Early & Absentee Voting Megathread - Build the Freiwal

[bilaps]

This thread makes me want to roll my eyes out of my head

Why? Do you not trust the analysis of expert Atlas posters over some rando called Steve Schale?

it's not analysis dude, it's raw numbers.

True, but there are many different ways to read the numbers, and 1-3 days of in person voting really isn’t enough to conclude anything.

And I didn't conclude anything rather what it's obvious, bigger R percentage in big counties in comparison with total numbers. Like in Clarke in NV. And I cautioned many times that comparison is day 1 with total numbers. And it's no worse than what Schale does. He mentions for example turnout in Broward but fails to mention composition of that turnout. We'll see what happens next but day 1 is all we have.  

[MT Treasurer]

This thread was a mistake.

[Person Man]

This thread was a mistake.

It's still useful. The question is now is trying to predict things by early voting full or sh**t or are Democrats really that toxic of a brand?

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

Tarrant County TX (Fort Worth) tracks early voting turnout live, by precinct, and by the hour.

http://access.tarrantcounty.com/content/main/en/elections/Upcoming-Election-Information/Live_Turn_Out_Widget.html

So far today, in the first 2 hours of early voting, turnout was:

8-9 AM: 3,808
9-10 AM: 4,132


And that compares to these numbers in the first 2 hours yesterday:

8-9 AM: 3,436
9-10 AM: 3,739


So so far, it is on pace to beat yesterday, and by a pretty substantial amount. If that is happening there, it is pretty likely that similar turnout is also happening in the rest of TX as well today, so we should probably expect similarly high (and maybe even higher) Presidential-ish level early vote turnout today from other counties as well.


First we had Live polls from NYT/Siena... Now we have Live Early Vote

[Brittain33]

This thread was a mistake.

WHAT ELSE ARE WE GOING TO TALK ABOUT? Just polls?

[Nyvin]

If nothing else I think we can conclude this will be a high turnout election.

[Xing]

This thread makes me want to roll my eyes out of my head

Why? Do you not trust the analysis of expert Atlas posters over some rando called Steve Schale?

it's not analysis dude, it's raw numbers.

True, but there are many different ways to read the numbers, and 1-3 days of in person voting really isn’t enough to conclude anything.

And I didn't conclude anything rather what it's obvious, bigger R percentage in big counties in comparison with total numbers. Like in Clarke in NV. And I cautioned many times that comparison is day 1 with total numbers. And it's no worse than what Schale does. He mentions for example turnout in Broward but fails to mention composition of that turnout. We'll see what happens next but day 1 is all we have.  

Sure, but take NV, where early voting is the most indicative. While Republicans have beaten their registration numbers in Clark more than Democrats in 2 out of the past 3 days, and rurals look good for Republicans, Washoe is a glaring exception so far. The in person vote in Washoe so far nearly offsets all of the numbers from the rurals without counting Clark at all. While things could change in Washoe over the next few days, the same can be said for every other county.

[Tender Branson]

If nothing else I think we can conclude this will be a high turnout election.

This posting is wrong ... and wrong in 2 ways:

A) just because there's an increase in early/absentee voting, it doesn't necessarily mean overall turnout will be higher. Early voting could also taper off, or election day turnout could be lower.

B) in the US, no election is "high turnout". Even in a Presidential election, the US does not manage to get higher than 60%. In mid-term elections, it's somewhere between 38-45%, which is horrible. Even if it ends up higher this time (45%), it's utterly horrible when compared with other countries.

[bilaps]

This thread makes me want to roll my eyes out of my head

Why? Do you not trust the analysis of expert Atlas posters over some rando called Steve Schale?

it's not analysis dude, it's raw numbers.

True, but there are many different ways to read the numbers, and 1-3 days of in person voting really isn’t enough to conclude anything.

And I didn't conclude anything rather what it's obvious, bigger R percentage in big counties in comparison with total numbers. Like in Clarke in NV. And I cautioned many times that comparison is day 1 with total numbers. And it's no worse than what Schale does. He mentions for example turnout in Broward but fails to mention composition of that turnout. We'll see what happens next but day 1 is all we have.  

