The absentee/early vote thread

[Speed of Sound]

Yes, first time voters regardless if they registered D or R 20 or more years ago is a strong PLUS for Trump. These people who didn't turn out for Obama are def. the ones who are interested in voting for the first time ever for Hillary. I'll say it again regardless of which party they registered with 20+ years ago, if first time voters is up, that is a good thing for Trump, just as we saw during the primaries.

Yes, except these are first time voters, meaning they're registering as a Democrat or a Republican this year for the first time and voting. Clear Clinton advantage.

Oh well, if its new voters just eligible to vote that are being considered new voters than yes without question HUGE advantage Clinton, elections over.

If its eligible voters for over 20+ years that are voting for the first time but check if they are a D or R when they vote i still say advantage Trump. Trump isn't a "republican" in most peoples eyes, hes more of an independent that the left calls crazy and the people who like him call the change needed desperately in Washington.

He's absolutely viewed as a Republican and, moreover, Independents view him as a bad one.

[Smeulders]

Crossover from the new polls thread, Monmouth polled Arizona and came back with the following result.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So even though there doesn't seem to be a party breakdown of the early vote in Arizona, this doesn't look bad for Clinton.

[Antonio the Sixth]

OMG Texas

i want to believe

[dspNY]

Yes, first time voters regardless if they registered D or R 20 or more years ago is a strong PLUS for Trump. These people who didn't turn out for Obama are def. the ones who are interested in voting for the first time ever for Hillary. I'll say it again regardless of which party they registered with 20+ years ago, if first time voters is up, that is a good thing for Trump, just as we saw during the primaries.

That's not what the early vote polling questions out of the NC, AZ and NBC/WSJ poll are saying

In NC, PPP found that Clinton is winning the early vote 63/37
In AZ, Monmouth found that Clinton has a 10 point lead in ballots already cast
In the NBC/WSJ poll, the Obama approval rating for voters who cast a ballot early was in the mid-60s

[BoAtlantis]

Sorry if anyone posted this already but here is the summary of 1st day in TX.

https://twitter.com/PatrickSvitek/status/790772883450568704

"My back of the napkin: Early voting up by average of 57% today in Texas' five biggest counties compared to first early voting day in 2012"

[Baki]

That's a very nice looking graph.

[MasterJedi]

I saw someone I know liked a page where Trey Gowdy is trying to peddle that thousands of dead people have voted for Clinton in Florida and thousands more are every day from the Christian times. People are eating it up -_-

[Ebsy]

Texas had nearly 8 million votes cast in 2012.  A ~50% increase in turnout would bring that to 12 million.  To bridge a 1.25 million gap Democrats would need be to winning ~67% of those new 4 million voters.

Is it possible?  Maybe, but they really will need to have more R->D converts from the original 8 million to help make it possible most likely.

Or a collapse in GOP turnout.

[BoAtlantis]

Per Steve Schale,

"More Democrats have voted in Broward County today (+12,000) than Republicans have voted in Indian River over two weeks (7,500)."

"Already 20,000 more people in Broward County, FL have in person early voted today.  Roughly 3:1 Democratic so far."

[PresidentTRUMP]

Per Steve Schale,

"More Democrats have voted in Broward County today (+12,000) than Republicans have voted in Indian River over two weeks (7,500)."

"Already 20,000 more people in Broward County, FL have in person early voted today.  Roughly 3:1 Democratic so far."

So Florida based on this is Clintons and the election is over if the numbers are accurate.

[Dr. Arch]

The common speculation so far has been that Trump is both a Democratic turnout machine and a Republican suppressor. These results, so far, appear to be in line with such observations.

[The Other Castro]

Per Steve Schale,

"More Democrats have voted in Broward County today (+12,000) than Republicans have voted in Indian River over two weeks (7,500)."

"Already 20,000 more people in Broward County, FL have in person early voted today.  Roughly 3:1 Democratic so far."

So Florida based on this is Clintons and the election is over if the numbers are accurate.

Correctamundo.

[Chaddyr23]

Per Steve Schale,

"More Democrats have voted in Broward County today (+12,000) than Republicans have voted in Indian River over two weeks (7,500)."

"Already 20,000 more people in Broward County, FL have in person early voted today.  Roughly 3:1 Democratic so far."

In fairness Broward County is 18x bigger than Indian River. That being said Clinton should run up 60%+ margins here and in Miami-Dade. Highly curious what the breakdown in Indian River is, 1) Murphy represents the counties immediately to the south of Indian River 2) very traditional Republican area, Romney won by 22 while McCain won by 14 in the county

[dspNY]

Iowa absentee ballot stats, 10/25

Ballots requested:

DEM: 211,222
GOP: 168,766
IND: 105,952
Other: 1,420

Ballots cast:

DEM: 144,690
GOP: 103,595
IND: 61,880
Other: 842

Dems now ahead by 42.5K in ballot requests and 41K in votes cast. If that lead stretches back to 50K I think Iowa stays blue

[Ebsy]

Yeah the doom and gloom seems to be lifting in Iowa, much as it did in Maine.

