Early & Absentee Voting Megathread - Build the Freiwal

[ON Progressive]

The Clark numbers are now up. Elko also came in, and while 435 may sound laughable, that’s not too far off from the 2016 number. Only problem for Republicans is that the margin is less Republican than it was for the first week of 2016.

So let’s see here:
1) rural areas not looking great for Rs
2) Dems dominating in Clark/Washoe

This could get bad for the GOP if things don’t change, and they rarely do in NV early vote.

[IceSpear]

But Atlas, Nate Silver, and the "Experts" told me that Heller was going to win (even in a Dem tsunami!) because he beat a corrupt lady under ethics investigation by 1 point while getting less votes than Mitt Romney, he's an INCUMBENT, Rosen is a Weak Candidate™, and it doesn't matter that junky Nevada polls have underestimated Democrats in nearly every election over the past decade and that they should be taken at face value!

[MT Treasurer]

But Atlas, Nate Silver, and the "Experts" told me that Heller was going to win (even in a Dem tsunami!) because he beat a corrupt lady under ethics investigation by 1 point while getting less votes than Mitt Romney, he's an INCUMBENT, Rosen is a Weak Candidate™, and it doesn't matter that junky Nevada polls have underestimated Democrats in nearly every election over the past decade and that they should be taken at face value!

I was ridiculed when I said NV-GOV was more likely to flip than WI-GOV.

[IceSpear]

But Atlas, Nate Silver, and the "Experts" told me that Heller was going to win (even in a Dem tsunami!) because he beat a corrupt lady under ethics investigation by 1 point while getting less votes than Mitt Romney, he's an INCUMBENT, Rosen is a Weak Candidate™, and it doesn't matter that junky Nevada polls have underestimated Democrats in nearly every election over the past decade and that they should be taken at face value!

I was ridiculed when I said NV-GOV was more likely to flip than WI-GOV.

But Marist told me Heller will win re-election at the same time Evers wins by double digits.

[MT Treasurer]

But Atlas, Nate Silver, and the "Experts" told me that Heller was going to win (even in a Dem tsunami!) because he beat a corrupt lady under ethics investigation by 1 point while getting less votes than Mitt Romney, he's an INCUMBENT, Rosen is a Weak Candidate™, and it doesn't matter that junky Nevada polls have underestimated Democrats in nearly every election over the past decade and that they should be taken at face value!

I was ridiculed when I said NV-GOV was more likely to flip than WI-GOV.

But Marist told me Heller will win re-election at the same time Evers wins by double digits.

Well, there are those junky Walker +1 and Rosen +2 polls, but they were conducted by Ma(R)quette and Pee Pee Pee (D D D), so I’ll still trust Marist, tbh.

[bilaps]

Clark numbers aren't really that bad for republicans if you consider 2016 as a base year and not 2014. Even Ralston said that there are problems with taking 2014 numbers cause there was no competitive race. When we take Clark numbers (both early vote and absentee numbers) there is 4k difference and around 10% D lead. After week 1 in 2016 lead was 40k votes and 15%.

But Washoe numbers are bad for republicans. They would need much better showing there.

[Xing]

Clark numbers aren't really that bad for republicans if you consider 2016 as a base year and not 2014. Even Ralston said that there are problems with taking 2014 numbers cause there was no competitive race. When we take Clark numbers (both early vote and absentee numbers) there is 4k difference and around 10% D lead. After week 1 in 2016 lead was 40k votes and 15%.

But Washoe numbers are bad for republicans. They would need much better showing there.

The thing is that, since turnout is lower than 2016, Democrats wouldn't need as large of a lead, in terms of raw votes, to be effectively ahead. Also, as I mentioned, adding up the absentee vote and the in person vote right now isn't really going to give accurate numbers, since we only have one day of in person voting, but we have absentees from a few weeks.

We'll have a better idea how the numbers compare to 2016 by the end of the week.

[IceSpear]

Clark numbers aren't really that bad for republicans if you consider 2016 as a base year and not 2014. Even Ralston said that there are problems with taking 2014 numbers cause there was no competitive race. When we take Clark numbers (both early vote and absentee numbers) there is 4k difference and around 10% D lead. After week 1 in 2016 lead was 40k votes and 15%.

But Washoe numbers are bad for republicans. They would need much better showing there.

There was a competitive race in 2014, actually. Unbeatable Titan Adam Laxalt won the Attorney General race by <1 point. But I'm sure he'll win the governor's mansion easily in a much better D climate, because junk polls told me so.

[bilaps]

Clark numbers aren't really that bad for republicans if you consider 2016 as a base year and not 2014. Even Ralston said that there are problems with taking 2014 numbers cause there was no competitive race. When we take Clark numbers (both early vote and absentee numbers) there is 4k difference and around 10% D lead. After week 1 in 2016 lead was 40k votes and 15%.

But Washoe numbers are bad for republicans. They would need much better showing there.

The thing is that, since turnout is lower than 2016, Democrats wouldn't need as large of a lead, in terms of raw votes, to be effectively ahead. Also, as I mentioned, adding up the absentee vote and the in person vote right now isn't really going to give accurate numbers, since we only have one day of in person voting, but we have absentees from a few weeks.

We'll have a better idea how the numbers compare to 2016 by the end of the week.

Yeah, I agree.

