I can't believe it!  I get to post this again!

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/correlation.png

Aaaah, just like old times.  Anyway...

In every other state that's had a primary this year (even closed primaries), this trend has also been a thing (that being that Republican primary turnout has been extremely high, and turnout for the Democrats' primary drops relative to their prior primary).  The Nevada caucus saw turnout double for Republicans, and drop by 1/3 for Democrats.  Iowa (a closed primary state) also showed these turnout oddities, at least on the Republican side (they don't disclose turnout among Democrats, so we'll never know).

There's a valid argument to say that the turnout differences from last year are simply because this is a more high-profile, more interesting primary on the GOP side, whereas the Democrats are relatively getting overshadowed (Clinton's not saying Sanders is wrong about his ideas.  She's politely arguing strategy with him).  This could also be substantiated by debate viewership, where Republicans have had much more viewership in their debates than Democrats (if you assume that debate viewership is representative of overall interest in the respective primary).

Finally, keep in mind that when you're comparing the Democrats' primary participation, the election dynamics have to be factored in.  In 2008, Democrats got to pick between Clinton and a young African American candidate who gave good speeches and whom we now know was able to bring a significant number of first-time voters to the polls, if for no other reason than due to his minority status.  Keep in mind also that South Carolina has a significant African-American population... so a population incredibly favorable to Obama and likely to go out and vote, even if first time voters, for that primary.  Now it's Clinton against... well... a cranky old white man who is NOT seeking broad appeal among age and racial groups, largely playing up the millennial vote, and who is assigning himself an ideological badge (democratic socialist) that most Democrats shy away from, at least publicly.  The result?  Most likely, the election you're comparing current turnout with among the Democrats would have a higher turnout if only due to Obama's appeal to first-time voters.

What makes South Carolina's results, which have been reflected in the results of every other indicator of interest in the election, special then?

*facepalm*

Gwyn... you do realize that time, the Republicans actually did win the Senate and keep the House in the year you posted, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St … ions,_2014

Now granted, I'm pretty sure there are better examples that are now inaccessible due to both a prior forum move and the moving of old politics threads to an archive (there's a reason why I don't go online and make predictions despite watching election coverage daily: because it's way too easy to view events through one's own rose-colored glasses and really screw up and take a credibility hit, particularly when you keep in mind that people have a vested interest in predicting their own people will do well).  But yeah, might want to fact check before you throw that out. 

I was mainly looking for the threads for Obama having no chance of getting the presidency then no chance of keeping it but they must be the old forums.

Here's an interesting one: http://imperialconflict.com/forum/viewt … ?id=166359

Before I post, Yell, I want to make it 100% clear what you're asking for.  You're asking for a comparison of the GOP turnout from 2016 to 2012 in each Super Tuesday state, compared to turnout in the Democratic party from 2008 to 2016 (since there was no competitive Democratic primary in 2012), correct?  I don't want to have to go through the work only to hear "no, you got the wrong thing."

This might appear off-topic but I assure you that it is very much on topic.

I want to play a little game Einstein, I am thinking of a rule and I am not going to tell you what the rule is. The rule applies to a set of 3 numbers, and the only way for you to test this theory is to give me sets of 3 numbers to which I will tell you whether it belongs to the rule or not. When you think you know the rule, tell me and I will tell you if you are correct or not. I will also give you a set of 3 numbers to start you off:

2, 4, 8

Now you can give me sets of 3 numbers/take guesses.

He's already told me the solution, so if he changes, I'll know.  Does that help? 

Einstein isn't here anymore.

He is busy being published nationally as a political analyst.

Also he is getting national radio coverage under his real name.

If the Republican Convention is really fractious he may get TV time.

7 49 343

1 2 3

Waaait a minute...Wornstrum could speak English!  Who IS this?

3 2 1

1001 10001 100001