2020 Absentee/Early Voting megathread 2

[mijan]

https://twitter.com/IowaSOS/status/1323305245716451332

[mijan]

955971 Iowans have voted early.
D 438155
R 316512
NPA 196866

https://sos.iowa.gov/elections/pdf/2020/general/AbsenteeCongressional2020.pdf

So per the Civiqs poll, those that already voted support Biden/Greenfield 67-32. Those that are still to vote support Trump/Ernst 67-27. Assuming NPA's split evenly, by this math Republicans need to basically match the EV turnout on election day to have a chance, which seems unlikely (1.5 million people voted in 2016, the turnout in 2020 would need to be 500,000 more than that to counter EV).

Wait, so blue Iowa is back in the realm of possibility?

The logic of this hinges on the Civiqs poll, I couldn't find another recent poll with crosstabs that indicated preference between already voted/still-to-vote. But to me, unless E-day in IA pushes turnout to 1.9 million, I'd say the GOP were on the back foot.

IA has 2.09 millions of voters.
1.9 million means 90% turnout.

[mijan]

160- 170 k dem lead today in Florida today with over 9 million votes casts compared to 100k dem lead with 6 million votes cast back on 2016.

I'd say Dems are still favoured even when you account NPAs going for Biden

Yes we have more than 50% chance to win FL.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

955971 Iowans have voted early.
D 438155
R 316512
NPA 196866

https://sos.iowa.gov/elections/pdf/2020/general/AbsenteeCongressional2020.pdf

So per the Civiqs poll, those that already voted support Biden/Greenfield 67-32. Those that are still to vote support Trump/Ernst 67-27. Assuming NPA's split evenly, by this math Republicans need to basically match the EV turnout on election day to have a chance, which seems unlikely (1.5 million people voted in 2016, the turnout in 2020 would need to be 500,000 more than that to counter EV).

Yeah that definitely isn't happening. Say that poll is off in the GOP's favor and it's actually 62-38. At most there are 700,000 Iowans left to vote and the GOP needs to win those at least 66-34. I don't like the odds of that happening.

[roxas11]

955971 Iowans have voted early.
D 438155
R 316512
NPA 196866

https://sos.iowa.gov/elections/pdf/2020/general/AbsenteeCongressional2020.pdf

So per the Civiqs poll, those that already voted support Biden/Greenfield 67-32. Those that are still to vote support Trump/Ernst 67-27. Assuming NPA's split evenly, by this math Republicans need to basically match the EV turnout on election day to have a chance, which seems unlikely (1.5 million people voted in 2016, the turnout in 2020 would need to be 500,000 more than that to counter EV).

Yeah that definitely isn't happening. Say that poll is off in the GOP's favor and it's actually 62-38. At most there are 700,000 Iowans left to vote and the GOP po needs to win those at least 66-34. I don't like the odds of that happening.

I'm am now really starting to question that Selzer poll that showed Trump winning IA by 7 points
I knew something was off when none of the other polls that have came out since have shown any sudden movement towards trump like that poll did

If Joe winds up winning IA or if trump underperforms and barley wins it

It will be a huge hit on Selzer reputation. Every surprising number she puts up for years would have an asterisk hung on it. "But she DID say Trump was up 7 in Iowa."

[MRS DONNA SHALALA]

955971 Iowans have voted early.
D 438155
R 316512
NPA 196866

https://sos.iowa.gov/elections/pdf/2020/general/AbsenteeCongressional2020.pdf

So per the Civiqs poll, those that already voted support Biden/Greenfield 67-32. Those that are still to vote support Trump/Ernst 67-27. Assuming NPA's split evenly, by this math Republicans need to basically match the EV turnout on election day to have a chance, which seems unlikely (1.5 million people voted in 2016, the turnout in 2020 would need to be 500,000 more than that to counter EV).

Yeah that definitely isn't happening. Say that poll is off in the GOP's favor and it's actually 62-38. At most there are 700,000 Iowans left to vote and the GOP po needs to win those at least 66-34. I don't like the odds of that happening.

