I was actually wondering whether Democrats vote Trump so their favorite candidate wins.

(so those democrats would call themselves independents so they're allowed to vote Trump)

I doubt it will effect it much although I hope I'm wrong (in the sense that I hope more Clinton voters change to Sanders). There's been a serious disagreement among Clinton and Sanders supporters over who would do better in the general anyway. Sanders repeatedly polls better vs individual Republicans but many Dems still think Clinton is more electable. There is a possibility of liberals voting in the Republican primary in, say, Massachusetts to deprive Trump delegates so that there must be a brokered convention, but honestly I don't see that happening because of 1) the Dems still have a primary fight and 2) Trump, aside from not being liked by many people, is also not the most ideologically rightwing of the candidates either. Such an action would just help a "more electable" far-right conservative.

"(so those democrats would call themselves independents so they're allowed to vote Trump)"

Some states have completely open primaries so they don't need to change affiliation at all.

If Oct's question is a more general one I think that the two parties' primary voters generally have different views on strategy. A large number of GOP base voters tend to believe that the mobilizing the base is more important than appealing to independents/moderates/Dems. A large number of Dem base voters still think that appealing to the middle wins elections.

I agree with most of what Putin said. I don't think the campaign's affect each other too much, unless it's a year with one party that has a clear cut candidate and the other is a mess. There is some posturing within the party about who would be most electable, who could be the presumed nominee, etc, but in reality people generally go in and vote for the candidate that they want to get the nomination.

"Sanders repeatedly polls better vs individual Republicans but many Dems still think Clinton is more electable."

I think this sentence is mainly because many Dems believe that Clinton can get the moderate vote/independent vote more than Sanders can in the general election. (Maybe I'm wrong on that, but that's how it has seemed to me lately at least.)

""(so those democrats would call themselves independents so they're allowed to vote Trump)"

Some states have completely open primaries so they don't need to change affiliation at all. "
On the other end of this, some states don't let independents vote in primaries. In Oklahoma, the primaries are closed, and the state parties are allowed to choose whether or not they will let independents vote in their primaries, and only the Democrats here will allow that (as of November 2015).

"I think this sentence is mainly because many Dems believe that Clinton can get the moderate vote/independent vote more than Sanders can in the general election. (Maybe I'm wrong on that, but that's how it has seemed to me lately at least.)"

Sanders polls much better with moderates than Hillary.

With moderate democrats or independent voters for the general election?

Independents. It's impossible to poll "moderate" Democrats, but if your definition of a moderate Democrat matches mine, I imagine they're voting Hillary.

Independents are 43% of the American voting bloc, though, so if you don't poll well with them, you're in trouble.

That's very true. I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page definition wise so I understood the point you made with Sanders polling better than Hillary.

It's not who polls better, but who can get their backers to the polls. Democrats have traditionally stayed home when their favorites get eliminated even though they had more registered voters than Republicans.

So a better polling question would be whether you will still vote in November if your candidate is eliminated.

I've wondered the EXACT same thing as Octavious' original question. I think he's right--The DNC probably has enough internal control to pick which candidate would do well against the GOP. The reason for Bernie/Clinton being so close in the polls a while back seemed to be the DNC hedging their bets. Not sure how the three primaries have changed that so far, as this e-mail business isn't finished yet.

As a note for how we think about this, the architecture of a given party nominating a candidate isn't exactly parallel to the format of the general presidential election. I didn't know this for a long time, so that's why I'm sharing. For example, caucuses and open primaries are totally different than when you actually go to vote. So some of the strategy the RNC/DNC chose might have to reflect THOSE rules for this stage of the election.

Really, it's too bad that the presidential office and race has taken so much media attention. The congressional elections ought to be just as (if not more) important, albiet on a more local scale. It's not like we're electing an unrestricted monarch to both write and execute our laws.

@Octavious "after seeing the Republicans move towards nominating someone who's alienated half the population already, decide the election's in the bag regardless and just choose who they like the most? "


Kind of implied by this question is that you think the Democrats themselves have not ALSO alienated half (or more) of the country...it kind of assumes, "Meh...any Democrat is vastly more appealing than <Trump>."

This is simply not true, by any stretch. Polling data does not demonstrate this AT ALL.

Interstingly, I know any number of democrats -- like my next door neighbor, a blue-collar, UAW Union worker, generally full-on Democrat...and he likes Trump. Trump will get many cross-over voters, especially if the democrat candidate is:
1. Potentially a felon headed to jail
2. An avowed socialist who doesn't appeal to a vast swath of (non-Youth) American citizens, liberal and conservative alike.

Here comes Krellkrellz with his stock false equivalency retort.

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/01/trump-has-highest-unfavorability-ever-recorded

Even people like Glenn Beck admit the Republican race has been an embarrassment.

Since we're in the realm of unaccountable anecdotes. I know plenty of apolitical millennials who have no intention of voting unless Trump is the nominee, at which point they will vote for anybody who is running against him.