[wyldfire]

> The reason for the initial error in the 2016 primary is obvious: the rural/urban split caught exit pollsters — who probably assumed things would look a lot like 2012 — completely by surprise.

Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to use the 2012 dem primary as a basis instead?

> And if you hear anyone say the exit polls are a sign of a rigged election, please do tell them that I told you to tell them that I said to say that they’re not very knowledgeable about the subject.

Yeah, it's too bad. Now that I know this info about exit poll results it would be nice if they could qualify the numbers a little when reporting them.

[maxerickson]

There wasn't a 2012 Democratic primary. Not a meaningfully contested one anyway.

In New York State in 2008, Clinton beat Obama with support coming from both urban and rural areas (with Clinton perhaps doing better in rural areas than Obama):

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2008&fips=...

It's also not necessarily the case that the turnout for past elections will be a sound guide to the turnout for the next election. A lot of people vote as a result of affinity for a particular candidate or because of a motivating issue.

[CWuestefeld]

Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to use the 2012 dem primary as a basis instead?

Not if you're interested in cases where unaffiliated voters went DEM in the general election, or if GOP-registered voters crossed over. Certainly those are interesting cases.