The absentee/early vote thread

[Alcon]

Didn't we learn in 2014 that using early/absentee data to extraploate things can put egg on your face?

People thought Hagan was going to coast to victory based just on favorable absentee data out of NC in 2014.

Definitely true, but there isnt harm in comparing and noticing the differences compared to 2012

Hagan was hurt by the collapse in election-day turnout.

Not to go off track, but what the heck was up with that? How can a campaign be so good at absentee/early vote, but so bad on election day at GOTV?

I'd argue that campaigns and outreach drive early voting turnout more than Election Day turnout.  Early voting turnout mostly consists of voters who were inevitably going to cast ballots, but were extra motivated to do it early.  It's quite possible that a campaign could do an excellent job of motivating those inevitable voters, and yet the overall electorate could exhibit depressed turnout.  In short, it's easier to convert someone from an inevitable voter than an early voter, than it is to convince them that it's worth voting at all.

Another factor: 1,000 voters converted to early voting may be a meaningful increase in early voting (as a % increase), but 1,000 voters mobilized on Election Day may only be a drop in the bucket.

And most obviously, there's way less time to mobilize Election Day voters than to convert voters into early voters.

[Alcon]

if those returned ballots are mostly overseas/military, 3rd party voters rate % should be lower or similar as total %

I don't follow.  Military voters are younger and more male, which is consistent with the group being disproportionately registered with third parties (plus third-party vote tends to be higher on bases in general).

[Alcon]

My first analysis of Washington suggests a pretty good enthusiasm gap so far for the Democrats:

Here's an interesting pattern in the turnout results so far, for the 25 counties where I have matchbacks:

* 4.4% of voters who didn't vote in the Presidential Primary have returned ballots

* 11.6% of Republican voters from the Primary have returned ballots

* 15.0% (!) of Democratic voters from the Primary have returned ballots

Obviously, that won't hold up, but that's a 64%-36% D turnout split among Presidential Primary voters in the General so far, when the Presidential Primary was only 58%-42% D.  That seems like a significant early enthusiasm gap to me, and it holds up across counties.

[Alcon]

The only state not to show this trend is CO, which was almost exactly even.    

That's because Colorado votes by mail; it's not really "early voting" so much as...normal, gradual voting.

[Alcon]

^ Matches the VBM patterns in Washington so far.  We don't have party registration, but I've seen the data.

[Alcon]

^ Matches the VBM patterns in Washington so far.  We don't have party registration, but I've seen the data.

So what are you seeing for early VBM numbers in Clark and Pierce Counties thus far for relatively Blue Collar parts of the state?

I've been looking at the return rates among voters who participated in our useless May presidential primary as a gauge of enthusiasm -- especially since you'd figure those folks are disproportionately hardcore party faithful.  So far, Democratic returns outpace Republican turns about 27.2% to 22.8%.  The gap is mostly pretty uniform statewide.  King is slightly higher than average, but among the 36/39 counties reporting statistics, only two have a higher return rate among Republicans.  Those are Okanogan, which had a high-turnout ballot measure on the May ballot, so I wouldn't pay that due, and Grays Harbor, a working-class Dem-leaning county where Trump did quite well in the primary.

Oddly enough, Spokane has an even bigger gap (30.1% vs. 24.8%) than King.

Also, what's going on in Whitman and Spokane counties with VBMs in Eastern Washington, as well as some smaller counties along the Columbia River Gorge?

Sorry, in what way?

How's your Washington state flip map working based on what your early numbers are showing?

Eh, I'm reluctant to read too much into this.  I think it's a good sign for the Democrats, but considering today's national news and how vague these tea leaves are, I'm not overthinking it.  I expect turnout to even out, and after today, we may see the enthusiasm gap reverse slightly.  Who knows

[Alcon]

do not-registered UAF matter in any way?

they are part of the dem/rep-numbers anyway, not?

Cohn is pointing out that there's a difference in how people are registered with the state, and how they identify themselves when a pollster calls.  I believe there are more voters who are registered as unaffiliated (because they didn't bother to pick a party) but then identify with their current lean when they are called.  My recollection (maybe I'm wrong) is that a lot of young people are registered unaffiliated, but identify as Democratic if asked.

[Alcon]

do not-registered UAF matter in any way?

they are part of the dem/rep-numbers anyway, not?

Cohn is pointing out that there's a difference in how people are registered with the state, and how they identify themselves when a pollster calls.  I believe there are more voters who are registered as unaffiliated (because they didn't bother to enroll) but then identify with their current lean when they are called.  My recollection (maybe I'm wrong) is that a lot of young people are registered unaffiliated, but identify as Democratic.

Yep. And, OTOH, many current R's/conservatives are self-IDing as independents, even though they aren't registered as such. Both just point to a need for a different lens according to whether you're looking at EV data or poll #s.

Yep!  This is the big problem with re-weighing to party ID.  Imagine both things are true.  You have young, independent-registered voters identifying as Democrats.  You also have Republican-registered voters identifying as independent, because they don't like the party.

That means your poll will show as having too many Democrats, and too few Republicans.  It also means your self-identified Independent sample is more Republican than actual, registered Independents.  That's because it's lacking a lot of Democratic-leaning Independents (those young voters who are IDing as Democrats), and includes a lot of registered Republicans (those registered Republicans identifying as Independents).

If this happens, your sample should be more Democratic, and less Republican, than registered voters.  Re-weighting to party ID will mess this up.  Also, because your self-IDed Independents are a lot more Republican than actual Independents, re-weighting to party ID will further skew the sample Republican.

(Sorry, I'm sure y'all know this, just my daily Bill Mitchell antidote)