absentee/early vote thread, part 2

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Steve Schale

Keep getting asked about NPA versus FL electorate as a whole.
Its more diverse:
All voters:  68w - 12.2b - 14.4h
NPA: 64.2w - 6.3b - 19.9h

I checked the math, and that's essentially a wash as blacks are more monolithically Dem than Hispanics.

Yeah

Voting is very easy. There are ridiculous numbers of polling places, and early and absentee voting in most states, etc. If someone can't handle putting in the thought on how to vote, they probably also haven't put enough thought into who they are going to vote for. I'm not sure I want that person voting for the leader of the free world.

Racism!
You are a rich straight angry White deplorable kid who don't undenstand how it feels like to be poor and vote being poor.

Hint: it is not easy.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

No, as I said many times (more then >3 times, for sure), this model is based on one poll only, but is using EV data as some kind of LV screen. So it is alread brought from +7 to +6. By 1%, which is (oh the irony) is a house effect of Sienna poll according to Nate Silver's model. And if the race have tightened (and it is indeed true), the estimation are wrong as well. But sigh...

#EducationInAmericaSucks
https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/794694744303632385

It burns every part of my soul to say this, but LBP and me have indeed had to have this convo a few too many times. The entire projection is pegged to a single self run and oldish poll, which actually showed her one higher than voting is showing so far. Think of her as one back on polling....only if their poll hit their electorate and rates right. If that poll failed....this model is literally meaningless.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

i think the daily comments of cohn regarding this matter have been VERY confusing.

No, he has always been consistent.

Mark Preston of CNN was just saying that Republicans have a 17% percent advantage amongst whites in Florida.

Poll? Or early voting so far?

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Rather, I think his point is that 70% of all people will vote early, so distinguishing between early voters only and all voters won't actually be a big difference.

Polls say it will.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Rather, I think his point is that 70% of all people will vote early, so distinguishing between early voters only and all voters won't actually be a big difference.

Polls say it will.

Last CNN Clinton +2

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

What does Ralston say the absolute percentage of D voters relative to 2016? As red avatars were so fond of reminding us in 2012, many Independents are actually Republicans disgusted with the party's leadership (i.e. prime targets for Trump).

There's a huge difference between self identified independents in polls and the actual registered independents.

That being said, the OP is relying on Trump overperforming Romney with independents and Clinton only winning 82 (!) percent of Democrats. That math is nothing short of Dick Morris level insanity.

Both Trump and Clinton are apparently winning about 90% of their base according to Ralston, who has seen the hard data and Clinton is holding her own among independents.

It is over in NV, which means DT is likely toast and the OP knows this which is why he is lashing out.

What do you mean by hard data?

[Erich Maria Remarque]

But in 2012 it was according to exit polls:
http://edition.cnn.com/election/2012/results/state/FL/president/

White    67%
Black    13%
Latino   17%


Does latino vote usually increase during ED?
Or does exit-polls underestimate whites?

[Erich Maria Remarque]

But in 2012 it was according to exit polls:
http://edition.cnn.com/election/2012/results/state/FL/president/

White    67%
Black    13%
Latino   17%


Does latino vote usually increase during ED?
Or does exit-polls underestimate whites?

This seems to have pushed "others". Many are likely black or Hispanics, and are included in reg data but not exit polls from the looks of it.

The exit poll has asian and other at 2% each. So exit-poll 2012 was:

White:                    67%
African-american:   13%
Latino:                   17%
Asian:                     2%
Other:                     2%

RV from L2 voter file of active Florida voters:
White                      65%   
Black                      13%       
Hispanic                  15%   
Other                       5%

So maybe you're right.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Early voting has surged among Hispanics in key swing states, new data show. It’s a possible sign of strength for Hillary Clinton.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So true

[Erich Maria Remarque]

While the Nevada numbers are obviously strong, we shouldn't assume that it will necessarily lead to the same result as 2012. Independents (yes, I am talking about registered independents) may swing to Trump at a high rate in this state, especially white independents. Because of the diversity of the state, and the registration numbers, this state is pretty safe for Clinton, but don't be surprised if it's within 3-4 points on election day, not a 7-8 point blowout.

