This morning, Steve Sailer correctly pointed to Trump’s impressive performance in the Pennsylvania primary, which I predicted would be important in The Money Illusion comments (even though I did not expect the scale of TRiUMPh). And very important it was.
Pennsylvania had the highest GOP primary turnout of any closed primary in a blue state. Here’s 538’s table of the situation (with additions by me):
And here’s the graph of the performance of the presumptive nominee of each party this year and in previous years (the 2016 estimate is just an estimate; take it as a benchmark, not too seriously):
If you don’t remember, 2008 was noncompetitive for the Presidency and for all other offices for Republicans, but competitive for Democrats, and 2004 and 2012 were noncompetitive for the Presidency for both sides. The reason Bush got so many votes in 2004 was because there was a really competitive Republican Senate primary going on in the same ballot (which eventual traitor to the party (((Arlen Specter))) won by a few thousand votes). The Pennsylvania 2008 Primary was totally noncompetitive for all but the Presidency (Clinton v. Obama), so the Republican primary there was a pure affirmation election for a disgusting candidate guaranteed to lose in the general. The 2012 Primary had a competitive Democratic Attorney General race, as well as a more or less competitive Republican Senate primary. Yesterday’s primary was totally competitive for the Presidency for both sides. The only other offices on the ballots that were competitive were for three Republican House candidates, one Democratic Senate candidate, and two Democratic House candidates. Chakah Fattah, a Black Muslim incumbent of over two decades, lost his seat as a result of yesterday’s primary.
So the 2004 Republican primary really isn’t relevant here, as it was not a 2008-style pure candidate affirmation primary.
Donald J. Trump got 31,147 more votes than GWB in 2004 and 305,492 more votes than Juan Islamist Communist Sympathizer Amnesty-Loving Super-Spender McSame. Primary winner Hillary Clinton got fewer votes than primary loser Barack Obama did in 2008. The stage is set for a truly competitive Pennsylvania general election race, with its result being determined only by Donald J. Trump’s pure will. The only geographic and demographic strengths Clinton has are in the cities of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia (though these are enough to win the election on their own), while Trump is strongest (in terms of margins, not votes) in the solidly Democratic disproportionately White working-class town of Wilkes-Barre. Trump will certainly be the first Republican Presidential candidate since George H.W. Bush in 1988 to win the town, as he has much more attractive policies toward old economy labor than does Hillary (though I’m not at all a big fan of them), even though more Democrat votes were cast in its primary than Republican ones. Expect a surge of Trump Democrats in the fall. Whether that is enough for Trump to win Pennsylvania is uncertain; the margins are narrow enough. He’ll probably win, though, thus resulting in his great and mighty national TRiUMPh against Crooked Clinton.