Sure, but take NV, where early voting is the most indicative. While Republicans have beaten their registration numbers in Clark more than Democrats in 2 out of the past 3 days, and rurals look good for Republicans, Washoe is a glaring exception so far. The in person vote in Washoe so far nearly offsets all of the numbers from the rurals without counting Clark at all. While things could change in Washoe over the next few days, the same can be said for every other county.

But at this point you're not contradicting anything I've said. I've been writing about NV and Washoe being bad for Republicans. Also have written that Washoe could be bad omen for Republicans nationaly, that they could do well enough in Dem leading counties and rural counties but in swing counties they could be evaporated. Of course we are guessing. But it would be hard not to notice how people are dismissing the early vote now versus only couple of days ago when things looked  better for Dems.

[Xing]

This thread makes me want to roll my eyes out of my head

Why? Do you not trust the analysis of expert Atlas posters over some rando called Steve Schale?

it's not analysis dude, it's raw numbers.

True, but there are many different ways to read the numbers, and 1-3 days of in person voting really isn’t enough to conclude anything.

And I didn't conclude anything rather what it's obvious, bigger R percentage in big counties in comparison with total numbers. Like in Clarke in NV. And I cautioned many times that comparison is day 1 with total numbers. And it's no worse than what Schale does. He mentions for example turnout in Broward but fails to mention composition of that turnout. We'll see what happens next but day 1 is all we have.  

Sure, but take NV, where early voting is the most indicative. While Republicans have beaten their registration numbers in Clark more than Democrats in 2 out of the past 3 days, and rurals look good for Republicans, Washoe is a glaring exception so far. The in person vote in Washoe so far nearly offsets all of the numbers from the rurals without counting Clark at all. While things could change in Washoe over the next few days, the same can be said for every other county.

But at this point you're not contradicting anything I've said. I've been writing about NV and Washoe being bad for Republicans. Also have written that Washoe could be bad omen for Republicans nationaly, that they could do well enough in Dem leading counties and rural counties but in swing counties they could be evaporated. Of course we are guessing. But it would be hard not to mention dismissing the early vote now versus only couple of days ago when things looke much better for Dems.

I'm not trying to contradict you, simply to say that it's early to be making conclusions, since the current numbers could lead to a lot of different ones.

[Nyvin]

If nothing else I think we can conclude this will be a high turnout election.

This posting is wrong ... and wrong in 2 ways:

A) just because there's an increase in early/absentee voting, it doesn't necessarily mean overall turnout will be higher. Early voting could also taper off, or election day turnout could be lower.

B) in the US, no election is "high turnout". Even in a Presidential election, the US does not manage to get higher than 60%. In mid-term elections, it's somewhere between 38-45%, which is horrible. Even if it ends up higher this time (45%), it's utterly horrible when compared with other countries.

B is a moot point.   If you compare to international rates of course every election is low.   I was obviously comparing it to other midterms, hence giving the term meaning.

A is more subjective.   It would take an enormous drop for it to go to regular midterm levels at this point.  I would say it's much more likely the public is enthusiastic about voting rather than everyone switching to early voting suddenly, which makes no sense.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

So far, including votes cast in the first 3 hours today, 54,772 votes have been cast in Tarrant County (Fort Worth, TX).

Using the precinct level 2018 early vote data and 2016 precinct level 2016 election result data, I calculated what the 2018 results would be if each voter in each precinct voted (on average) the same way as they voted in 2016.

This provides a measure of how similar the turnout is to 2016 Presidential turnout.

In 2016, Trump won the early and absentee vote 268,291 to 217,582 (52.8% to 42.8%).

With 2018 early vote turnout so far, if every individual voter's vote is split in proportion to the way that their precinct voted in 2016, that would be 29,290 to 23,060 (53.5% Trump to 42.1% Clinton).

That means that so far, the turnout distribution by precinct seems quite similar to 2016, with a small shift of turnout towards more R-leaning precincts.

However, this comparison includes absentee ballots by mail, which skew strongly R, and a somewhat higher share of those will be in so far than the proportional share of early votes in person that have been cast so far.


Bottom line - the distribution of turnout between Dem precincts and Rep precincts seems to look a lot like 2016.

[2016]

On Texas

We've seen this Movie before in 2016 with the high Turnout and Hillary still couldn't win the State.

