absentee/early vote thread, part 2

[Mehmentum]

This has been consistently explained to you many times, yet you keep repeated yourself.

Polling has consistently shown that registered Democrats are more unified than Republicans this cycle (except in a select few states that contain dixiecrats, though that effect should be far less this year).   While there has been some disunity on the Democratic side, Sanders supporters are likely to say they are independents.

Registered independents (as opposed to self identified independents, which are R leaning) seem to be very D leaning in the early vote, which is why the vast majority of polling shows Clinton outperforming the partisan breakdown among early voters.

The crosstabs to that CNN poll were very weird, showing Trump leading in Clark county, and polling in Nevada has a solid history of underestimating Democrats.

[Yank2133]

SillyAmerican's meltdown on Tuesday is going to be epic.

As for your question, according to internal polling by both parties, there has been no evidence of much crossover voting.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

This has been consistently explained to you many times, yet you keep repeated yourself.

Polling has consistently shown that registered Democrats are more unified than Republicans this cycle (except in a select few states that contain dixiecrats, though that effect should be far less this year).   While there has been some disunity on the Democratic side, Sanders supporters are likely to say they are independents.

Registered independents (as opposed to self identified independents, which are R leaning) seem to be very D leaning in the early vote, which is why the vast majority of polling shows Clinton outperforming the partisan breakdown among early voters.

The crosstabs to that CNN poll were very weird, showing Trump leading in Clark county, and polling in Nevada has a solid history of underestimating Democrats.

To add to this, independent ID != independent registration. Many Hispanics probably ID as Dem while reg as Indie, for instance.

[win win]

This has been consistently explained to you many times, yet you keep repeated yourself.

Polling has consistently shown that registered Democrats are more unified than Republicans this cycle (except in a select few states that contain dixiecrats, though that effect should be far less this year).   While there has been some disunity on the Democratic side, Sanders supporters are likely to say they are independents.

Registered independents (as opposed to self identified independents, which are R leaning) seem to be very D leaning in the early vote, which is why the vast majority of polling shows Clinton outperforming the partisan breakdown among early voters.

The crosstabs to that CNN poll were very weird, showing Trump leading in Clark county, and polling in Nevada has a solid history of underestimating Democrats.

http://static.lakana.com/nxsglobal/lasvegasnow/document_dev/2016/11/02/poll_12593657_ver1.0.pdf

Another poll showing 16% of D are cross voting for Trump, but only 11% of R are cross voting for Hillary.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I agree with the principle in general that we shouldn't take early votes for general, but the consensus among the people I know who actually work for campaigns is that most of these early votes is that many were cast before Comeygate, whose impact is still unknown. Election day turnout and numbers will give us a good idea of what is happening.

A really terrible CNN poll is not the solidest of evidence for your little theory here champ.

CNN is an odd case, because they've been so anti-Trump (more so than any other network or media outlet IMO) and were certain of a Clintonslide until they decided they weren't certain and totally changed gears from constant Trump bashing to generic election year horserace nonsense. It's been hilariously satisfying to see them dangle in the wind, and I'm sure Clinton supporters who have now been through what Trump supporters have been through with the media understand.

This has been consistently explained to you many times, yet you keep repeated yourself.

Polling has consistently shown that registered Democrats are more unified than Republicans this cycle (except in a select few states that contain dixiecrats, though that effect should be far less this year).   While there has been some disunity on the Democratic side, Sanders supporters are likely to say they are independents.

Registered independents (as opposed to self identified independents, which are R leaning) seem to be very D leaning in the early vote, which is why the vast majority of polling shows Clinton outperforming the partisan breakdown among early voters.

The crosstabs to that CNN poll were very weird, showing Trump leading in Clark county, and polling in Nevada has a solid history of underestimating Democrats.

I don't disagree with you on any of these points overall, but keep in mind, you yourself used the term "seem." Statistics and precedent back you up on that, but do we really know if there is a Bradley effect (for Hillary or for Trump) in play here? The question is, are there going to be more blue collar voters in North Florida thinking "crooked over crazy" or are there enough white collar, upper middle class voters in South Florida thinking "voted for Obama last time, but I don't like the problem around the XXX issue, therefore, I'll vote Trump?"

I just downright don't know. If there is a Bradley effect, I'd guess that it is most likely among #NeverTrump Republicans who have gotten the whole "11th Commandment" quip by Reagan beaten into their heads over the years from past primaries. There might not be one at all. It might be YUGE for Hillary or Trump. I just don't know. The fun partisan in me is bored, and the numbers nerd inside of me is starting to come out instead. I'm genuinely excited for this election win or lose just to see exactly how this plays out.

