turnout reports, voting problems, and last minute dirty tricks

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

I've seen videos of the supposedly "rigged" voting machines on both sides. 99% of the time, it's because it's a touch screen, and the cursor is ever so slightly off from where your finger touches it. So, rather than trying press a different part of the screen, they will simply keep pressing the middle of their candidate's box going "baaaa rigged!" as some other thing gets selected.

The go to example I've seen is right here and it seems like he's trying different spots.

I mean, even if Hillary was having the election rigged, she wouldn't do it in so blatant a fashion, but it still looks pretty bad even if its unintentional

I've seen videos of the supposedly "rigged" voting machines on both sides. 99% of the time, it's because it's a touch screen, and the cursor is ever so slightly off from where your finger touches it. So, rather than trying press a different part of the screen, they will simply keep pressing the middle of their candidate's box going "baaaa rigged!" as some other thing gets selected.

Urggh! Just get rid of those damn voting machines. Paper is more, secure and more efficient.

Why is it so hard for America to run efficient and secure elections? Every country in Europe can do it!

Seriously someone should start a Make American Voting Great Again campaign.

America is several times larger than any single European country. California alone is comparable in size to Poland. If European elections were of equal importance to American presidential elections, I guarantee it would be a messy process especially in places like Spain and Italy.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

tl;dr turnout is extremely high basically everywhere except for AA areas where it's lower (I would have thought it was obvious that the AA vote would decline without Obama but apparently some people are surprised by this)

Calling it now, this election is going to come down to the educated white vote. If Trump wins, it's because the educated white vote swung back to him and gave him the edge in NC, NH and the Midwest. If he loses, it'll be because they voted Clinton instead.

I'd give Clinton an 85% chance at winning, but I'm almost certain that the crosstab story of the cycle will be how whoever won was pushed over the edge by a proportionate advantage with educated white voters.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

tl;dr turnout is extremely high basically everywhere except for AA areas where it's lower (I would have thought it was obvious that the AA vote would decline without Obama but apparently some people are surprised by this)

Calling it now, this election is going to come down to the educated white vote. If Trump wins, it's because the educated white vote swung back to him and gave him the edge in NC, NH and the Midwest. If he loses, it'll be because they voted Clinton instead.

I'd give Clinton an 85% chance at winning, but I'm almost certain that the crosstab story of the cycle will be how whoever won was pushed over the edge by a proportionate advantage with educated white voters.

And Hispanics?...

Overrated. Most of the states where Hispanics are actually a significant part of the electorate are either states Hillary needs to win regardless (California, New Mexico, Colorado) or states where increased Hispanic turnout won't be enough on its own (Texas, Arizona). The only swing state that could be decided by Latinos is Florida, but Cuban voting patterns are so different from "Generic Latino" voting patterns that I hesitate to even say increased turnout from them would significantly change the outcome of the election.

If Trump loses Arizona and/or Florida due to the Hispanic vote while still winning any of New Hampshire, Michigan or Pennsylvania (and losing the election after, obviously) then I'll concede that they're the bigger influence. Barring that, this'll be the "who brings over more undecided college educated whites" election.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

CNN is saying that Macomb County MI is on track for 1980 turnout

What does that even mean?

It means that things are probably looking up for Trump in Michigan. Macomb is the sort of place Trump has been focusing really hard on winning, lots of blue collar workers, mostly uneducated,  leans a bit towards the Republicans even when they don't run a candidate basically designed for them.

Mark my words, Trump will overperform in Michigan, though whether that will be enough to actually win the state depends on his overall performance.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

CNN is saying that Macomb County MI is on track for 1980 turnout

What does that even mean?

It means that things are probably looking up for Trump in Michigan. Macomb is the sort of place Trump has been focusing really hard on winning, lots of blue collar workers, mostly uneducated,  leans a bit towards the Republicans even when they don't run a candidate basically designed for them.

Mark my words, Trump will overperform in Michigan, though whether that will be enough to actually win the state depends on his overall performance.

I remember much ado being made about Macomb in 2012. Didn't amount to much and Obama won Michigan more than comfortably.

Obama had the benefit of an inflated AA vote in the Midwest, not to mention that Trump has way more appeal to blue collar whites than Romney ever did.

Take a regular Michigan election, significantly reduce AA turnout, increase turnout everywhere else, and give the Republican an advantage with uneducated whites. That's a recipe for a close election in Michigan, and it's what seems to be happening right now. The only real upside Hillary has over Obama in Michigan is the possibility of higher college educated white support, something that might give her the win but won't give her the sort of margin a Democrat should expect from Michigan.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

CNN is saying that Macomb County MI is on track for 1980 turnout

What does that even mean?

It means that things are probably looking up for Trump in Michigan. Macomb is the sort of place Trump has been focusing really hard on winning, lots of blue collar workers, mostly uneducated,  leans a bit towards the Republicans even when they don't run a candidate basically designed for them.

Mark my words, Trump will overperform in Michigan, though whether that will be enough to actually win the state depends on his overall performance.

I remember much ado being made about Macomb in 2012. Didn't amount to much and Obama won Michigan more than comfortably.

Obama had the benefit of an inflated AA vote in the Midwest, not to mention that Trump has way more appeal to blue collar whites than Romney ever did.

Take a regular Michigan election, significantly reduce AA turnout, increase turnout everywhere else, and give the Republican an advantage with uneducated whites. That's a recipe for a close election in Michigan, and it's what seems to be happening right now. The only real upside Hillary has over Obama in Michigan is the possibility of higher college educated white support, something that might give her the win but won't give her the sort of margin a Democrat should expect from Michigan.

You just contradicted yourself. If you're comparing to 2008/2012, by your own logic, you're not comparing to a "regular election". Even in 2000, Gore won the state by 5%. And it's highly unlikely black turnout will be as low as it was in that election.

George Bush wasn't running on a "NAFTA was bad" Pat Buchanan style platform.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

CNN is saying that Macomb County MI is on track for 1980 turnout

What does that even mean?

It means that things are probably looking up for Trump in Michigan. Macomb is the sort of place Trump has been focusing really hard on winning, lots of blue collar workers, mostly uneducated,  leans a bit towards the Republicans even when they don't run a candidate basically designed for them.

Mark my words, Trump will overperform in Michigan, though whether that will be enough to actually win the state depends on his overall performance.

I remember much ado being made about Macomb in 2012. Didn't amount to much and Obama won Michigan more than comfortably.

Obama had the benefit of an inflated AA vote in the Midwest, not to mention that Trump has way more appeal to blue collar whites than Romney ever did.

Take a regular Michigan election, significantly reduce AA turnout, increase turnout everywhere else, and give the Republican an advantage with uneducated whites. That's a recipe for a close election in Michigan, and it's what seems to be happening right now. The only real upside Hillary has over Obama in Michigan is the possibility of higher college educated white support, something that might give her the win but won't give her the sort of margin a Democrat should expect from Michigan.

You just contradicted yourself. If you're comparing to 2008/2012, by your own logic, you're not comparing to a "regular election". Even in 2000, Gore won the state by 5%. And it's highly unlikely black turnout will be as low as it was in that election.

George Bush wasn't running on a "NAFTA was bad" Pat Buchanan style platform.

Is that worth a five point swing? I'm not convinced.

Convinced yet?