2020 Absentee/Early Voting thread

[Non Swing Voter]

I don't understand how anyone could possibly be against allowing voters to fix issues before tossing their ballot. There are plenty of reasons why a mismatch could be declared. Perhaps the person checking doesn't know what they are doing, or the voter signed in a hurry, or signed under the assumption it didn't really matter, just like signing receipts after using a credit card.

For as much as conservatives think voting is being made too easy and "vulnerable" by the left, this is the polar opposite - making it too exclusionary for no good reason.

Oh there is a "reason" - the fewer people that vote, the better chance that Republicans win.

That's the conventional wisdom but Republicans are playing with fire this time.  They are set to lose college educated voters by a wide margin and are not doing as well among older voters.  I'm no longer sure that low turnout helps the GOP anymore.  Really high turnout doesn't help them either because: young voters.  I think we might be at the point where the GOP is too small a party to survive in its current form.

[Non Swing Voter]

Democrats seem to be returning ballots quicker than Republicans (in the small sample available).  I'm not buying the Trump enthusiasm edge.  This is starting to look more like a repeat of 2018 than anything.  Because Biden is a generic and non-offensive Democrat, I think the most likely scenario is that he wins by 7 points (or whatever the exact 2018 margin was) nationally and probably picks off the battleground states Dems won in 2018: PA, MI, WI, AZ, which would be enough to win.  In Florida, Republicans technically won but that's basically a tie.  If this pattern keeps up it seems like the outcome is going to be a small Biden win.

[Non Swing Voter]

Seems possible Michigan might be able to start processing (not counting) absentee ballots before election day, so maybe we won't have to wait too long for results in the end:

https://www.myjournalcourier.com/news/article/Senate-leader-Absentee-ballot-processing-bill-15550399.php

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — A bill that would allow Michigan clerks to start processing absentee ballots before Election Day is not dead, and the August primary legitimized concerns that some officials will not be able to quickly handle a surge of mailed-in ballots during the coronavirus pandemic, a legislative leader said.

Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey, a Republican, said the Senate continues to “finesse” the bipartisan proposal that has been on hold in the chamber since May. It is sponsored by Republican Sen. Ruth Johnson, a former secretary of state. Similar legislation, backed by Democrats, is pending in the House.

“It wouldn't surprise me that we get enough support to do something before the general election and then evaluate it afterward,” Shirkey, who previously opposed the measure, told The Associated Press last week. Allowing clerks to begin processing, but not counting, ballots the day before the election would not necessarily be a permanent change, he said.

Temporarily revising the law, Shirkey said, would enable the state to take “controlled steps, acknowledging that things have changed but not putting the integrity of the election in jeopardy." He said he could not predict if or when the Senate would act but said it is “being very seriously considered.”

Still, it's truly astounding that there is any serious resistance to this, particularly for a state that rapidly went from limited absentee ballot use (excuse only), to full no-excuse usage + a pandemic causing a significant portion of the electorate to use this previously unavailable service. The rational thing to do is to give election workers as much time to prepare as possible.

While the GOP in general seems to be using "voter fraud" and "election integrity" as a way to suppress the vote, there is a slice of the GOP that I believe is genuinely paranoid about voter fraud and cheating in big cities.  So to them, I think waiting a week for results is a totally fine tradeoff for even totally marginal election integrity.  The opportunists are also fine with this because it will make Trump look like he's ahead on election night.

[Non Swing Voter]

While the GOP in general seems to be using "voter fraud" and "election integrity" as a way to suppress the vote, there is a slice of the GOP that I believe is genuinely paranoid about voter fraud and cheating in big cities.  So to them, I think waiting a week for results is a totally fine tradeoff for even totally marginal election integrity.  The opportunists are also fine with this because it will make Trump look like he's ahead on election night.

Yeah, that's true. Still, it bothers me how little thought goes into this. Whenever the fraud angle is raised by paranoid activists, rarely does anyone actually mention how it's going to happen. The expectation from their point of view is that they yell fraud, and everyone is just supposed to concede. If you have a building full of Republican and Democrat poll workers/lawyers who are pre-processing absentee ballots so they can be quickly counted, then there isn't a whole lot of room for shenanigans. Even for people who are so irrationally afraid, you can mandate cameras, observers, whatever - the works. It is supremely irritating for these people to act like it's an unfixable "problem."

It's just like opposition to same-day voter registration. Most if not all these states require an ID to register same-day, probably proof of residency too. What more could you want? It's not all that different than just registering at the DMV, and the requirements are really too steep for any serious effort to cheat. But people still whine about it.

