47%? Or is it more like 6%? Or 4%?

SWAC Girl (cue the self-congratulatory soundtrack) is making a big deal over the fact that her man (does her husband know?) got 47% of the vote in the GOP primary in the 24th Senate District last week. Yes, that sounds good, doesn't it? Good job, pat on the back.

But does it mean that Sayre is supported by 47% of the people in the District (thanks to SWAC Girl's hard work, of course)? Um, maybe not. The turnout was what--12%? Which means Sayre actually was supported by closer to just 6% of eligible voters. And if you accept SWAC Girl's claim that all the Democrats who voted in the Republican Primary voted for Senator Hanger (dubious, but let's buy that for the sake of argument), then only actual Republicans voted for Sayre, and that means his support among the registered voter population as a hole is somewhere around 4%. Does SWAC Girl think that 4% support could possibly have translated into victory in November, after the rift she and her SWACtionary pals caused among Republicans, and with two other choices on the ballot? To me it says that Sayre wouldn't have stood a chance in November--which is why, contrary to SWAC Girl's assertions, I believe a good number of Democrats actually voted for Sayre, the weaker candidate whom we would rather have faced.