This I could see in a worst-case scenario

Worst-case scenario? The biggest polling error (according to RCP) was in 2008. Polls are underestimated Obama by 6%. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nv/nevada_mccain_vs_obama-252.html

In 2012 by 4 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nv/nevada_romney_vs_obama-1908.html

Right now RCP is showing Trump +2 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nv/nevada_trump_vs_clinton-5891.html

So it is reasonble to assume, that this year it will be about Clinton +2-4%

[Erich Maria Remarque]

^^^^^

It is a lot of White Democrats (I thought Dems were more non-white), which is pretty good news for Trump, since his doing relatively good among White Democrats (or rather Clinton is doing terribly), if Upshot/Sienna poll is not wrong.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

^^^^^

It is a lot of White Democrats (I thought Dems were more non-white), which is pretty good news for Trump, since his doing relatively good among White Democrats (or rather Clinton is doing terribly), if Upshot/Sienna poll is not wrong.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What of Hispanic Republicans?

IDK, but whites are ~50% of Dems (according to early stats), so Trump at least take 8.5% of all registered Dems (if the demographic of all registered Dems is about the same as EV).

Hispanic Reps are ~10% of Reps (according to early stats).

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Daniel A Smith

"Two #Bigly Tweets of Florida 2016 Election...
Of ballots cast so far, % by party of those who skipped 2012:
23% Ds
20% Rs
38% NPAs"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The end is near for Trump.

It does not look THAT bad for Trump. Or?

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Daniel A Smith

"Two #Bigly Tweets of Florida 2016 Election...
Of ballots cast so far, % by party of those who skipped 2012:
23% Ds
20% Rs
38% NPAs"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The end is near for Trump.

It does not look THAT bad for Trump. Or?

It is bad for him. The electorate is more diverse than 2012

IDK, probably, but you can't tell it from this post.

From this post one can argue that Reps are cannibalizing their share. That's it. Or?

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Since we've had this talk a lot, here's Nate Cohn on the Upshot NC projection (I hate helping you, LBP. ):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hehe! Thanks!

It honestly would not shock me if Prince William County voted to the left of Fairfax.

Anyways, good news for Dems in Florida: https://twitter.com/electionsmith/status/795106645558837248

23% of the White vote so far did not vote in 2012
20% of the Black vote so far did not vote in 2012
34% of the Hispanic vote so far did not vote in 2012
35% of the Asian vote so far did not vote in 2012

Translation: Non-whites are making up a larger portion of the low propensity voters than Whites.

Yeah, as I said, it might indicate that Reps cannibalize their ED voters/Dems having good GOTV.

But how did it look in 2012. Did ED has the same demographic pattern as EV?

@Taniel
Early voting in Durham, NC grew by 17% from 2012 to 2016. It had grown by 4% from '08/'12. County is 40% black; 76% Obama. h/t @LaurenHorsch

@Taniel
Same story in Wake Co (Raleigh, another part of NC's Triangle): early turnout grew 16% from 2012 to 2016. Had grown 4% from 2008 to 2012.

‏@Taniel
And finally: in Orange County (Chapel Hill, the 3rd part of NC's Triangle), early voting turnout grew by 19% from 2012 to 2016.

Yeah, but how did whites vs non-whites growth look in those counties?
If only Blacks was responsible for the growth, @Taniel would tell, wouldn't he?

[Erich Maria Remarque]

https://electionbettingodds.com/earlyvoting.html election betting odds now has an early voting % comparison in 5 key states, for anyone interested.

Thanks!

So I don't understand why noone can create a site when one can look all demographic statistics change compared to 2012 (gender, race, age, registred R/D/UFA)

Everyone gives just a little info. Dems compare Hispanics, but not Blacks. GOPs talking about more registred Reps, but don't say anything about big increase among  young/female/hispanic UFA etc.

