Sounds like there's very low turnout in South Carolina. Good for Huckabee? Actually, I have no idea. But whoever wins, let's turn around and attribute it to the low turnout.
« Mittmentum | Main | Entrance Poll »
Low Turnout
19 Jan 2008 02:42 pm
Comments (13)
Meanwhile, turnout was higher than expected in Nevada for Romney's win.
High turnout suggests a win for Clinton? How do you figure?
It depends how high it is, but I think it would generally help Obama.
wow, no "good for McCain" jokes yet?
fwiw, intrade has mccain way down and huckabee way up over the past couple of hours. It also has clinton up and obama down. clear implication is that some folks have seen the exit polls and they are strongly suggestive.
Well, Clinton is ahead in most polls, so I just figure that Obama's only chance is low turnout where his supporters show up.
One of the polls ... I wish a remembered which ... gave a percentage of Democrats who responded that they would caucus at put it way high (like, 20%). If the result of that poll is for Obama, then high turnout is good for Obama.
Hmmm ... now MSNBC projects 50K turnout for the Dems, which is way low.
Mr. Yglesias is obviously ignoring the Norman Podhoretz claim that anything that happens is good for Giuliani. Actually, if Huckabee wins South Carolina and Fred Thompson finishes 2nd, with McCain 3rd and Romney 4th, Mr. Podhoretz may actually be correct, proving the old adage that a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Here's an example:
From a Washington Times article, which showed the difference between Missouri in a presidential primary having a voter turnout of 745,000 to a caucus in Missouri, which had a turnout of 20,000 statewide or 0.2% of the previous turnout. Great for rulers, not so great for those that are ruled.
"On one level, you can say it's a nice thing for the caucuses to have all this grassroots activity and it's clearly party people. On another level, it gives enormous advantage to strong, organized, ideological minorities. It also eliminates those with second jobs and people lower on the social-economic scale."
If the upstaters are busily buying crateloads of bread and milk rather than voting, that's not good for Huckabee. Ah, divine intervention.
Umm SLC since Podhertz works for Giuliani maybe he isn't the best source for analysis.
Re Rob
I would agree. Mr. Podhoretz is a poopy head who prints articles by evolution denier David Berlinski, the faux mathematician is his rag, Commentary Magazine.
Comments closed February 02, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Separately, turnout in Nevada is pretty high, at least relative to expectations. At the current pace, it should be somewhere between 70K and 100K, despite the election not being that contested. Which suggests high turnout for the Dems, which suggests a win for Clinton.
Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | January 19, 2008 2:47 PM