GA-6 Special election discussion thread

[Adam Griffin]

I think any "fair-weather" effects will be minimal in this district compared to the average; this CD has the highest median household income of any district in the South* and this is a special election, where enthusiasm for voting is going to be substantially higher than in your standard presidential (or even midterm) election.

*excludes TX and VA; not real Southern states anyway

[Adam Griffin]

I think any "fair-weather" effects will be minimal in this district compared to the average; this CD has the highest median household income of any district in the South* and this is a special election, where enthusiasm for voting is going to be substantially higher than in your standard presidential (or even midterm) election.

*excludes TX and VA; not real Southern states anyway

special elections routinely feature lower voter enthusiasm, not higher. Turnout for this election is going to be below any presidential, and below the majority of midterms. Simply because it is out of the routine for average voters and voter fatigue.

I think the biggest misconception on this board is how everyone fails to understand how little the average voter actually cares. Yes i expect to see increased enthusiasm among the democrat base, but I dont expect it to translate into some insane turnout, just as I expect some decreased enthusiasm from the republican base, but not some crippling disappearance from the polls. When we, as political inclined people, get actively interested in smaller races we tend to project our passion on to the average voter.

The enthusiasm among the individuals who comprise likely voters for such an election certainly isn't lower than it would be in most higher-turnout elections, and the aggregate enthusiasm is definitely higher than the aggregate for a higher-turnout election...precisely because you don't have all of these casual voters participating who are only doing so because of the hype surrounding it.

You get tons of people who vote in presidential elections not because they're enthusiastic about it, but because there is a ton of media coverage and campaigning associated with it. The types who are likely to vote in low-turnout specials are always going to be enthusiastic, as they're the base of the base.

I suppose you could argue that this election may be more impacted than your standard special merely because of the amount of money, advertising and campaigning that has went into it (damnit Bacon King, you beat me to it in effect) and therefore turnout might be higher than under normal special election conditions, but I don't believe you can argue that likely special election voters are more likely to be impacted by bad weather than those who show up only once every four years.  

[Adam Griffin]

wow so you're creating a whole new term here? voter enthusiasm that only counts with enthusiastic voters?

No, I'm saying that as a share of likely voters, a much higher percentage of them in a special election are enthusiastic, will know about the candidates/issues and will be undeterred by outside factors when compared to a high-turnout presidential election with a bunch of low-info voters who barely bother showing up for that and who water down their numbers. I'm sure that if your rain evidence even exists (I've always questioned it outside of veritable monsoon scenarios), the data was likely collected within the confines of high-turnout elections rather than low-turnout affairs like this - otherwise, it would be a relatively meaningless observation for most. You're trying to act as if special election voters as a whole are just as fickle as presidential year voters, which is insane; as if just as large of a percentage of them who planned to vote on Election Day are suddenly going to sit home because of a little rain when compared to the Homer Simpsons of the world waddling their fat asses down to the ballot box once every four years.

There is no such thing as a "likely special election voter" because special elections have too many variables, are too rare, and the sample size is too small. They will utilize a likely voter model based on how active a voter has been in other races, but you've basically invented a new, non-quantifiable class of voters.

Wut - the modeling you described is literally the same way you determine likely voters for every other type of election, along with other data-points; it's not hard at all to determine who is most likely to vote in a particular special election. There are usually several percentage points of virtually any active electorate that vote in every election - presidential, midterm, municipal, special - and they will almost always make up a majority (or a very large chunk) of your special election electorate: it's very easy to tell who they are. And yes, there are variables that can impact turnout based on the type of special election (candidate vs. issue-based), the month it is held, and so forth, but there is almost always enough precedent for any situation to account for it, including relevant past special elections in the voters' jurisdictions. Besides all of that, there are always likely voters in any election (including specials): whether you know who they are or have enough information to determine that is another story.

1. Rain affects voter turnout (fact), and rain correlates with higher vote share for republicans (this is also a fact)

Which you've yet to actually prove (although it gets repeated quite often)

2. The around half of eligible voters do not vote (fact)
3. Turnout is lower in special elections than non-special elections (fact).
4. This district has a large republican voter registration advantage (fact).

So based on these we can state, a smaller number of voters are going to vote in this election, this district is mostly republican, so most likely republicans will garner the larger share of votes, and the average and apathetic voter doesn't care.

OK? Literally nobody was or is arguing any of this with you. I'm not sure what you think it proves within the confines of rain affecting special election turnout.

Looking at the above I would say, yes rain on election day is not good for Ossoff (they will need to keep pace with republican turnout on election day, the majority of people turning out are going to be republicans and they'll need to staunch the bleeding). Ossoff will need to turn out democrat leaning voters who you say are so enthusiastic, but haven't voted yet (bit of a conflict of human behavior?)  To keep pace with the republicans hes clearly going to have to turn out more of the average voter who "hasn't gotten around to voting yet" and "will do it later." Rain is not going to help his cause

Assuming that your rain argument actually holds up - and that it also controlled for income, age, race, geography, the low-turnout nature of the race, early vote already cast, early voting location distribution, the lack of motivation to vote early in special elections because of a lack of long lines on ED, and any additional factors that might put this district out of step with "average CD" - we can pretty much bank on Metro ATL not getting three inches of rain during the final hours of voting on Tuesday or whatever, so any effects that might be felt are going to be statistically insignificant by your own admission unless he's sitting at 49% (newsflash: this is going to a runoff either way).

[Adam Griffin]

How did this district vote in the Isakson vs. Barksdale race? I really have a hard time seeing Osoff do worse than Barksdale here. He should do at least 2 or 3 points better than him, but I agree that this is unpredictable.

60-37. This was Isakson's old district, too.