The whole debate on election law from Republicans has become nothing but an endless stream of bad faith agitators and bona fide morons who have no business weighing in at all. Even long-time Republican lawyer who litigated the 2000 FL debacle has come out against his people:

https://twitter.com/katyetc/status/1303501896196526080

/rant

I think the GOP has learned from Trump's ability to market.  You don't have to go deep on any train of thought, you just market the same few words over and over and people start to believe it, or at least enough do to promulgate the idea to the population.  Great for low information voters but this is a huge factor in why the suburbs are trending Democrat, I think.

[Non Swing Voter]

While the GOP in general seems to be using "voter fraud" and "election integrity" as a way to suppress the vote, there is a slice of the GOP that I believe is genuinely paranoid about voter fraud and cheating in big cities.  So to them, I think waiting a week for results is a totally fine tradeoff for even totally marginal election integrity.  The opportunists are also fine with this because it will make Trump look like he's ahead on election night.

Yeah, that's true. Still, it bothers me how little thought goes into this. Whenever the fraud angle is raised by paranoid activists, rarely does anyone actually mention how it's going to happen. The expectation from their point of view is that they yell fraud, and everyone is just supposed to concede. If you have a building full of Republican and Democrat poll workers/lawyers who are pre-processing absentee ballots so they can be quickly counted, then there isn't a whole lot of room for shenanigans. Even for people who are so irrationally afraid, you can mandate cameras, observers, whatever - the works. It is supremely irritating for these people to act like it's an unfixable "problem."

It's just like opposition to same-day voter registration. Most if not all these states require an ID to register same-day, probably proof of residency too. What more could you want? It's not all that different than just registering at the DMV, and the requirements are really too steep for any serious effort to cheat. But people still whine about it.

The whole debate on election law from Republicans has become nothing but an endless stream of bad faith agitators and bona fide morons who have no business weighing in at all. Even long-time Republican lawyer who litigated the 2000 FL debacle has come out against his people:

https://twitter.com/katyetc/status/1303501896196526080

/rant

I think the GOP has learned from Trump's ability to market.  You don't have to go deep on any train of thought, you just market the same few words over and over and people start to believe it, or at least enough do to promulgate the idea to the population.  Great for low information voters but this is a huge factor in why the suburbs are trending Democrat, I think.

I've noticed that as well. The Republican Party is basically the political equivalent to a message board where people do nothing but share memes.

Yup.  At the Michigan rally on tv today I saw signs reading "PEACEFUL PROTESTOR" - what is that about?  they're not even a party of ideas anymore, just pwning libs.

[Non Swing Voter]

At what point can we start extrapolating anything from this?  All I can say at this point is that Democrats are more engaged on actual voting while Trumpers are more engaged in going to rallies and posting on Facebook.

[Non Swing Voter]

I seem to remember several posts in October during the 2016 version of this thread saying that Florida was in the bag for Clinton.

That's true.  It was definitely an MSNBC talking point too.  I think that election was a lot more unpredictable though.  This one is pretty stable.  If Biden can get his people out he should win because the polls aren't fluctuating much.  High turnout will be a good sign.  Trump probably needs a low turnout election so his 40% base makes up a bigger share of the electorate. But we need to be cautious.

[Non Swing Voter]

I seem to remember several posts in October during the 2016 version of this thread saying that Florida was in the bag for Clinton.

That's true.  It was definitely an MSNBC talking point too.  I think that election was a lot more unpredictable though.  This one is pretty stable.  If Biden can get his people out he should win because the polls aren't fluctuating much.  High turnout will be a good sign.  Trump probably needs a low turnout election so his 40% base makes up a bigger share of the electorate. But we need to be cautious.

I remember seeing the early vote in Florida and North Carolina and believing the election was in the bag for Clinton. *sigh*

The only thing that cautions me about that election though, is what Comey did at the very end.  If he didn't act so negligently perhaps she would have pulled it out in some of those states. 

[Non Swing Voter]

I seem to remember several posts in October during the 2016 version of this thread saying that Florida was in the bag for Clinton.

That's true.  It was definitely an MSNBC talking point too.  I think that election was a lot more unpredictable though.  This one is pretty stable.  If Biden can get his people out he should win because the polls aren't fluctuating much.  High turnout will be a good sign.  Trump probably needs a low turnout election so his 40% base makes up a bigger share of the electorate. But we need to be cautious.

I remember seeing the early vote in Florida and North Carolina and believing the election was in the bag for Clinton. *sigh*

There was definitely an entire episode of Lawrence O'Donnell claiming that one Clinton +7 poll in Florida basically meant they could call the election for her.

lol yup.  that's exactly what I was thinking of when I mentioned MSNBC talking points.  He was basically popping champagne corks saying that the people who already voted were voting for Hillary at such a wide margin that Trump couldn't possibly make it up...