I'm am now really starting to question that Selzer poll that showed Trump winning IA by 7 points
I knew something was off when none of the other polls that have came out since have shown any sudden movement towards trump like that poll did

If Joe winds up winning IA or if trump underperforms and barley wins it

It will be a huge hit on Selzer reputation. Every surprising number she puts up for years would have an asterisk hung on it. "But she DID say Trump was up 7 in Iowa."

The Selzer poll excluded a lot of responders in their sample that said that they had already voted (and didn't feel comfortable sharing). So I think that threw off their numbers heavily.

[TRKL1917]

Has anyone here analyzed the Target Smart data? It sees to disprove the narrative that Democrats have a massive Early vote lead, due to the fact it shows Republicans with narrow leads in Arizona and Florida (.4 and .9 points respectively), moderate leads in Ohio and Georgia (6.3 and 6.9 points respectively), a big lead in Texas (11.9 points), narrow deficits in Nevada, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Iowa (.7, .9, 1.4, 3.7, and 4.3 points respectively), moderate deficits in Colorado and Virginia (5 and 8.5 points respectfully), with the only competitive states Republicans face big deficits in being Minnesota, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Maine, and Pennsylvania (13.6, 14.7, 19.5, 22.3, and 32.3 points respectively).

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

Has anyone here analyzed the Target Smart data?

Oh, sweetheart...

[psychprofessor]

Jen O'Malley Dillon dropping internals...looks good for Biden

[Bootes Void]

Jen O'Malley Dillon dropping internals...looks good for Biden

Link or where is it on ?

[psychprofessor]

https://twitter.com/snowmanomics/status/1323329093136506882/photo/1

O'Malley Dillon internals

[ExSky]

Has anyone here analyzed the Target Smart data? It sees to disprove the narrative that Democrats have a massive Early vote lead, due to the fact it shows Republicans with narrow leads in Arizona and Florida (.4 and .9 points respectively), moderate leads in Ohio and Georgia (6.3 and 6.9 points respectively), a big lead in Texas (11.9 points), narrow deficits in Nevada, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Iowa (.7, .9, 1.4, 3.7, and 4.3 points respectively), moderate deficits in Colorado and Virginia (5 and 8.5 points respectfully), with the only competitive states Republicans face big deficits in being Minnesota, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Maine, and Pennsylvania (13.6, 14.7, 19.5, 22.3, and 32.3 points respectively).

First time?

[Lief 🗽]

Looks like TX is gone. FL will be a heavy lift too.
https://twitter.com/snowmanomics/status/1323329093136506882?s=21

[roxas11]

Has anyone here analyzed the Target Smart data? It sees to disprove the narrative that Democrats have a massive Early vote lead, due to the fact it shows Republicans with narrow leads in Arizona and Florida (.4 and .9 points respectively), moderate leads in Ohio and Georgia (6.3 and 6.9 points respectively), a big lead in Texas (11.9 points), narrow deficits in Nevada, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Iowa (.7, .9, 1.4, 3.7, and 4.3 points respectively), moderate deficits in Colorado and Virginia (5 and 8.5 points respectfully), with the only competitive states Republicans face big deficits in being Minnesota, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Maine, and Pennsylvania (13.6, 14.7, 19.5, 22.3, and 32.3 points respectively).

[GeorgiaModerate]

Has anyone here analyzed the Target Smart data? It sees to disprove the narrative that Democrats have a massive Early vote lead, due to the fact it shows Republicans with narrow leads in Arizona and Florida (.4 and .9 points respectively), moderate leads in Ohio and Georgia (6.3 and 6.9 points respectively), a big lead in Texas (11.9 points), narrow deficits in Nevada, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Iowa (.7, .9, 1.4, 3.7, and 4.3 points respectively), moderate deficits in Colorado and Virginia (5 and 8.5 points respectfully), with the only competitive states Republicans face big deficits in being Minnesota, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Maine, and Pennsylvania (13.6, 14.7, 19.5, 22.3, and 32.3 points respectively).

