Early & Absentee Voting Megathread - Build the Freiwal

[Virginiá]

The problem with 2016's analysis is that Maricopa County's swing to Clinton was hardly unique. In many other states, in similar counties (Orange County in CA, Dallas and Houston suburbs in TX, Atlanta suburbs in GA, etc), Dems made similar sorts of gains. And Joe Arapaio had nothing to do with any of that.

One can always come up with a just-so story to explain away any inconvenient fact, but if you have to start coming up with lots of special stories for explaining results everywhere, that is usually a sign that it is just a story you are telling yourself. Similarly, in 2010, Dems told themselves lots of such stories about how things were not going to be that bad. In each race, there had to be a different story, because if you looked at the overall picture and weren't pre-committed to trying to explain everything away, it didn't appear good.

The problem at this point is that 2016 has been running around for weeks trying to spin bad polls and early voting data (recently)

I tried telling him that he is liable to be disappointed, but he's convinced for some reason.

[bilaps]

Latest NV update has all the counties except one tiny rural county updated through yesterday. And Lyon county had a big turnout day of 1600 votes cast.

Dems lead now is down to 3782 statewide counting the absentees. But it should be noted that when absentees from Nye county are distributed to party lines, that number will fall by at least 500 more votes.

I think we were at 2800 lead somewhere this time yesterday so all the gain democrats had in Clark (2500 votes) is almost erased by absentees and rural counties turnout.

I'm very very interested in today's numbers especially from Washoe

Also, Ralston throws us another number to keep things into perspective. He says GOP operative told him for Dems to feel comfortable they would need 15k statewide lead at the end of the early voting.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

If you look at precinct results in Arizona, either in 2016 or the recent special election, it is pretty clear that Clinton/Tipirmeni obtained majorities among unaffiliated voter and also got a decent sized chunk of GOP registered voters in some suburban areas.

You can't compare a Special Election vs a General Election.

Can you come up with any reason Republicans would vote for the Dem in large numbers in a special election, but not a general election a few months later? If this were AL-Sen, I would grant the point that it was weird, but Lesko was generic R and Tiperneni was "some lady" D, it was as close to a generic ballot as you can get.

The real problem here is it is just another just-so story. 2016 could maybe make a reasonable case about any one thing. Maybe there is a problem here with comparing a special election vs a general.

But when one has to tell multiple different such stories about multiple different things, the probability of all of them being correct eventually becomes vanishingly small, after you have told enough such stories.

There is probably some different just-so story for why Scott Walker or DeSantis is going to win.

And it is possible that any one of these various stories could be right. But all of them?

[Terry the Fat Shark]

https://apps.texastribune.org/features/2018/general-election-early-voting/

Texas Tribune tracker!

[Hindsight was 2020]

Something about Arizona feels off. McSally has been acting for weeks like she is down and desperate while we haven’t heard anything from people like HotJosh that the GOP feels great in Arizona yet these #’s look like McSally has all but won. Maybe they are losing 8%-10% of reps and indies by almost 60% in their own internal

[Nyvin]

Something about Arizona feels off. McSally has been acting for weeks like she is down and desperate while we haven’t heard anything from people like HotJosh that the GOP feels great in Arizona yet these #’s look like McSally has all but won

It doesn't look anything at all like McSally won.   We hardly know anything at this point.

[RI]

McDonald is a hack, end of story.

To be fair, anyone saying that these numbers must mean someone will win, rather than being suggestive of certain possibilities, is a hack.

Yes, but I've interacted with him personally as well, and let's just say he has a massively overinflated ego and doesn't play well with others.

[wbrocks67]

Something about Arizona feels off. McSally has been acting for weeks like she is down and desperate while we haven’t heard anything from people like HotJosh that the GOP feels great in Arizona yet these #’s look like McSally has all but won. Maybe they are losing 8%-10% of reps and indies by almost 60% in their own internal

Can't really go off AZ earlies though. If you did that, Lesko would've been winning by 20% in April.

[2016]

There won't be that Blue Tidal Tsunami Wave every Atlas Crat predicts - Period.

If that were the case why do Republicans then win the Governor Races in Vermont, New Hampshire, Maryland and Massachusetts. In a D-Wave Year like Atlas Crats are predicting Democrats should be competitive in those States and YET all four GOP Governors are cruising to Re-Election.

Once again, like they always do Democrats will go ballistic on Nov 6th despite only winning the House and a few Governorships where most even don't have an Republican Incumbent to run.

How sad is this place becoming with all these Democratic Spins.

[YE]

There won't be that Blue Tidal Tsunami Wave every Atlas Crat predicts - Period.

If that were the case why do Republicans then win the Governor Races in Vermont, New Hampshire, Maryland and Massachusetts. In a D-Wave Year like Atlas Crats are predicting Democrats should be competitive in those States and YET all four GOP Governors are cruising to Re-Election.