In fact, since Obamas 1st win Democrats desperatly trying to turn Texas Blue and it hasn't materialized. Stop this please.

[Nyvin]

On Texas

We've seen this Movie before in 2016 with the high Turnout and Hillary still couldn't win the State.

In fact, since Obamas 1st win Democrats desperatly trying to turn Texas Blue and it hasn't materialized. Stop this please.

The trend seems in Democrats favor though,  especially if 2018 numbers are like 2016 numbers it can't just be called a bad showing by Trump anymore.

[SCNCmod]

On Texas

We've seen this Movie before in 2016 with the high Turnout and Hillary still couldn't win the State.

In fact, since Obamas 1st win Democrats desperatly trying to turn Texas Blue and it hasn't materialized. Stop this please.

Regarding Texas, obviously its an uphill climb for Beto- But one possible difference this year compared to Hillary losing by 9%... Beto will likely get a larger % of Latino voters- and Beto seems to be getting a larger amount of Republicans (and some of these are silent votes, depending on where they live).

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

The TX secretary of state has updated official #s for turnout. Instead of just the expected 15 counties, they actually have 30 counties. Not 255, but an improvement at least in the data!

Overall, it looks like high 2016-like turnout basically across the board.

https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/earlyvoting/2018/oct22.shtml

https://twitter.com/mcpli/status/1054787414726766592



https://twitter.com/mcpli/status/1054793080258392065

[RI]

That second graph is crazily similar for 2016 and 2018.

[Dr. Arch]

You guys learned nothing from early voting projections in 2016, huh? It's only useful in very few states, like NV.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

That second graph is crazily similar for 2016 and 2018.

It is. I think the guy who made it must have accidentally included an extra county or something for 2018 though, because the overall #s on the Secretary of State website are slightly lower than 2016, not slightly higher.

Here are my own graphs separating out in person early voting and votes by mail.

In person:



Mail:



It is crazy that the default comparison we are looking at now is to 2016, rather than to a previous midterm!!!

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

You guys learned nothing from early voting projections in 2016, huh? It's only useful in very few states, like NV.

Regardless of what you think the results will be, the turnout in a lot of states is crazy high.

It certainly doesn't tell you the results, but it is interesting and informative.

On the other hand, if you don't find it interesting, then feel free to go away. Nobody is making you read this thread.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

Some information on vote history of TX voters so far:

https://twitter.com/longhornderek/status/1054792918743998465



If this is reflective of all voters, I would guess it means that turnout will eventually slow down a bit. You would need more people who didn't vote in 2014/2010 voting for 2016 level turnout to be maintained.

However, vote by mail is overrepresented now, and I would guess that vote by mail includes more voters with good vote history than in person voting, so the in-person #s may include more new voters/non-midterm voters than this would indicate.

[2016]

The Democrats are in some profound Trouble in Arizona...

Here are the latest Figures

Overall
R 227,653
D 164,738
I 113,464

510K Votes have been cast in AZ

Maricopa
R 154,773 / D 100,675 / I 73,520

Pima
D 40,874 / R 34,960 / I 21,465

Not sure how Data Orbital comes up with Sinema + 7 lead.

[Gass3268]

The Democrats are in some profound Trouble in Arizona...

Here are the latest Figures

Overall
R 227,653
D 164,738
I 113,464

510K Votes have been cast in AZ

Maricopa
R 154,773 / D 100,675 / I 73,520

Pima
D 40,874 / R 34,960 / I 21,465

Not sure how Data Orbital comes up with Sinema + 7 lead.

Registered Republicans are allowed to vote for Sinema just like they did for Tipirneni in AZ-06. Republicans were up by 20, ended up only winning by 5.

[Dr. Arch]

You guys learned nothing from early voting projections in 2016, huh? It's only useful in very few states, like NV.

Regardless of what you think the results will be, the turnout in a lot of states is crazy high.

It certainly doesn't tell you the results, but it is interesting and informative.

On the other hand, if you don't find it interesting, then feel free to go away. Nobody is making you read this thread.

You agree that it doesn't tell you results, but the conversations here indicate the opposite sentiment.

And no, I'm not going away.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

You agree that it doesn't tell you results, but the conversations here indicate the opposite sentiment.

And no, I'm not going away.

When have I indicated that it tells you the results?