Apologies for those just poking fun at you when your post is made in good faith.  Target Smart data has been extensively analyzed here for some time, and it's basically just...not good.  Their modeling can be way off, especially in states like Texas and Wisconsin that don't have party registration.  The general consensus is that it adds little predictive value, and can be downright misleading.

[exopolitician]

Biden probably benefits from crossover votes in TX and FL anyways, so I'm optimistic.

[Bootes Void]

Looks like TX is gone. FL will be a heavy lift too.
https://twitter.com/snowmanomics/status/1323329093136506882?s=21

remember these are internals and the biden campaign does intentionally try to make things coser than they actually are to avoid complacency.Lastly, the ED vote might not be heavily republican as people thought and there will still be alot of D election votes such as ethnic minorities, students, and lower propensity dems. There will also be lower republican voters as the pool of potential voters is smaller than previously thought

[Hindsight was 2020]

Looks like TX is gone. FL will be a heavy lift too.
https://twitter.com/snowmanomics/status/1323329093136506882?s=21

remember these are internals and the biden campaign does intentionally try to make things coser than they actually are to avoid complacency.Lastly, the ED vote might not be heavily republican as people thought and there will still be alot of D election votes such as ethnic minorities, students, and lower propensity dems. There will also be lower republican voters but the pool of potential voters is smaller than previously thought

Also these polls are deliberately leaving out indies and is just looking at straight D v R

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

Lief is Jen O’Malley-Dillon

[xavier110]

Looks like TX is gone. FL will be a heavy lift too.
https://twitter.com/snowmanomics/status/1323329093136506882?s=21

remember these are internals and the biden campaign does intentionally try to make things coser than they actually are to avoid complacency.Lastly, the ED vote might not be heavily republican as people thought and there will still be alot of D election votes such as ethnic minorities, students, and lower propensity dems. There will also be lower republican voters but the pool of potential voters is smaller than previously thought

Also these polls are deliberately leaving out indies and is just looking at straight D v R

I have no idea how to make sense of their models or what they mean in that chart. They look weird.

[swf541]

Lief is Jen O’Malley-Dillon

This would explain a lot ngl

[emailking]

Biden probably benefits from crossover votes in TX and FL anyways, so I'm optimistic.

Isn't that accounted for in these numbers?

[MRS DONNA SHALALA]

Has anyone here analyzed the Target Smart data? It sees to disprove the narrative that Democrats have a massive Early vote lead, due to the fact it shows Republicans with narrow leads in Arizona and Florida (.4 and .9 points respectively), moderate leads in Ohio and Georgia (6.3 and 6.9 points respectively), a big lead in Texas (11.9 points), narrow deficits in Nevada, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Iowa (.7, .9, 1.4, 3.7, and 4.3 points respectively), moderate deficits in Colorado and Virginia (5 and 8.5 points respectfully), with the only competitive states Republicans face big deficits in being Minnesota, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Maine, and Pennsylvania (13.6, 14.7, 19.5, 22.3, and 32.3 points respectively).

Apologies for those just poking fun at you when your post is made in good faith.  Target Smart data has been extensively analyzed here for some time, and it's basically just...not good.  Their modeling can be way off, especially in states like Texas and Wisconsin that don't have party registration.  The general consensus is that it adds little predictive value, and can be downright misleading.

Anything that bases its behavior modeling on past elections (like TS does) is going to be way off, this election has typical voting behaviors flipped on its head due to COVID and the president's rhetoric on VBM (see FL early voter/VBM patterns).

[Bootes Void]

Biden probably benefits from crossover votes in TX and FL anyways, so I'm optimistic.

Isn't that accounted for in these numbers?

not really unless if it polling data?

[BudgieForce]

Biden probably benefits from crossover votes in TX and FL anyways, so I'm optimistic.

Isn't that accounted for in these numbers?

I'm not sure if O'Malley-Dillon said, but I don't see any breakdown of these numbers.