[dspNY]

Yeah the doom and gloom seems to be lifting in Iowa, much as it did in Maine.

Mook and company planned their absentee ballot push a bit later this time

[The Other Castro]

So the conventional wisdom seemed to be that early vote was good for Trump in IA and OH, and great for Clinton everywhere else. Now it seems the reasoning on Ohio is conflicted depending on who you talk to, and the Iowa advantage is slipping away.

[Ebsy]

So the conventional wisdom seemed to be that early vote was good for Trump in IA and OH, and great for Clinton everywhere else. Now it seems the reasoning on Ohio is conflicted depending on who you talk to, and the Iowa advantage is slipping away.

Apparently the models of the early vote in Ohio are pretty good for the Democrats.

[dspNY]

So the conventional wisdom seemed to be that early vote was good for Trump in IA and OH, and great for Clinton everywhere else. Now it seems the reasoning on Ohio is conflicted depending on who you talk to, and the Iowa advantage is slipping away.

HRC added a Des Moines rally to her Friday Iowa visit, originally supposed to be one stop in Cedar Rapids

[Virginiá]

https://www.texascivilrightsproject.org/en/2016/10/25/release-early-voters-see-problems-with-photo-id-intimidation/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Considering the ruling requiring Texas to allow those without IDs to vote after signing an affidavit has been known for months now, there is really no excuse here. Knowing Texas, I'm inclined to think they pulled something similar to what Wisconsin did the past 3~ months, where they are given a court order to make changes and then instead of doing the necessary retraining, they only send out a few memos here and there knowing full well that many mistakes will be made and many workers will inevitably think they are still requiring photo ID.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Saw a lot of I Voted Early stickers at my work today looked mostly older whites and younger blacks obviously not a sign of what's going on.

[Mehmentum]

The common speculation so far has been that Trump is both a Democratic turnout machine and a Republican suppressor. These results, so far, appear to be in line with such observations.

In conjunction with a superb ground game by the Democrats and a dumpster fire ground game by the Republicans.  Its a perfect storm.

[Adam Griffin]

It's one thing to take at face value the data in states that show partisan affiliation, massive numbers of newly-registered Democrats and unlikely Democrats voting, but in states where we don't have that specific data yet, I'd be cautious about celebrating higher early vote totals compared to four years ago. Between every two comparable election cycles over the past 10+ years, early vote totals have tended to increase, but it's just mainly Election Day vote being cannibalized.

[BoAtlantis]

It's one thing to take at face value the data in states that show partisan affiliation, massive numbers of newly-registered Democrats and unlikely Democrats voting, but in states where we don't have that specific data yet, I'd be cautious about celebrating higher early vote totals compared to four years ago. Between every two comparable election cycles over the past 10+ years, early vote totals have tended to increase, but it's just mainly Election Day vote being cannibalized.

In Florida's case, Steve Schale says

"Finally, with the help of a friend yesterday, I looked into the question of whether Democrats were simply "canibalizing" their traditional vote by encouraging its traditional voters to vote early in person and by mail.

Two points: First, even if that's all they did, Clinton would almost surely win Florida. Republicans need to expand the electorate to win.

But, that isn't what is happening. Over 28% of Democratic vote by mail returnees as of yesterday were either first time voters, or rare voters (voted in 1 of last 3), compared to 20% for Republicans. Other way of looking at it: 80% of GOP vote by mail returns are from the most likely voters, compared to 72% of Democrats. That is voter expansion."

[HillOfANight]

http://www.insight-us.org/blog/north-carolinas-early-voting-2016-dashboard/

North Carolina

With 385,000 ballots now cast, turnout remains below 2012’s pace, but not by much (95% of 2012’s rate for the corresponding period). That’s a very substantial change from the 81% we reported on October 20th, just before Early Voting began.

Turnout is down not surprisingly in 28 counties that have restricted early voting, but in normal counties, it's up across all parties, especially unaffiliateds.



A warning sign for Clinton, black turnout is 75% of what it was in 2012, compared to 102% among whites. It does mention that this Sunday's souls to the polls could alleviate that.

Not seeing why Clinton should be concerned if Democrats are doing much better than 2012 (compared to GOP) with a whiter electorate. I suppose we will see how souls to the polls impacts African American turnout.

http://www.insight-us.org/blog/north-carolinas-early-voting-2016-dashboard/

You must be logged in to read this quote.