Cohn (NYT): Early Voting Offers No Proof That Dems Have Improved Turnout Effort

[JRP1994]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/22/upshot/early-voting-offers-no-proof-that-democrats-have-improved-turnout-effort.html?abt=0002&abg=0&_r=0

"The Nevada and Ohio numbers help clarify this analytical conundrum because the two states are the opposite of this year’s contests. Nevada and Ohio were two of the most high-profile contests of 2010. Mostly because these states are now noncompetitive, early voting has plummeted. The big drop-offs highlight that, even in 2010, Democrats were mobilizing large numbers of voters who wouldn’t have participated in a less competitive contest.

Or put another way: There’s nothing about new Democratic voters in Iowa that proves the Democrats are better at mobilizing voters in the battleground states than they were four years ago.

This is why I am more interested in the early voting numbers from Colorado, the only one of this year’s Senate battlegrounds that was truly competitive four years ago. If the electorate looks about the same as it did in 2010, that will be cause to question whether Democrats are doing a better job of mobilizing voters than in 2010. If they’re outperforming their tallies from 2010, then that might really tell us something — although the new voting system there that gives every registered voter a mail-in ballot will complicate the comparison. I’ll come back to that when we get some numbers."

[KCDem]

More right-wing trolling from Nate "Establishment" Cohn.

[DrScholl]

Nevada and Ohio don't have really competitive races at the top of the ballot, so I wouldn't really expect a huge Democratic advantage in early voting in those places.

[windjammer]

Nevada and Ohio don't have really competitive races at the top of the ballot, so I wouldn't really expect a huge Democratic advantage in early voting in those places.

[Tender Branson]

Cohn is wrong.

As I have said in the other thread, besides IA and FL, the current absentee numbers are simply too small to draw any conclusions.

Only in IA and FL, more than 10% of the expected vote have already been returned.

And why is he talking about NV and OH ? These states are of no importance in this election.

[King]

More people voting is always good, no matter who they vote for.

[Bacon King]

1. It's ridiculous to make any assessment based on early voting numbers when only two days of early voting have occurred so far

2. If you're going to be saying "Democrats don’t just need voters who didn’t participate in 2010; they need people who wouldn’t have participated in a hypothetically competitive race in 2010" then what in the world are you looking at Early Voting for, you should be looking at new voter registrations to see if there's any major trend among new voters

3. There is no point in trying to make a trend by comparing early voting numbers in different states that are having different elections with distinct campaigns and varying candidate quality

4. It's ridiculous to highlight Colorado as a state that's had very competitive elections for two consecutive midterms, and then imply that the Democrats aren't being effective if they don't improve on their 2010 early voting performance there. Last time I checked the Democratic candidates won in Colorado with the 2010 early voting numbers looking exactly the way they did

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Regardless of whether or not he's right, the idea that Democratic turnout in Ohio this cycle can be used to draw any conclusions about turnout in other states is Dick Morris-level idiocy for obvious reasons.

[IceSpear]

Regardless of whether or not he's right, the idea that Democratic turnout in Ohio this cycle can be used to draw any conclusions about turnout in other states is Dick Morris-level idiocy for obvious reasons.

Are you implying the base isn't enthusiastic for Ed? You sound like a DINO.