KY-SEN: Amy McGrath in

[NOVA Green]

McGrath dropping fast on predictit

They must all be following Atlas Forums / Talk Elections...   (Or a Forum member is manipulating the online betting markets--- most likely scenario).

[n1240]

McGrath dropping fast on predictit

They must all be following Atlas Forums / Talk Elections...   (Or a Forum member is manipulating the online betting markets--- most likely scenario).

It has stabilized to 50/50, some randoms on twitter can actually have impressive sway on the markets (some account saying Booker winning Fayette by large margin implied that he would likely win, seemingly not realizing the large amount of uncounted absentees in Kentucky).

[NOVA Green]

Something weird going on between the latest WaPo and NYT County numbers...





Something is quite a bit off....

[n1240]

Something weird going on between the latest WaPo and NYT County numbers...





Something is quite a bit off....

WaPo has Fayette eday where Booker dominated.

[NOVA Green]

Something weird going on between the latest WaPo and NYT County numbers...





Something is quite a bit off....

WaPo has Fayette eday where Booker dominated.

More than that...

[n1240]

Something weird going on between the latest WaPo and NYT County numbers...

Something is quite a bit off....

WaPo has Fayette eday where Booker dominated.

More than that...

Woodford and Fayette are the largest vote totals missing from NYTimes. McGrath ended up doing quite well in Woodford but not enough to offset Fayette. WaPo missing stuff like Carter and Lincoln which seem to be complete and went to McGrath by considerable margins.

[BL53931]

Why, hours after the polls have closed in KY,  is it still so frigging hard to get any numbers? The Louisville Courier Journal seems to have hidden them behind other stories. Is there some state law preventing partial release of results?

Can someone in KY explain the reasoning behind poll closure at 6 PM?? Is this some carry over from the 1800s? Just seems ridiculous in an urban area.

[Xing]

NYT has Fayette now, McGrath’s lead down to 6.4%.

[Sorenroy]

The New York Times updated their numbers around 5:00 PM and McGrath's lead is down to 6.3%. More importantly, they updated their share of votes reported numbers. It looks like the NYT thinks that the number of votes unreported is about two thirds of the total, up from 50%-ish they were showing before the update.

[South Dakota Democrat]

If Kentucky is a PREVIEW what's to come in November we may not know the answer who will be the next POTUS for Days, even weeks UNLESS Biden wins by 6-10 Points nationally and his Poll-lead, he has right now holds up until Nov 3rd.

Well, Democrats wanted this Absentee Nonsense and they have to live by it.

Yeah, it's crazy to want everyone to be able to vote safely.

[NOVA Green]

So while watching the paint dry and waiting for more election results to come in, I went back over the past Hour and double checked NYT & Washington Post Numbers.



So.... let's assume that the Washington Post Numbers are correct for Counties that the New York Times does not have listed:

Washington Post Numbers:

Christian---  755 Booker, 297 McGrath    (1251 TOTAL)
Laurel--       136 Booker  117 McGrath    ( 283 TOTAL)
Letcher-       124 Booker   84 McGrath     (250 TOTAL)
Pike-            209 Booker   192 McGrath   (517 TOTAL)
Woodford-    1449 Booker  2180 McGrath  (4272 TOTAL)
Franklin-        211 Booker   108 McGrath   ( 364 TOTAL)
Bell-              140 Booker   223 McGrath   ( 476 TOTAL)
Lewis-             89 Booker   291 McGRath  ( 430 TOTAL)

TOTAL=       +3,113 Booker  +3,492 McGrath    (+ 7,843 TOTAL)

Then, I went back and looked at the counties where New York Times and Washington Post numbers did not match:

DISCREPANCY COUNTIES:

Edmonson-   NYT= 28 Booker, 61 McGrath     WaPo=   9 Booker, 26 McGrath     ***
Barren-        NYT= 353 Booker, 314 McGrath   WaPo= 310 Booker, 187 McGrath   ***
Shelby         NYT=  636 Booker,   453 McGRath WaPo=   234 Booker, 123 McGrath  ***         
Jessamine-   NYT=  362 Booker, 198 McGrath   WaPo=   240 Booker, 140 McGrath ***
Scott-         NYT=   600 Booker, 529 McGrath  WaPo=   463 Booker, 425 McGrath   ***
Boone-        NYT=   580 Booker,  621 McGRath, WaPo=  581 Booker, 623 McGrath 
Campbell-    NYT=    92 Booker,  195 McGrath,  WaPo=   390 Booker, 262 McGrath
Clark-          NYT=   208 Booker  128 McGrath,  WaPo=  284 Booker, 184 McGrath
Nicholas-     NYT=     68 Booker,   55 McGrath,  WaPo=   55 Booker, 46 McGrath   ***
Perry-         NYT=     59 Booker,   68 McGrath,  WaPo=   148 Booker, 70 McGrath
Greenup     NYT=     60 Booker,  122 McGrath,  WaPo=   105 Booker, 189 McGrath
Boyd          NYT=     518 Booker, 692 McGrath Wapo=    469 Booker, 789 McGrath   ??

