The Official Absentee & Early Voting Reports Thread

[J. J.]

NC voter registration, showed a net gain of D's over the last week of 7858.

There is now a net loss for the D's since 2008 of 80,224 in NC.

A couple points

1. Democrats are actually up in registration at this point compared to 2008. They made massive gains with in-person registration.

They will have to make a 80,224 net gain to equal the spot where they were in 2008.  The can register with one stop voting, but that has not started yet.  This was pre-debate, so the gap could increase.

2. Those numbers are deeply misleading because there are almost 350,000 new voters registered in the state since 2008, only 20% of whom are white. That means a substantial number of African Americans, almost 40%, are registering as independents. Overall registration now is

71.7% White
22.3% Black

Compared with

74.9% White
21.6% Black
In 2008.

And so far, they are:

Not making up for the lost non black Democrats and they are not turning out, via absentee.  Neither are college students, as this is skewing older.

[Dan the Roman]

Absentees accounted for less than 9% of early votes cast in 2008. They also were more Republican than this year.

[J. J.]

Absentees accounted for less than 9% of early votes cast in 2008. They also were more Republican than this year.

Again, we have lower percentage of ballots cast at this point based on the number of requests (2012) versus the number of absentee ballot received (2008) and the number of requests are running constant.  They tended to run at about +20 GOP in 2008 and, so far, they are running +25.

As noted in September:

"Thus registered Republicans composed 51% of the earliest absentee ballot applications in 2008 and 42% in 2012."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/absentee-ballot-applicati_b_1868814.html

The Republicans are now at 52%.  Branson noted earlier on this thread that the gap between R and D was R +20 in 2008.  Today, in terms of applications, it is R +25.  The people making the applications are, obviously, planning to vote.  In terms of the votes case, so far, it is R +26.

So in NC, you have more requests for ballots from R's, proportionally, that you had in 2008.  You have both parties returning ballots at about the same rate as they are requesting them.  You have the number of R requesting ballots increasing and then holding steady at the higher levels.  You also have fewer ballots, as a percentage, returned at this point, than in 2008, and fewer ballots being requested.

Further, while NC does permit same day registration for "one stop voters," in 2008 it gave the Democrats a net gain of slightly under 40,000.  We'll have to wait until the end of this week, but we'll see if the D's get a net gain of 40,000.  Hint:  They didn't in 2008.

[Dan the Roman]

Absentee figures by Party in 2008

Republican: 122,412 (53.74%)
Democratic: 63,701 (27.96%)
Unaffiliated: 41,569 (18.25%)

Look familiar?

[J. J.]

Absentee figures by Party in 2008

Republican: 122,412 (53.74%)
Democratic: 63,701 (27.96%)
Unaffiliated: 41,569 (18.25%)

Look familiar?

No.  Do you have a link?

[Minnesota Mike]

Absentee figures by Party in 2008

Republican: 122,412 (53.74%)
Democratic: 63,701 (27.96%)
Unaffiliated: 41,569 (18.25%)

Look familiar?

No.  Do you have a link?

For some reason i don't seem to able to link directly but if you can find the info here if you dig.

http://www.ncsbe.gov/content.aspx?id=93

[J. J.]

Absentee figures by Party in 2008

Republican: 122,412 (53.74%)
Democratic: 63,701 (27.96%)
Unaffiliated: 41,569 (18.25%)

Look familiar?

No.  Do you have a link?

For some reason i don't seem to able to link directly but if you can find the info here if you dig.

http://www.ncsbe.gov/content.aspx?id=93

The only thing that I found was 48% Democrat and 40% Republican, but that includes in person voting. 

As noted, it was R+20 in 2008, and it is running R+25 to R+26 now.

[Minnesota Mike]

Absentee figures by Party in 2008

Republican: 122,412 (53.74%)
Democratic: 63,701 (27.96%)
Unaffiliated: 41,569 (18.25%)

Look familiar?

No.  Do you have a link?

For some reason i don't seem to able to link directly but if you can find the info here if you dig.

http://www.ncsbe.gov/content.aspx?id=93

The only thing that I found was 48% Democrat and 40% Republican, but that includes in person voting. 

As noted, it was R+20 in 2008, and it is running R+25 to R+26 now.

I don't know why they did not publish the totals but if you have time to kill you can add up all the sub categories  and come up with the same numbers Dan the Roman  did.  I just wasted an hour doing just that.

[J. J.]

Absentee figures by Party in 2008

Republican: 122,412 (53.74%)
Democratic: 63,701 (27.96%)
Unaffiliated: 41,569 (18.25%)

Look familiar?

No.  Do you have a link?

