Pennsylvania Primary. Total Votes GOP vs Dem, almost same.

[StatesPoll]

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/pennsylvania

Pennsylvania GOP Primary 2016: Total 1.57 Million Votes

Pennsylvania Dem Primary 2016: Total 1.65 Million Votes

almost same. It is very shocking results.


Let’s compare with Pennsylvania Primary 2008

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/PA.html

Pennsylvania GOP Primary 2008: Total 0.8 Million Votes

Pennsylvania Dem Primary 2008: Total 2.3 Million Votes


Totally different. in 2008 DEM>GOP almost 3 times.

in 2016 almost same.

 considering independent voters, it is very likely TRUMP gonna beat Hillary in Pennsylvania

[Torie]

Maybe not. It may be that voters who vote in the General, but not the primary, did vote in the primary this time. To the extent that is true, the extra votes in the Pub primary do not, in and of itself, portend any more Pub votes in the General.

[Mike Thick]

He's back!

[Classic Conservative]

You're Back

[hurricanehink]

Yea, but 2.99 million people voted Democrat in 2012, compared to 2.68 million for Republicans. There isn't enough evidence that Trump is getting new GE voters, just that he's getting more primary voters than ever before.

[Angrie]

If Trump makes inroads anywhere, it will have to be in places like Pennsylvania and Michigan. Having utterly alienated Hispanics in Florida and the West, and with the continued growth of Democratic NoVa, Trump's only hope lies in the possibility of gradual Mississippi-ization of voting patterns among working class whites in the Midwest.

[Nyvin]

2016 Republican Primary total spending:
$628,487,724

2016 Democratic Primary total spending:
$356,132,194


There's your answer....the Republicans have a more active primary because they're investing so much more into it.   

[IceSpear]

Are you seriously trying to compare a hotly contested primary on the D side with a McCain coronation on the R side? lol

If anything, the fact that more Democrats voted in PA this year despite the nationwide trend of "muh higher Republican turnout!" is good news for them. Of course, none of this matters.

[IceSpear]

2016 Republican Primary total spending:
$628,487,724

2016 Democratic Primary total spending:
$356,132,194


There's your answer....the Republicans have a more active primary because they're investing so much more into it.   

Along with the fact that they had over a dozen candidates, while Democrats have always had 2. More candidates = higher turnout, for obvious reasons. It's not complicated.

[Virginiá]

Yea, but 2.99 million people voted Democrat in 2012, compared to 2.68 million for Republicans. There isn't enough evidence that Trump is getting new GE voters, just that he's getting more primary voters than ever before.

Pretty much. Politico and The Atlantic did pieces on this. Trump isn't really bringing in waves of new voters, he is just getting Republicans who typically only vote in the general election to vote in the primary. Plus, their primary had a lot of candidates and a lot more investment, combined with the fact that the party out of the White House always tends to have more competitive/higher turnout primaries.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/donald-trump-2016-polling-turnout-early-voting-data-213897

[Wisconsin+17]

Uh, in 2008, PA wasn't a contested primary. Same with 2012. GIGO