Interesting. The exit polls in NH overstated Dean's support. These show him way back in the pack. You might think a primary where candidates had been campaigning for months would be less volatile than one where the campaign only got going a week ago. But, you might be wrong.

The Columbia Journalism Review's blog ("Campaign Desk") is none too pleased about early release of the poll numbers - see here:

http://www.cjr.org/blog/archives/cat_distortion.asp#000092

and here:

http://www.cjr.org/blog/archives/cat_echo_chamber.asp#000093

I do not buy that these blog postings will have that large an effect. It's not like tons of folks are reading them here. (It's also not like these things are terribly accurate.)

That said, I wonder if the effect of these would be to encourage folks to show up at the polls in Oklahoma, which is starting to look like an important primary.

I notice reports that turnout at this batch of primaries is light. Since the press made a big deal about heavy turnout in New Hampshire as a sign of Democratic determination to oust Bush, what will they do with these results?

I have no doubt the exit polls have an effect (they just cemented by instinct to go vote for Edwards here in Missouri and help winnow the race down to two strong candidates asap). But so do other polls (my instinct to vote for Edwards in the first place came from knowing he was running second here) and media coverage and word of mouth and on and on. I don't really think they should be kept secret. They seem just as likely to have a positive effect on an election (close race, my vote might actually mean something!) as a negative one.

I ask in the spirit of pure inquiry: how do the turnout numbers in these primaries compare with past races? I see 90,000 votes here, 200,000 votes there. In ND, about as many people voted total as voted for mayor of my town in our last election [Population 60,000+].

I ask becuase these numbers sound awful low to me -- to win the AZ primary with only 90,000 votes? Aren't there several million people in AZ? If the turn out is light doesn't that suggest that Kerry et al aren't exactly lighting a fire under the dems? If so, doesn't that bode pretty awful for a national election, especially given how much "bush hatred" there's supposed to be out there?

If anyone can point me to some historical numbers, I'd be grateful.

Learn googling skills:

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/2000presprim.htm

I believe that Democratic turnout is a lot higher than in past years.

On a percentage basis? Doubtless.
On a raw numbers basis?
On what planet?