It is very difficult to compare

Ralston has made his official prediction:

HRC 46
Trump 40
Johnson 7
NOTA 7


http://www.rgj.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/05/ralston-how-deep-does-blue-wave-go/93349220/

14% to others He implies also that polls will be 8% points off. I doubt, but it might of course happen because of Hispanics.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

You poor fool. Look, the White vote has surged in NC, but a large chunk of HRC's coalition this year is the educated White vote, which NC has a very decent chunk of, especially in the critical triangle area. A surge in the White vote could mean anything depending on the break down.

But here's a really damning number for you. The Unaff voters are overwhelming women, more educated, urban, and young, all part of HRCs coalition, and that has surged way beyond the R number could ever hope to equal if demographic projections come through. Of course, you just like covering your eyes and seeing it how you want, and then lob personal insults at other people. That just reveals how incapable of understanding this you are and the lack of confidence in your #analysis.

Can you give a concrete numbers compared to 2012 that show that? The diff among UFA is not THAT big IIRC.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Purple line

I mean your claim, that it became "overwhelming women, more educated, urban, and young".

Would be a nice to compare it to 2012.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Purple line

I mean your claim, that it became "overwhelming women, more educated, urban, and young".

Would be a nice to compare it to 2012.

I don't think there are comparisons to 2012 available. At least, I can't find them, but I can tell you about this year, as I have.

They should be. NC state http://www.ncsbe.gov/ has statistic over 2016 and 2012 (and later). But I think Dems @twitter don't want to compare, since it doesn't differ much, 16' vs 12'

At least, I don't see any reason to not bragging about if it was the case. Do you?

[Erich Maria Remarque]

It's the turnout difference that matters in this case anyways.

Yeah, but if UFA is the same as 2012, Trump will probably win.

I mean, it was more Democratic in 2012, which means that Romney won UFA by pretty big margins. So if UFA didn't change that much, NC is tie.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

It's the turnout difference that matters in this case anyways.

Yeah, but if UFA is the same as 2012, Trump will probably win.

I mean, it was more Democratic in 2012, which means that Romney won UFA by pretty big margins. So if UFA didn't change that much, NC is tie.

Did UFA's break for Romney in 2012?

It was about 10% points more registered Dems than registered Reps. So either Romney won UFA or he got a big share of Dems (or both).

[Erich Maria Remarque]

And that leads to another big question of this election: how many dixiecrats switched? That could affect the D margin required as much as the makeup of UFA could. (Of course, it could also affect nothing at all)

Actually, one could see this in NC statistics 12' vs 16'. Probably someone did it?

The estimate is that 50K Dixiecrats who switched registration to GOP have early voted

Link?

[Erich Maria Remarque]

BTW, I don't get why everyone is so excited about racial breakdown in FL and NC.

Even right now the electorate is about the same as 2012 total in FL and NC. But we know (if polls are right) that Trump will be doing much better on the Election Day, which sort of implies that ED electorate will be much whiter& probably males. So the total electorate will be also slightly whiter, but probably more female that 2012.

Or?

[Erich Maria Remarque]

BTW, I don't get why everyone is so excited about racial breakdown in FL and NC.

Even right now the electorate is about the same as 2012 total in FL and NC. But we know (if polls are right) that Trump will be doing much better on the Election Day, which sort of implies that ED electorate will be much whiter& probably males. So the total electorate will be also slightly whiter, but probably more female that 2012.

Or?

That's not how it works. Also, the final Hispanic share of the electorate will absolutely be larger this year.

So how does it work, if polls are right?

[Erich Maria Remarque]

BTW, about Dixiecrats.

If this site is right, so we have following stats: https://electionbettingodds.com/earlyvoting.html

So increase of Reps in NC and FL is much lower than decrease of Dems. So it is not only about Dixiecrats.

And I doubt that "new" UFA:s will vote more democratic that "gone" Dems. No?

Specially when we know, that Blacks (90% for Hillary) has decreased their share.

Austria =! U.S.

Hillary =! Obama