008, the average state turnout rate for Republicans during the nominating contests was 11.1%, “about the same as the GOP average since 1984, excluding 2004 when turnout was very low because of Bush’s unopposed run for the party’s nomination.” For Democrats, however, the rate was 19%, higher than that for any party contest since 1972. Moreover, “Of the thirty-nine Democratic primaries, twenty-seven set a turnout record for the party.”
2000 - United States 55.3% (D- loss)
2004 - United States 60.7% (D-loss)
2008 - United States 62.2% (D-win)
2012 - United States 58.6% (D-win)
The Iowa caucuses in 2008 saw a record 350,000 people participate. However, “In percentage terms, Iowa’s turnout was hardly earthshaking — only one in six of the eligible adults participated. The Democratic winner, Barack Obama, received the votes of just 4% of Iowa’s eligible voters. Mike Huckabee, the Republican victor, attracted the support of a mere 2% of Iowa adults.”
Because caucuses require more time from voters, those types of contests have historically seen lower participation rates. This was true of 2008, as well: “Although caucus turnout in 2008 reached record heights, the average caucus attracted fewer than a fourth as many participants as did the average primary election.”
Though 2008 saw greater inclusion rates for African-Americans and younger voters, historic patterns along the lines of educational attainment were still present: “individuals with a college education were overrepresented among primary voters by a whopping 19.6 percentage points. Moreover, the Republican and Democratic electorates were alike in this respect — the college educated were overrepresented by 18.9 percentage points among Democratic voters and by 20.8 percentage points among Republican voters.”
“The clustering of state contests early in the schedule is more than just a problem of low turnout in the late contests. It also creates a ‘silent spring’ that affects all Americans, whatever their state of residence. Once the nominations are settled by Super Tuesday, the campaign loses much of its appeal. The conventions are still months away, but the primary races are effectively over, and people lose interest … The cost of frontloading, then, also includes a diminution of election attention, which affects how informed Americans will become about the candidates and issues.”
Overall voting patterns suggest a historic shift in American civic attitudes: “turnout variation is itself increasing. Sandwiched between the upswings in voting in the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections was a small increase in turnout voting in the 2006 midterm elections and a downturn in voting in the 2005 and 2007 local elections — indeed, turnout in 2007 apparently was the lowest in modern times. Today’s voters appear more selective than those of earlier generations, choosing to vote or not vote based on their sense of an election’s significance rather than out of sense of personal duty.”
Related research: A 2016 paper published in Political Behavior, “National Party Division and Divisive State Primaries in U.S. Presidential Elections, 1948–2012,” explores the relationship between divisive state primaries and general election outcomes. A 2015 study in American Politics Research, “How Presidential Running Mates Influence Turnout: The Risks and Rewards of Revving up the Base,” looks at how the selection of a vice president can affect voter turnout and vote choice. A 2012 study from scholars at Northwestern University and the University of Maryland, “Can Celebrity Endorsements Affect Political Outcomes? Evidence from the 2008 US Democratic Presidential Primary,” assesses the impact that Oprah Winfrey’s endorsement of Barack Obama in 2008 had on Obama’s votes and financial contributions.
- See more at: http://journalistsresource.org/studies/politics/primaries/voter-participation-in-presidential-primaries-and-caucuses#sthash.w71lUImu.dpuf