Let's start with the assumption that the news outlet with the highest numbers has the latest updates vs numbering errors.

1.) So the counties with asterisks are NYT numbers that appear to be valid.
2.) The counties without asterisks are WaPo numbers that appear to be valid.
3.) Boyd County looks to be some sort of data error since both cannot be possible, unless different precincts are included between the NYT and WaPo results.

So Let's start with the NYT Baseline:

A.) McGrath 28,238    Booker 24,172
B.) Now let's add the Washington Post Counties missing from the NYT totals:

McGrath---   31,730
Booker-       27,285

C.) Now let's subtract the NYT numbers for counties where WaPo numbers represent a higher total vote count...

McGrath-    Subtract 1,134    Votes      (30,596 Votes)     
Booker-      Subtract   999     Votes      (26,286 Votes)

D.) Now we need to add back in the WaPo numbers for both candidates for those counties:

McGrath-    Add        1,328   Votes      (31,924 Votes)
Booker-     Add         1,508 Votes        (27,794 Votes)

E.) No idea what to do with Boyd County...

F.) It would have been quite a bit of work to go in and add and subtract all of the other candidates and raw totals, so unfortunately I didn't feel like going through to try to identify what the actual current % looks like.

G.) I checked DDHQ and didn't see any county results that stood out for missing counties, KY news organizations appear to be mirroring NYT totals, and State and local Election offices do not have any data I was able to easily locate....

So, fwiw something worth taking a look at, and if you've got any additional results out there, something to look at while we wait.... just like watching paint dry as I said at the beginning....

[DINGO Joe]

Pay no attention to % reporting or whatever .  The total vote will likely exceed 500,000 in the D primary so pay attention to how many votes have been counted--like 10-12% of the expected total.

[Oryxslayer]

Pay no attention to % reporting or whatever .  The total vote will likely exceed 500,000 in the D primary so pay attention to how many votes have been counted--like 10-12% of the expected total.

In 2016 it was 426K, so the total may be lower than your 500K, but that doesn't change that fact that everyone should just put this race on the back-burner and tune back in later.

[NOVA Green]

Pay no attention to % reporting or whatever .  The total vote will likely exceed 500,000 in the D primary so pay attention to how many votes have been counted--like 10-12% of the expected total.

Thanks DINGO.... almost thought you were trying to make a point at my post for a brief second. 

The point you are accentuating is one of stories about the KY DEM SEN PRIM which totally slips under the radar of the MSM...

Record PRIM Turnout (TO) % numbers in KY, despite the lack of a competitive DEM/PUB PRES PRIM, simply as a result of shifting to a hybrid ED and VbM Model....

Although everyone can wrangle about the dramatic cutback in polling stations (Especially within the largest Counties by POP), and potential disproportionate impacts to African-American and Democratic constituencies, it does initially appear that KY has been able to significantly expand voter turnout overall.

Additionally, KY is moving more towards a CA VbM Model vs an OR VbM Model, in that ballots post-marked on election day are valid, so long as they are received by the end of the week.

I haven't looked up the exact KY statutes, but personally I don't believe people should be forced to pay for postage (especially in an era where stamps almost seem like a forgotten relic of a bygone era), so if KY is forcing people to pay for stamps, they need to do an Oregon, where at least there are VbM drop-boxes available within a reasonable driving distance in every county within the State...

Now--- obvious flaws:

1.) Slow level of vote counting and/or counties waiting to release results until "all results are in".

2.) I understand slower levels of vote counting with a whole new system, combined with COVID-19 reducing the number of County Level Election Workers able to count ballots at one time.

3.) Still transparency is key.... although as an Atlas Geek & Oregonian (We invented 100% VbM--- sorry had to rub it in.      ) it is important for voters to know that:

    A.)   Their ballots are capable of being tracked, and are able to dispute rejected ballots because OCR Tech might fail their ballot, someone stole their ballot from the mailbox, etc....

   B.)  State and County Election Officials provide reasonable and timely updates of election results.