[Non Swing Voter]

There's a lot of time to correct the errors.  Democrats seem to be requesting ballots earlier than Republicans as a general matter so that strategic advantage might cancel out a bit.  I'd say it's safe to assume that most of the white votes being rejected are Trump voters as they seem to be coming from rural areas and college educated whites who are voting Biden are probably more likely to fill out the forms correctly.

[Non Swing Voter]

The crazy thing about those Fairfax lines is that we don't even tend to have super long wait times in Fairfax on Election Day (in the vast majority of precincts).  This is 100% about people who hate Trump.

[Non Swing Voter]

Just got my ballot emailed to me while riding the train home and nearly sh-t myself

what state are you in that does email balloting?

[Non Swing Voter]

Early voting numbers for day 1(09/19) :
Virginia : 34684
https://twitter.com/Elections2020Us/status/1307660200527175680

What?  Something seems off.  They said only 1500 voted in Fairfax on day 1, by far the largest jurisdiction, with huge lines.  Either that's wrong or the 34,000 number is off.  Hard to believe both are correct.

[Non Swing Voter]

Early voting numbers for day 1(09/19) :
Virginia : 34684
https://twitter.com/Elections2020Us/status/1307660200527175680

What?  Something seems off.  They said only 1500 voted in Fairfax on day 1, by far the largest jurisdiction, with huge lines.  Either that's wrong or the 34,000 number is off.  Hard to believe both are correct.

I haven't seen a county breakdown on the VA website and the 34,000 is possibly for two days and may not even include all counties.  As for Fairfax, they apparently only ran one room the first day and added a second room to expedite things the second. 

The 34,000 number is apparently right (not sure about 1 day or 2) because it's now on VPAP.org which is usually extremely reliable.  Maybe the Fairfax number floating around twitter was off.  I found it odd that it would be that low.

[Non Swing Voter]

Early voting numbers for day 1(09/19) :
Virginia : 34684
https://twitter.com/Elections2020Us/status/1307660200527175680

What?  Something seems off.  They said only 1500 voted in Fairfax on day 1, by far the largest jurisdiction, with huge lines.  Either that's wrong or the 34,000 number is off.  Hard to believe both are correct.

I haven't seen a county breakdown on the VA website and the 34,000 is possibly for two days and may not even include all counties.  As for Fairfax, they apparently only ran one room the first day and added a second room to expedite things the second. 

The 34,000 number is apparently right (not sure about 1 day or 2) because it's now on VPAP.org which is usually extremely reliable.  Maybe the Fairfax number floating around twitter was off.  I found it odd that it would be that low.

That's where I saw the number too, and it says the Va Dep of elections is the source, but I can't find anything on their page that gives a daily or a county/city breakdown. 

I checked too.  I just saw a graphic that had totals by congressional district.  The Northern Virginia districts clearly had the largest shares but it's unclear if that is early voting or early voting + absentee.  It's also not surprising as the 3 Northern Virginia districts are significantly more populated than the other districts due to population growth since the last census.

[Non Swing Voter]

Early voting numbers for day 1(09/19) :
Virginia : 34684
https://twitter.com/Elections2020Us/status/1307660200527175680

What?  Something seems off.  They said only 1500 voted in Fairfax on day 1, by far the largest jurisdiction, with huge lines.  Either that's wrong or the 34,000 number is off.  Hard to believe both are correct.

I haven't seen a county breakdown on the VA website and the 34,000 is possibly for two days and may not even include all counties.  As for Fairfax, they apparently only ran one room the first day and added a second room to expedite things the second. 

The 34,000 number is apparently right (not sure about 1 day or 2) because it's now on VPAP.org which is usually extremely reliable.  Maybe the Fairfax number floating around twitter was off.  I found it odd that it would be that low.

That's where I saw the number too, and it says the Va Dep of elections is the source, but I can't find anything on their page that gives a daily or a county/city breakdown. 

I checked too.  I just saw a graphic that had totals by congressional district.  The Northern Virginia districts clearly had the largest shares but it's unclear if that is early voting or early voting + absentee.  It's also not surprising as the 3 Northern Virginia districts are significantly more populated than the other districts due to population growth since the last census.

Vpap is a nice source but God they love their graphics, which is annoying when a simple table will do

Yes they are over the top with them.  The thing they are best for is precinct level maps.  You can go to Northern Virginia for instance, and zoom really far in and see vote totals at the precinct level in a very easy manner. 