[WV222]

Clark numbers aren't really that bad for republicans if you consider 2016 as a base year and not 2014. Even Ralston said that there are problems with taking 2014 numbers cause there was no competitive race. When we take Clark numbers (both early vote and absentee numbers) there is 4k difference and around 10% D lead. After week 1 in 2016 lead was 40k votes and 15%.

But Washoe numbers are bad for republicans. They would need much better showing there.

There was a competitive race in 2014, actually. Unbeatable Titan Adam Laxalt won the Attorney General race by <1 point. But I'm sure he'll win the governor's mansion easily in a much better D climate, because junk polls told me so.

The AG race? No offense but AG races across the country do not really inspire people to turn out in droves to the polls.

[bilaps]

Latest Fl update have Republicans at 406,118, Democrats at 354,056

With others and NPA it's 923,652 people that already voted by mail.

So, so far it's 52k advantage republicans. At the end of 2014 process margin was 118k and in 2016 it was 59k.

[Virginiá]

The AG race? No offense but AG races across the country do not really inspire people to turn out in droves to the polls.

But turnout among Democrats already bottomed out in Nevada (2014), which led to huge losses at every level for them. So turnout wasn't the issue for Laxalt. He had the worst performance of all Republicans running for statewide office. Yes, it's debatable exactly how much people knew about the row officers they were voting for, but they clearly had some idea because the results tended to vary between races, with Laxalt barely winning his while his colleagues went on to comfortable wins (or flat out landslides).

I don't know how much this speaks to his possible performance this cycle, but there is certainly more reason to believe he's a "weaker" candidate than not.

[IceSpear]

Clark numbers aren't really that bad for republicans if you consider 2016 as a base year and not 2014. Even Ralston said that there are problems with taking 2014 numbers cause there was no competitive race. When we take Clark numbers (both early vote and absentee numbers) there is 4k difference and around 10% D lead. After week 1 in 2016 lead was 40k votes and 15%.

But Washoe numbers are bad for republicans. They would need much better showing there.

There was a competitive race in 2014, actually. Unbeatable Titan Adam Laxalt won the Attorney General race by <1 point. But I'm sure he'll win the governor's mansion easily in a much better D climate, because junk polls told me so.

The AG race? No offense but AG races across the country do not really inspire people to turn out in droves to the polls.

Exactly. It was pathetic that Laxalt could only win by less than a point despite Dem turnout being anemic in Nevada.

[libertpaulian]

Latest Fl update have Republicans at 406,118, Democrats at 354,056

With others and NPA it's 923,652 people that already voted by mail.

So, so far it's 52k advantage republicans. At the end of 2014 process margin was 118k and in 2016 it was 59k.

NPA is going to be what brings the race home for Nelson and Gillum.  Indys are crazy Dem this year.

[Politician]

Clark numbers aren't really that bad for republicans if you consider 2016 as a base year and not 2014. Even Ralston said that there are problems with taking 2014 numbers cause there was no competitive race. When we take Clark numbers (both early vote and absentee numbers) there is 4k difference and around 10% D lead. After week 1 in 2016 lead was 40k votes and 15%.

But Washoe numbers are bad for republicans. They would need much better showing there.

There was a competitive race in 2014, actually. Unbeatable Titan Adam Laxalt won the Attorney General race by <1 point. But I'm sure he'll win the governor's mansion easily in a much better D climate, because junk polls told me so.

The AG race? No offense but AG races across the country do not really inspire people to turn out in droves to the polls.

Exactly. It was pathetic that Laxalt could only win by less than a point despite Dem turnout being anemic in Nevada.

To be fair, Ross Miller was a strong candidate.

[bilaps]

Latest Fl update have Republicans at 406,118, Democrats at 354,056

With others and NPA it's 923,652 people that already voted by mail.

So, so far it's 52k advantage republicans. At the end of 2014 process margin was 118k and in 2016 it was 59k.

NPA is going to be what brings the race home for Nelson and Gillum.  Indys are crazy Dem this year.

Well, let's wait and see. It's not gonna be by-mail democrats for sure. They will again leave tons of votes not casted. 

[ON Progressive]

This is a pretty interesting bit from Ralston's early vote in Nevada blog:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[libertpaulian]

This is a pretty interesting bit from Ralston's early vote in Nevada blog:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If an uninspiring candidate like Rosen can pull this off with new voters and "missing" voters, just imagine what dynamic candidates like Abrams and Gillum can do.

[wbrocks67]

This is a pretty interesting bit from Ralston's early vote in Nevada blog:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is what makes me wonder about this year's LV screening model.

[Xing]

Looks like a few hundred more votes were added to Clark, so now it's 30.4K for Saturday. The margin is just about the same in terms of percentage (48.4-33.5 in favor of the Democrats), but that's a slightly larger raw vote margin.

[Ebsy]

Clark and Washoe have polling sites open today, so we should be getting updates this evening.

[Ebsy]

https://twitter.com/RalstonReports/status/1054160972158357504

Scary numbers for the GOP.

[Atlas Force]

https://twitter.com/RalstonReports/status/1054043302293471232

[Vern]

anyone know where we can find numbers for NC? I voted Friday and the line to vote was very long.

[bilaps]

https://twitter.com/RalstonReports/status/1054160972158357504

Scary numbers for the GOP.

Ralston going hard against his own reporting that 2014 isn't good year to compare.