   C.) Murky--- Let's say I move from Address "A" to Address "B".... get my ballot forwarded within Municipality "A" to Municipality "B" within KY (Hypothetically).

Maybe I didn't update my current home address within KY but should at least be able to vote for PRES / SEN within KY, or within a Congressional District for a Candidate....

   D.) Okay let's say I move from Harlan County to Pike County, I would not be able to vote for "dogcatcher" or sheriff in Harlan County, but should at least be able to vote for everything else...

[DINGO Joe]

Pay no attention to % reporting or whatever .  The total vote will likely exceed 500,000 in the D primary so pay attention to how many votes have been counted--like 10-12% of the expected total.

In 2016 it was 426K, so the total may be lower than your 500K, but that doesn't change that fact that everyone should just put this race on the back-burner and tune back in later.

Well, Woodford, Montogmery, Bath, Mason, Taylor, Pulaski, and Carter have all reported higher vote totals than in 2016 (all solidly McGrath), so if Booker has a chance, Louisville better do so too

[DINGO Joe]

Pay no attention to % reporting or whatever .  The total vote will likely exceed 500,000 in the D primary so pay attention to how many votes have been counted--like 10-12% of the expected total.

Thanks DINGO.... almost thought you were trying to make a point at my post for a brief second. 

The point you are accentuating is one of stories about the KY DEM SEN PRIM which totally slips under the radar of the MSM...

Record PRIM Turnout (TO) % numbers in KY, despite the lack of a competitive DEM/PUB PRES PRIM, simply as a result of shifting to a hybrid ED and VbM Model....

Don't know about a record turnout, as 2008 D was over 600,000 votes

[n1240]

Pay no attention to % reporting or whatever .  The total vote will likely exceed 500,000 in the D primary so pay attention to how many votes have been counted--like 10-12% of the expected total.

Thanks DINGO.... almost thought you were trying to make a point at my post for a brief second. 

The point you are accentuating is one of stories about the KY DEM SEN PRIM which totally slips under the radar of the MSM...

Record PRIM Turnout (TO) % numbers in KY, despite the lack of a competitive DEM/PUB PRES PRIM, simply as a result of shifting to a hybrid ED and VbM Model....

Don't know about a record turnout, as 2008 D was over 600,000 votes

About 880k votes as of today, SOS is apparently expecting about 185k more absentees to come in which seems like a ridiculously high estimate as it would put them at 90% absentees returned, considering other states that transitioned to heavy VBM setups - Georgia reached 82% (no late postmarks though); West Virginia reached 86%, but they were at around 80% on election day; not completely sure about PA but the counties that accepted late absentees received around 3-6% of their absentees after election day and generally ended up around 70-80% turnout. Ohio

If the rate at which late ballots come in here are similar to PA and WV, we'd expect the rate of return to dramatically slow and might only end up with something like 40-50k more absentees.

Assuming about 930k votes might expect something like 560k votes assuming a 60/40 D/R split based off 2019 gubernatorial. I'll try and come up with a better estimate taking a dive into the eday splits and the complete county splits, I'd think if anything, the D split of votes may be less than 60%, but it's possible that disproportionately high vote in Fayette and Jefferson could skew it above.

[RogueBeaver]

https://twitter.com/NilesGApol/status/1276166091992182789

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Good, this is very good

[wbrocks67]

Still a ton of votes left but honestly would not be surprised if McGrath lost at this point.

And that's fine - Booker has more energy on the ground it seems, and McGrath can give her $$$ to other Senate Dems

[Oryxslayer]

Remember, don't get hyped until the majority of votes show up at 6/30.

[Pheurton Skeurto]

(cautiously optimistic but)

[2016]

All these Booker Supporters here have to realize one thing:

Booker was expected to beat McGrath in the In-Person Vote given the surge.

I still have massive doubts that his lead will hold once the Absentee Vote is fully tabulated.

The NY Times said on Tuesday even Bookers Aides saying privatly that he will get close to Mrs McGrath but not get over the top.

[ON Progressive]

https://twitter.com/joesonka/status/1276171990286635015?s=21

[DINGO Joe]

All these Booker Supporters here have to realize one thing:

Booker was expected to beat McGrath in the In-Person Vote given the surge.

I still have massive doubts that his lead will hold once the Absentee Vote is fully tabulated.

The NY Times said on Tuesday even Bookers Aides saying privatly that he will get close to Mrs McGrath but not get over the top.

The in-person voting seems pretty small.  Really need some kind of indication of late returning mail ballots to believe Booker has a chance.