For some reason i don't seem to able to link directly but if you can find the info here if you dig.

http://www.ncsbe.gov/content.aspx?id=93

The only thing that I found was 48% Democrat and 40% Republican, but that includes in person voting. 

As noted, it was R+20 in 2008, and it is running R+25 to R+26 now.

I don't know why they did not publish the totals but if you have time to kill you can add up all the sub categories  and come up with the same numbers Dan the Roman  did.  I just wasted an hour doing just that.

Which still doesn't take into account the time.   As noted:



"Thus registered Republicans composed 51% of the earliest absentee ballot applications in 2008 and 42% in 2012."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/absentee-ballot-applicati_b_1868814.html

[Jayhawker]

Early voting has begun in Indiana.

I was planning on heading over to the courthouse later today to cast my vote, but am still unsure on the Senate race.

[Torie]

Early voting has begun in Indiana.

I was planning on heading over to the courthouse later today to cast my vote, but am still unsure on the Senate race.

Has Donnelly intelligently grappled with entitlements? If not, go the the flawed Pub is my advice. That is the issue where the rubber meets the road. The rest is noise (I used that term twice today - sorry about that). I mean, he's not in the Akin category (someone who has brought shame on us all, and needs to cease to be a public figure ASAP).

[Senator X]

Early voting has begun in Indiana.

I was planning on heading over to the courthouse later today to cast my vote, but am still unsure on the Senate race.

Has Donnelly intelligently grappled with entitlements? If not, go the the flawed Pub is my advice. That is the issue where the rubber meets the road. The rest is noise (I used that term twice today - sorry about that). I mean, he's not in the Akin category (someone who has brought shame on us all, and needs to cease to be a public figure ASAP).

@ Torie: But if you vote for the flawed Republican then how will the pubs ever learn to nominate better candidates

@ Tmthforu94: Some food for thought

“To me the highlight of politics, frankly, is to inflict my opinion on someone else.” - Richard Mourdock

“I have a mindset that says bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view." - Richard Mourdock

These are not the words of someone interested in governing.

Also: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/18/richard-mourdock-claim-cancer_n_1606005.html

Additionally, it is worth noting (and please correct me if I am wrong) that Mourdock ran a very mean-spirited and nasty primary campaign (and he really didn't need to).  I am not arguing that you should necessarally vote for Donnelly (although I obviously hope that you do), but I don't see how as enthusiastic a Luger supporter as yourself could vote for Mourdock after the primary campaign that he ran.  In other words, I hope you vote for Donnelly, but even if you decide not to, there is still another candidate on the ballot who didn't needlessly drag Luger's name through the mud (the Libertarian candidate).  Like I said, food for thought.

[mokbu]

For what it's worth...

"Record number votes at Cuyahoga County elections board on last day to register for Nov. 6 election"

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2012/10/record_county_numbers_register.html

[Torie]

To me, any candidate unwilling to intelligently and candidly deal with the entitlements issue, is the ultimate flawed candidate. They need to get the heck out of Dodge - all of those cowards - all of them. I'm done.

[Progressive Realist]

To me, any candidate unwilling to intelligently and candidly deal with the entitlements issue, is the ultimate flawed candidate. They need to get the heck out of Dodge - all of those cowards - all of them. I'm done.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2012/10/09/comptroller-wall-street-finances/1623013/

This has happened in many other states and nationally, as I'm sure you are well aware.

The root of the problem isn't entitlements. The root of the problem is that the middle and working classes of this country have been hollowed out by decades of corporate deregulation, tax giveaways to the rich, the systematic busting of unions, draconian cuts in the social spending net-not to mention the huge losses of the wealth of said middle class in the economic recession (which a relatively small but powerful number of people profited from), or the fact that millions of Americans don't have job security, or health insurance, or access to even adequate education. Many millions of Americans are now in poverty, and many millions more are working desperately hard to not fall into poverty.

The "entitlements" you speak of are called that for a reason. People who have been paying into those programs throughout their working lives are legally entitled to receive benefits from them. Yes, the long-term demographic and fiscal picture for them looks bleak, but what's your point? That's not the fault of the people who payed into those programs; that's the fault of squandering the programs' solvency in recent years , and both parties are complicit in that.

My larger point is this: with the base and middle of the economy/country so hollowed out and over-stretched, why are they on the hook for the stupidity and arrogance of the wealthy? The government has been giving the rich "incentives" to create jobs and start businesses to stimulate economic growth for years now-meanwhile, real wages have fallen or stagnated, with few exceptions, since the 1970s. Yet I am to believe that nope, it is the social safety net itself that is the problem?