[Yank2133]

This has been consistently explained to you many times, yet you keep repeated yourself.

Polling has consistently shown that registered Democrats are more unified than Republicans this cycle (except in a select few states that contain dixiecrats, though that effect should be far less this year).   While there has been some disunity on the Democratic side, Sanders supporters are likely to say they are independents.

Registered independents (as opposed to self identified independents, which are R leaning) seem to be very D leaning in the early vote, which is why the vast majority of polling shows Clinton outperforming the partisan breakdown among early voters.

The crosstabs to that CNN poll were very weird, showing Trump leading in Clark county, and polling in Nevada has a solid history of underestimating Democrats.

http://static.lakana.com/nxsglobal/lasvegasnow/document_dev/2016/11/02/poll_12593657_ver1.0.pdf

Another poll showing 16% of D are cross voting for Trump, but only 11% of R are cross voting for Hillary.

In other words, public polling in NV is junk and we all have known this already. But if you want to die on this hill, by all means go for it.

[Mehmentum]

This has been consistently explained to you many times, yet you keep repeated yourself.

Polling has consistently shown that registered Democrats are more unified than Republicans this cycle (except in a select few states that contain dixiecrats, though that effect should be far less this year).   While there has been some disunity on the Democratic side, Sanders supporters are likely to say they are independents.

Registered independents (as opposed to self identified independents, which are R leaning) seem to be very D leaning in the early vote, which is why the vast majority of polling shows Clinton outperforming the partisan breakdown among early voters.

The crosstabs to that CNN poll were very weird, showing Trump leading in Clark county, and polling in Nevada has a solid history of underestimating Democrats.

http://static.lakana.com/nxsglobal/lasvegasnow/document_dev/2016/11/02/poll_12593657_ver1.0.pdf

Another poll showing 16% of D are cross voting for Trump, but only 11% of R are cross voting for Hillary.

Where's the actual poll for this, I'd like to look at methodology.  Like I said, NV polling tends to understand Democrats' performance because of their difficulties polling hispanics.  Also its very likely that that's a MOE difference, but I'd need to see the rest of the poll first.

[win win]

This has been consistently explained to you many times, yet you keep repeated yourself.

Polling has consistently shown that registered Democrats are more unified than Republicans this cycle (except in a select few states that contain dixiecrats, though that effect should be far less this year).   While there has been some disunity on the Democratic side, Sanders supporters are likely to say they are independents.

Registered independents (as opposed to self identified independents, which are R leaning) seem to be very D leaning in the early vote, which is why the vast majority of polling shows Clinton outperforming the partisan breakdown among early voters.

The crosstabs to that CNN poll were very weird, showing Trump leading in Clark county, and polling in Nevada has a solid history of underestimating Democrats.

http://static.lakana.com/nxsglobal/lasvegasnow/document_dev/2016/11/02/poll_12593657_ver1.0.pdf

Another poll showing 16% of D are cross voting for Trump, but only 11% of R are cross voting for Hillary.

In other words, public polling in NV is junk and we all have known this already. But if you want to die on this hill, by all means go for it.

Come Tuesday, Ralston and Co will be surprised when they find out how many D's crossed over to Trump. There is no 6% lead in Nevada. We will see.

[Ebsy]

lol

[Yank2133]

This has been consistently explained to you many times, yet you keep repeated yourself.

Polling has consistently shown that registered Democrats are more unified than Republicans this cycle (except in a select few states that contain dixiecrats, though that effect should be far less this year).   While there has been some disunity on the Democratic side, Sanders supporters are likely to say they are independents.

Registered independents (as opposed to self identified independents, which are R leaning) seem to be very D leaning in the early vote, which is why the vast majority of polling shows Clinton outperforming the partisan breakdown among early voters.

The crosstabs to that CNN poll were very weird, showing Trump leading in Clark county, and polling in Nevada has a solid history of underestimating Democrats.

http://static.lakana.com/nxsglobal/lasvegasnow/document_dev/2016/11/02/poll_12593657_ver1.0.pdf

Another poll showing 16% of D are cross voting for Trump, but only 11% of R are cross voting for Hillary.

In other words, public polling in NV is junk and we all have known this already. But if you want to die on this hill, by all means go for it.

Come Tuesday, Ralston and Co will be surprised when they find out how many D's crossed over to Trump. There is no 6% lead in Nevada. We will see.

Sure, whatever you say.

