Nate Bronze is under the impression that as an attitude, party identification changes a lot. The problem is that is, as I said, utter nonsense. While yes, quite a few people change their party line during election season, the vast majority of people do not. They vote exactly the same way each and every time. Hence, they are a demographic. What matters is whether they show up or not, not necessarily which way they vote.
First you say it's not "a lot," then you say it's "quite a few." Which is it? And it doesn't need to be the "vast majority of people" to be statistically significant in terms of polling. If we already knew how virtually everyone was going to vote based on how they voted in the last election, there would never be any doubt about who would win them to begin with. In any case, all you're arguing here is that polls should weight their results by party identification, not that they already do.
And you think all of those GOP voters will vote for Clinton? Your best bet is that they don't show up at all.
They might vote for Clinton, or for a third-party candidate, or write someone else in.
...primary turnout always predicts the winner. Hence why I mentioned the primary model, a model that predicts the winner based on primary turnouts and has been correct every year for the past century. Though, to be fair, the model was created in 1996 and "backtracks" in order to predict the winners since 1912.
That's not true. The primary model predicts the winner based on the performances of the specific candidates in the primary, not the overall turnout for the party. I don't blame you for misunderstanding it, though, as the guy's
website does an atrocious job of explaining what it is and how it works.
Also, I was talking more about your assumption that the primary turnout would predict the general election turnout, not the winner.