Same reason why SD-GOV is tied and Hedi is down big in ND-SEN. Governors race!=Senate races.

[2016]

There won't be that Blue Tidal Tsunami Wave every Atlas Crat predicts - Period.

If that were the case why do Republicans then win the Governor Races in Vermont, New Hampshire, Maryland and Massachusetts. In a D-Wave Year like Atlas Crats are predicting Democrats should be competitive in those States and YET all four GOP Governors are cruising to Re-Election.

Same reason why SD-GOV is tied and Hedi is down big in ND-SEN. Governors race!=Senate races.

There is NO WAVE. A Democratic House Takeover was predicted for 6 months or so.

[YE]

There won't be that Blue Tidal Tsunami Wave every Atlas Crat predicts - Period.

If that were the case why do Republicans then win the Governor Races in Vermont, New Hampshire, Maryland and Massachusetts. In a D-Wave Year like Atlas Crats are predicting Democrats should be competitive in those States and YET all four GOP Governors are cruising to Re-Election.

Same reason why SD-GOV is tied and Hedi is down big in ND-SEN. Governors race!=Senate races.

There is NO WAVE. A Democratic House Takeover was predicted for 6 months or so.

What does that have to do with anything I posted?

[Xing]

Ignore the troll, guys. Just like we should be ignoring the troll's username, since this is a different and unique year.

[Bojack Horseman]

There won't be that Blue Tidal Tsunami Wave every Atlas Crat predicts - Period.

If that were the case why do Republicans then win the Governor Races in Vermont, New Hampshire, Maryland and Massachusetts. In a D-Wave Year like Atlas Crats are predicting Democrats should be competitive in those States and YET all four GOP Governors are cruising to Re-Election.

Once again, like they always do Democrats will go ballistic on Nov 6th despite only winning the House and a few Governorships where most even don't have an Republican Incumbent to run.

How sad is this place becoming with all these Democratic Spins.

2006 was a blue wave despite Republican governors being re-elected in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and California.

[bilaps]

I was checking numbers from Lyon county NV which dropped 1600 early votes yesterday which was 600 more than the day before.

4446 people voted there, while in 2016 number was 7923 at the end of week 1. So that's 56.1 of week 1 2016 turnout with 3 days to go. So guessing, it will be higher than 70%.

Percentage wise numbers aren't so bad for Democrats. In 2016 republican edge in absentees and early vote at the end of week 1 was 55,1 to 25.7 and now it' 51.1 to 21,6

[KingSweden]

I was checking numbers from Lyon county NV which dropped 1600 early votes yesterday which was 600 more than the day before.

4446 people voted there, while in 2016 number was 7923 at the end of week 1. So that's 56.1 of week 1 2016 turnout with 3 days to go. So guessing, it will be higher than 70%.

Percentage wise numbers aren't so bad for Democrats. In 2016 republican edge in absentees and early vote at the end of week 1 was 55,1 to 25.7 and now it' 51.1 to 21,6

Q is how Indy’s skew if the R/D differential is essentially the same

[bilaps]

I was checking numbers from Lyon county NV which dropped 1600 early votes yesterday which was 600 more than the day before.

4446 people voted there, while in 2016 number was 7923 at the end of week 1. So that's 56.1 of week 1 2016 turnout with 3 days to go. So guessing, it will be higher than 70%.

Percentage wise numbers aren't so bad for Democrats. In 2016 republican edge in absentees and early vote at the end of week 1 was 55,1 to 25.7 and now it' 51.1 to 21,6

Q is how Indy’s skew if the R/D differential is essentially the same

It's true as always but if Dems can't have significant advantage from early vote when it's ended, they would need Indies to break heavily towards them. If they don't have a big lead it would be very bad sign for them.

[RI]

The WA big 5 as of 10/23 (except for Snohomish, which reports in the morning the previous day's totals):
                  Ballots:   Turnout:
King:           52,776   4.09%
Pierce:         27,133   5.52%
Snohomish:  17,140   3.68% (9/22)
Spokane:     32,297   10.09% (wowza!)
Clark:          17,898   6.36%

King:             123,689   9.59%
Pierce:             43,015   8.75%
Clark:              28,081   9.96%

[Virginiá]

Ignore the troll, guys. Just like we should be ignoring the troll's username, since this is a different and unique year.

I do like how the definition of a wave is changing to fit new realities.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Ignore the troll, guys. Just like we should be ignoring the troll's username, since this is a different and unique year.

I do like how the definition of a wave is changing to fit new realities.

The Dems winning the house but losing 3-4 senate seats isn’t a wave

[Virginiá]

Ignore the troll, guys. Just like we should be ignoring the troll's username, since this is a different and unique year.

I do like how the definition of a wave is changing to fit new realities.