The social safety net's problems are symptoms of a deeper ill in our economy, not the cause. It would be foolish to drastically cut it.

/rant

[Beet]

Torie, why are you so worried about entitlements? It's a long-term issue, and likely there will be some deal after the election to lower the deficit, no matter who is elected. If anything it'd be harder for your candidate to achieve, since he has a tougher line on the revenue side.

As for Mourdock, I hear he's already attacking Donnelly for voting to cut Medicare.

[All life is a blur of Republicans and meat.]

I'm not really sure if it matters who wins the Indiana Senate race. Either way you're going to get someone who acts, talks and votes like a Republican.

And don't talk to me about control of the Senate! We all know this seat isn't going to be the deciding factor when it comes to that.

[JulioMadrid]

I think you should vote for Donnely, Tmth. If democrats take this seat, they'll already have kept the senate majority. It won't be the deciding factor, and If Mourdock wins, you'll have a bad senator for, at least, 20 years. If Donnelly wins, Pence may beat him in 2018.

[Gravis Marketing]

I'm not really sure if it matters who wins the Indiana Senate race. Either way you're going to get someone who acts, talks and votes like a Republican.

And don't talk to me about control of the Senate! We all know this seat isn't going to be the deciding factor when it comes to that.

Control of the senate matters in 2014... while I didn't care for how Bayh handled his centrism (there's a right way to do it and then there's an ineffective or corrupt way to do it), a centrist Indiana Dem is different from a hard right Indiana Republican, the same way that I'm very much down on Scott Brown, but he's distinguishable from Saxby Chambliss. I'll probably resent Donnelly a lot of he's elected but I still want him over Mourdock.

[J. J.]

Iowa Absentee Ballot requests are:

2008

D:  47%

R:  28.2%



2012 (as of 10/9)

D: 50.1%

R  28.2%

It looks like the bulk of the D request were early (based on what ones were returned). 

It looks like these were

[J. J.]

The Ohio absentee numbers are beginning to look grim for Obama.

2008

D:  33.31%

R:  19.07%

2012 (10/9)

D:  30.03

R:  24.06

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AvEOdIaw0fPNdHVOZnFENDdDYVFTRi1UMlgxQ0F4OVE#gid=0

The gap has been closing bit by bit.

[Torie]

Torie, why are you so worried about entitlements? It's a long-term issue, and likely there will be some deal after the election to lower the deficit, no matter who is elected. If anything it'd be harder for your candidate to achieve, since he has a tougher line on the revenue side.

As for Mourdock, I hear he's already attacking Donnelly for voting to cut Medicare.

Be sure to watch the VP debate. Paul Ryan will explain it all to you.   We Boomers are a fiscal time bomb. We are out to bankrupt the nation.  We haven't saved squat, and we want to live to be a 100 at government expense. We want the best drugs ... always have. I wonder if there will be a Boomer push to have face lifts covered under Medicare. And an amazing percentage of us will hit 90, half of us with dementia.

[bore]

The Ohio absentee numbers are beginning to look grim for Obama.

2008

D:  33.31%

R:  19.07%

2012 (10/9)

D:  30.03

R:  24.06

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AvEOdIaw0fPNdHVOZnFENDdDYVFTRi1UMlgxQ0F4OVE#gid=0

The gap has been closing bit by bit.

They don't have party registration in Ohio, so comparing the two is disengenous.

[J. J.]

The Ohio absentee numbers are beginning to look grim for Obama.

2008

D:  33.31%

R:  19.07%

2012 (10/9)

D:  30.03

R:  24.06

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AvEOdIaw0fPNdHVOZnFENDdDYVFTRi1UMlgxQ0F4OVE#gid=0

The gap has been closing bit by bit.

They don't have party registration in Ohio, so comparing the two is disengenous.

They had the same registration type in 2008, so the comparison is quite legitimate.  They do have party registration, but it is not strong and can be changed on primary days.

[bore]

The Ohio absentee numbers are beginning to look grim for Obama.

2008

D:  33.31%

R:  19.07%

2012 (10/9)

D:  30.03

R:  24.06

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AvEOdIaw0fPNdHVOZnFENDdDYVFTRi1UMlgxQ0F4OVE#gid=0

The gap has been closing bit by bit.

They don't have party registration in Ohio, so comparing the two is disengenous.

They had the same registration type in 2008, so the comparison is quite legitimate.  They do have party registration, but it is not strong and can be changed on primary days.

AFAIK you are only registered with a party in Ohio if you voted in the primary for it in either 2010 or 2012. The dems did not have a contested primary in 2012 so comparing it to 2008, when they did, is just silly.