[Non Swing Voter]

Seems like the early vote numbers aren't increasing all that much lately.  When are large amounts of ballots/early votes expected to come in? 

[Non Swing Voter]

ok actually there was a fairly large update today.  Over 150,000 people have voted in North Carolina.  When can we start extrapolating anything from this?  I don't buy the Wasserman theory that early voting turnout doesn't matter.  Dems like Obama warned that the numbers in NC were weak and it preluded to crappy Dem turnout.  150,000 seems pretty good at this point but not sure what to compare it to.

[Non Swing Voter]

When can we start extrapolating anything from this? 

In 2016, extrapolating from NC and FL's early vote is literally what led some of us to believe Clinton had the election in the bag. We know that with a pandemic, we have nothing at all to compare it too. There is simply nothing to be done with this information.

I think the consensus was that the early vote numbers looked bad for Clinton in NC.  Black turnout was low.

FL - that's true, but I believe that was in large part to the MSNBC trolling of Trump about how Clinton had a huge lead there. 

[Non Swing Voter]

Why is Milwaukee so low?  I would have thought Democrats would be targeting that city.  Dane voters are going to turnout anyway.

[Non Swing Voter]

I'm sorry but I have to think such insane early voting has to help Democrats if it stays like this.  Even though the Falls Church voters would almost certainly vote on Election Day, you never know, a few might have something come up, etc.  This banks their votes now.  Plus the party doesn't have to worry about them and invest resources last minute on voters who have already turned out.  If a similar thing happens in Philly and its burbs I think that's a good sign.

[Non Swing Voter]

I'm sorry but I have to think such insane early voting has to help Democrats if it stays like this.  Even though the Falls Church voters would almost certainly vote on Election Day, you never know, a few might have something come up, etc.  This banks their votes now.  Plus the party doesn't have to worry about them and invest resources last minute on voters who have already turned out.  If a similar thing happens in Philly and its burbs I think that's a good sign.

My thought on this is that I think it would be incredibly surprising if there weren't high Democratic turnout after the last three years of elections, and I think even predictions expecting a Trump win have to price that in, assuming high Republican turnout and moderates staying home or voting Republican unexpectedly. "We don't know what will happen" but it's just not conceivable that Democrats, at least white Democrats, don't turn out in huge number.

Yes, but what I mean is if Democrats can keep banking these votes now then the last week they can really focus their efforts on a smaller pool of voters to turn out or persuade.  If Dems have 50 million votes banked and Republicans only have 20 million banked, it must give them a strategic advantage around election time.

[Non Swing Voter]

how long til Virginia surpasses North Carolina in total early votes?  The numbers are insane.

[Non Swing Voter]

how long til Virginia surpasses North Carolina in total early votes?  The numbers are insane.

Very soon. NC has been adding around 20k a day while VA is close to 50k a day. NC has no in-person until the middle of October

Yeah and it looks like the VA absentee ballots are starting to trickle in more substantially.  I wouldn't be surprised if VA gets to 500,000 within 10 days.

[Non Swing Voter]

I'm sorry but I have to think such insane early voting has to help Democrats if it stays like this.  Even though the Falls Church voters would almost certainly vote on Election Day, you never know, a few might have something come up, etc.  This banks their votes now.  Plus the party doesn't have to worry about them and invest resources last minute on voters who have already turned out.  If a similar thing happens in Philly and its burbs I think that's a good sign.

Pennsylvania is unique among the swing states because it has no-excuse mail voting but no early in-person voting at all (other than dropping off a mail ballot that the voter already requested and was mailed).  Basically the opposite of Texas (highly restrictive mail voting with no COVID excuse, but long period of in-person early voting).  This is why the vagaries of mail voting in PA are getting so much scrutiny. 

That was true until this year - but many counties, at least in Philly/Southeast are opening satellite election offices to basically do pseudo "early voting" this year. I think the Philly ones open this week or next week

The "all-in-one" absentee satellite offices haven't opened yet and are being challenged in court.

They are opening September 29th regardless: https://www.inquirer.com/politics/election/philadelphia-early-voting-locations-2020-election-20200918.html

OK, looks promising.  If the whole thing happens under poll worker supervision, a lot of the high profile errors that could invalidate a ballot can be avoided.

The only thing I worry about pessimistically is that because these are new, that no one really knows about them. It would be really great if enough people utilized them, and I hope they do, but I fear many people don't realize they're even opening

This is why I am worried that the D's are using their cash advantage too much on advertising and not on ground game.  They need to make sure every Democrat in Philly votes.