The Dems winning the house but losing 3-4 senate seats isn’t a wave

Uh, yes it is? Senate elections are different. If every Senate seat was up, you'd see much more Dem-friendly results. Likewise, winning 30 House seats when Democrats spent the last 4 election cycles either losing tons of seats or just winning a handful here and there, then yes, it absolutely is.

Also, if the House popular vote is 7+ points, that is unambiguously a wave, especially when taken in the context of a generation's worth of close elections. Just because the system is rigged in the GOP's favor (or a limited Senate map has had so many Democratic successes over the past 2 cycles) doesn't mean there wasn't a huge backlash to them. It's similar to building massive seawalls along a coast. Just because a tsunami didn't crash over the nearby countryside doesn't mean a tsunami didn't actually happen. It just means the structural protections kept it from affecting anything.

If you want an example of a wave with little Senate gains:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1982

There is simply no way you can state that winning the House popular vote by double digits is not a wave just because there was not a smorgasbord of Senate gains too. That doesn't really make a whole lot of sense.

[KingSweden]

The WA big 5 as of 10/23 (except for Snohomish, which reports in the morning the previous day's totals):
                  Ballots:   Turnout:
King:           52,776   4.09%
Pierce:         27,133   5.52%
Snohomish:  17,140   3.68% (9/22)
Spokane:     32,297   10.09% (wowza!)
Clark:          17,898   6.36%

King:             123,689   9.59%
Pierce:             43,015   8.75%
Clark:              28,081   9.96%

Where are you getting the results? sos.wa.gov is, uh, not user friendly (or maybe I’m a moron)

[Hindsight was 2020]

Ignore the troll, guys. Just like we should be ignoring the troll's username, since this is a different and unique year.

I do like how the definition of a wave is changing to fit new realities.

The Dems winning the house but losing 3-4 senate seats isn’t a wave

Uh, yes it is? Senate elections are different. If every Senate seat was up, you'd see much more Dem-friendly results. Likewise, winning 30 House seats when Democrats spent the last 4 election cycles either losing tons of seats or just winning a handful here and there, then yes, it absolutely is.

Also, if the House popular vote is 7+ points, that is unambiguously a wave, especially when taken in the context of a generation's worth of close elections. Just because the system is rigged in the GOP's favor (or a limited Senate map has had so many Democratic successes over the past 2 cycles) doesn't mean there wasn't a huge backlash to them. It's similar to building massive seawalls along a coast. Just because a tsunami didn't crash over the nearby countryside doesn't mean a tsunami didn't actually happen. It just means the structural protections kept it from affecting anything.

If you want an example of a wave with little Senate gains:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1982

There is simply no way you can state that winning the House popular vote by double digits is not a wave just because there was not a smorgasbord of Senate gains too. That doesn't really make a whole lot of sense.

Sorry Virginia but getting killed in the senate isn’t a wave. If the dems win the house by double digits but lose ND, IN, MO, AZ, and Nevada that isn’t a wave that’s the confirmation we are so polarized that we practically have two Americas. Ever president up till now that was in a similar position as Trump lost seats in both chambers. Also your example doesn’t work because I’d agree that if the Dems pick up just won seat and lost ND then that’s a wave. I’m talking about losing a bunch of senate seats.

[Seattle]

The WA big 5 as of 10/23 (except for Snohomish, which reports in the morning the previous day's totals):
                  Ballots:   Turnout:
King:           52,776   4.09%
Pierce:         27,133   5.52%
Snohomish:  17,140   3.68% (9/22)
Spokane:     32,297   10.09% (wowza!)
Clark:          17,898   6.36%

King:             123,689   9.59%
Pierce:             43,015   8.75%
Clark:              28,081   9.96%

Where are you getting the results? sos.wa.gov is, uh, not user friendly (or maybe I’m a moron)

From individual county auditors.
I'll have a multi-county update later tonight (+Thurston, Kitsap, Yakima, and Whatcom)

[RI]

The WA big 5 as of 10/23 (except for Snohomish, which reports in the morning the previous day's totals):
                  Ballots:   Turnout:
King:           52,776   4.09%
Pierce:         27,133   5.52%
Snohomish:  17,140   3.68% (9/22)
Spokane:     32,297   10.09% (wowza!)
Clark:          17,898   6.36%

King:             123,689   9.59%
Pierce:             43,015   8.75%
Clark:              28,081   9.96%

Where are you getting the results? sos.wa.gov is, uh, not user friendly (or maybe I’m a moron)

From individual county auditors.
I'll have a multi-county update later tonight (+Thurston, Kitsap, Yakima, and Whatcom)

You might want to check out this page I just found: https://wei.sos.wa.gov/agency/osos/en/press_and_research/PreviousElections/2018/General-Election/Data/Pages/default.aspx