[Xing]

And why do you assume that unaffiliated voters will break for Trump, and that there won't be a decent number of R voters who don't vote for Trump? You can cherry-pick, and make assumptions which are likely erroneous until the cows come home (oops, sorry, I forgot that this phrase apparently isn't PC enough.) The data strongly suggests that Hillary is heavily favored in Nevada, and Trump winning it is less likely than Hillary winning it by double digits.

[win win]

And why do you assume that unaffiliated voters will break for Trump, and that there won't be a decent number of R voters who don't vote for Trump? You can cherry-pick, and make assumptions which are likely erroneous until the cows come home (oops, sorry, I forgot that this phrase apparently isn't PC enough.) The data strongly suggests that Hillary is heavily favored in Nevada, and Trump winning it is less likely than Hillary winning it by double digits.

Every poll in Nevada this past month have had more D breaking for Trump than R breaking for Hillary. Every poll in Nevada had him winning I.

If he gets 3% more crossover votes than Hillary, and a 10% margin in I, the race is tied.

If you believe there is no crossover, and a split in I, yes it is over. But polls predicted that democratic voters will outnumber republican voters, but in the end Trump will get the more votes. It's a simple concept but hard for many to understand.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

And why do you assume that unaffiliated voters will break for Trump, and that there won't be a decent number of R voters who don't vote for Trump? You can cherry-pick, and make assumptions which are likely erroneous until the cows come home (oops, sorry, I forgot that this phrase apparently isn't PC enough.) The data strongly suggests that Hillary is heavily favored in Nevada, and Trump winning it is less likely than Hillary winning it by double digits.

Every poll in Nevada this past month have had more D breaking for Trump than R breaking for Hillary. Every poll in Nevada had him winning I.

If he gets 3% more crossover votes than Hillary, and a 10% margin in I, the race is tied.

If you believe there is no crossover, and a split in I, yes it is over. But polls predicted that democratic voters will outnumber republican voters, but in the end Trump will get the more votes. It's a simple concept but hard for many to understand.

Party ID != Party Reg. That simple.

[Speed of Sound]

@miguelmarquez  4m4 minutes ago Pittsburgh, PA

NC Sec State says 3 million early votes cast. That's 44% of registered voters.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

And why do you assume that unaffiliated voters will break for Trump, and that there won't be a decent number of R voters who don't vote for Trump? You can cherry-pick, and make assumptions which are likely erroneous until the cows come home (oops, sorry, I forgot that this phrase apparently isn't PC enough.) The data strongly suggests that Hillary is heavily favored in Nevada, and Trump winning it is less likely than Hillary winning it by double digits.

I'm not getting in on this NV wormhole, but polling in general has shown Trump's lead with identified independents as being much higher than Romney, who won independent voters 52-48 and came reasonably close to the Presidency.

[Speed of Sound]

Finishing FL strong, too. Close the door!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[psychprofessor]

For realz?

Frida GhitisVerified account
‏@FridaGhitis
Político writer tells MSNBC that Trump has stopped polling - because he refuses to pay his pollster. May explain campaigning in odd places.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

For realz?

Frida GhitisVerified account
‏@FridaGhitis
Político writer tells MSNBC that Trump has stopped polling - because he refuses to pay his pollster. May explain campaigning in odd places.

His pollster refused to show him up 20 in Florida, so he decided that his work was unsatisfactory. You know the drill with Trump.

[Speed of Sound]

@steveschale  9m9 minutes ago Orlando, FL

Obama effect...

Don't look now (ok do), but Dems have almost caught the GOP in #DUUUVAL.

[Speed of Sound]

Obama lost Duval by 4, but I can't find 2012 EV numbers for Duval for comparison. Does anyone have them?

[win win]

GOP just took the lead in CO

http://kdvr.com/2016/11/04/republicans-overtake-democrats-in-early-voting/

[Xing]

If Duval ends up being that tight, it's probably lights out for Trump in Florida.

[Ebsy]

Duval is incredibly important for the GOP in Florida.

[Ozymandias]

Dr. Michael Bitzer ‏@BowTiePolitics  5h5 hours ago
NC absentee voters by party & generation: definitely see unaffiliated voters more Millennial & GenX than partisans



Taniel ‏@Taniel  3m3 minutes ago
Few states provide demographic information like NC's; but this suggests analyses of gap between registered partisans could miss some shifts.

[Ebsy]

GOP just took the lead in CO

http://kdvr.com/2016/11/04/republicans-overtake-democrats-in-early-voting/

Democrats retook the lead:

https://twitter.com/MagellanStrat/status/794951566499442688

David Flaherty ‏@MagellanStrat  2h2 hours ago
CO Returned Ballot Report Update http://buff.ly/2f4NZsv  Democrats regain lead in ballots returned by 133. It's a battle folks!