Where did you obtain these numbers? My spreadsheets that I compiled after the election have it 57-38 Isakson.

Code:

Fulton:  91080	57888	7708	156676
Cobb:    65563	35766	5947	107276
Dekalb: 35515	33192	3622	72329

Total:   192158	126846    17277	336281

[Adam Griffin]

Dropped $500 on Ossoff on Predictit

Of he loses, he's dead to me

RIP

[Adam Griffin]

IT'S HERE

[Adam Griffin]

My original forecast was 40-42% for the April election because of "the Discrepancy". I've since revised that to 43% (45% for runoff) simply because the enthusiasm, organization and money will make a slight dent in what would otherwise be the result.

Still, I really don't think Democrats are going to be impressed with the margin tonight. I'll be happy if the (Ossoff-Combined GOP) margin is in the single-digits. It all really feels like hype to me: "we've raised a ton of money (almost all from out-of-state anti-Trump sentiment), the media is spinning all the right narratives, and we've engaged a bunch of already-reliable local Democratic voters". At the end of the day, you can spend and canvass all you want, but if the votes don't exist within normal parameters in an area, then it doesn't matter. Outside of presidential contests from 2008-2016, this area has shown zero propensity for supporting Democrats on the ballot at any level of government in numbers that would make it competitive.

[Adam Griffin]

So was Ossoff really the best the Ds could put up, why did so many coalesce behind him and not the others? Keatley and Slotin seem to be decent candidates and seem to actually live in the district.

Probably because Hank Johnson (his former boss) and John Lewis lined up behind Ossoff at the onset, effectively pointing local Democratic politicos and party members in that direction based on their influence.

[Adam Griffin]

Hour long line at Roswell, GA polling location, and people there say it's longer than for presidential race. Roswell has 2 precincts, and they went 38.2% and 39.5% for Clinton.

Are we sure it's one of the city proper precincts? There are approximately 20 "Roswell" precincts in Fulton (all of the ones beginning with 'RW') and a couple in Cobb as well if I recall correctly.

[Adam Griffin]

Hour long line at Roswell, GA polling location, and people there say it's longer than for presidential race. Roswell has 2 precincts, and they went 38.2% and 39.5% for Clinton.

Are we sure it's one of the city proper precincts? There are approximately 20 "Roswell" precincts in Fulton (all of the ones beginning with 'RW') and a couple in Cobb as well if I recall correctly.

Hmm good point. I guess I'll only use the precinct numbers if the precincts are mentioned specifically by name.

I just checked. Based on the numbers you posted, it appears those are the two in Cobb: Clinton got 38.2% and 39.5% in the two Cobb Roswell precincts.

[Adam Griffin]

Hannah Perkins @hannahkatt_

As of 5pm Fulton Co Precinct SS26 is reporting 1,418 votes of the +3,000 registered voters.#gapol #FlipThe6th

5:10 PM - 18 Apr 2017 · Fulton County North Annex Service Center

GAGOP right now:

Your schtick is old.

Why do you guys do this before every single election?

Because this is an election forum.

what a stupid thing to say. it's an election forum, doesn't mean you get to be idiot every election. you can post without this nonsense.

Actually, it does, so long as we're within ToS.

[Adam Griffin]

Can we please get another page or two of right-wingers trashing up the thread, griping about how the thread is being trashed?

[Adam Griffin]

He's been holding at around 56-57% for a bit now, and 85,000 votes are counted. That's surely right at or over a majority of the total vote by now. Hmm.

[Adam Griffin]

The new SoS interface is sucking at showing me county-by-county or precinct-by-precinct totals. How much vote from Fulton is actually in?

[Adam Griffin]

If Ossoff can break even in Fulton (assuming the vast majority isn't counted already) and the remainder of the vote in Cobb is proportionate to its share of the population, then it would suggest Ossoff gets about 51% of the vote in the end (assuming 55% of vote is outstanding and comes to 46.7 Ossoff; 45% is in at 55% Ossoff).

[Adam Griffin]

There should still be a remarkable amount of vote remaining in Fulton - enough to potentially cancel out the remainder of Cobb's in raw numbers and keep him above 50. The question now is: is the outstanding Fulton vote at or enough above 50 to cancel out a tougher margin in Cobb?

[Adam Griffin]

Here's what SoS is showing as reporting fully (green) and partially (yellow):

[Adam Griffin]

Cobb dump or Fulton dump?

[Adam Griffin]

Someone post a link to GA SOS.

http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/GA/67317/Web02-state/#/

[Adam Griffin]

Yeah, all of that dump was Cobb - Fulton still at 16%. If Ossoff does even marginally better in Fulton than 50/50, this ain't over. Cobb's 73% in. Will know soon enough.

[Adam Griffin]

Precincts reporting, according to SoS (Green: fully reported; Yellow: partially reported)

[Adam Griffin]

Precincts reporting, according to SoS (Green: fully reported; Yellow: partially reported)

Is DeKalb done?  

It's 95% reporting now, but it's not on the map because it's not loading up for me on SoS for some reason.

[Adam Griffin]

Green: fully reported
Yellow: partially reported

[Adam Griffin]

I really think this is going to go on for awhile. Ossoff has been hitting, slightly exceeding or slightly falling short of his benchmarks virtually everywhere else. Fulton as a whole should be around 50/50, give or take a few points. This is going to keep gyrating back and forth by small amounts, but if Ossoff is averaging the benchmarks needed as a whole elsewhere and holds it close one way or another in Fulton, then it's coming down to the wire.

[Adam Griffin]

Remember that Fulton is literally one hour behind the rest of the state in counting any votes. Results cannot be counted or reported until 8 PM in Fulton as far as I know and it has something to do with the City of Atlanta (even though it's not relevant to this particular race).