absentee/early vote thread, part 2

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Yes, but that hardly means she's screwed. Intra-party switches are mostly voters that were already voting another way anyway and IND going up looks to be good given the demos of registered INDs.

Dems lost 3.45% in FL. 0.45 went to Reps. But 3% is lost. How is that good? UFA is not more Democratic that "gone" Dems. Or?

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Absolute numbers matter if the increases in the white early vote are mostly just election day cannibalization, which looks incredible likely.

Why? Polls were predicting from the beginning higher white share and lower black share. They were criticized for that in polls threads. Now, when we see that pattern in EV, you're saying it incredible likely to be election day cannibalization. Why?

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Absolute numbers matter if the increases in the white early vote are mostly just election day cannibalization, which looks incredible likely.

Mkay ... and do you think the Blacks will suddenly turn out in full force on election day or what ?

That's not how it works.

I have been saying it for a couple of days. The electorate doesn't seem more non-white that 2012 in battleground states. Whites and Hispanics are up, Blacks are down.

Yeah,  gender will help Dems, but racial breakdown won't, if this pattern holds.

Absolute numbers matter if the increases in the white early vote are mostly just election day cannibalization, which looks incredible likely.

Mkay ... and do you think the Blacks will suddenly turn out in full force on election day or what ?

That's not how it works.

Yet what you say isn't how it works as well.  Just because you don't like Hillary doesn't mean you need to keep throwing sh**t all over this thread. 

According to polls, it is. ED will be less black than EV

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Is this legit?  If so, she would seem to be screwed in Florida and North Carolina.

It is from here https://electionbettingodds.com/earlyvoting.html

But I think, they got it a bit wrong? Or?

I need to drop black turnout pretty low (45%) for it to start doing serious damage, according to 538's updated demographic model. And that's not including the surge of latinos, the revolt of college educated whites, and the jump in female turnout.

We are talking about relative share. If both Whites and Hispanics surge, while Blacks are the same/slightly lower => their relative share might drop considerably.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

The massive amount of updates in this thread are great, but a little hard to keep up with.  Is this a fair summary of where the key states stand?

AZ - Looks good for Trump.
FL - Looks good for Clinton due to increased Hispanic and unaffiliated turnout.
IA - Looks good for Trump due to Dem underperformance from previous years.
NV - Probably in the bag for Clinton.
NC - Unclear.  Some indications look good for Clinton, some for Trump.
OH - Unclear.  Looked good for Trump early, but Dems have made up a lot of ground.
WI - Looks solid for Clinton.

I'd say you nailed it perfectly; what say the others?

I am not so sure about Florida. Yeah, more hispanics, but less black. We also don't know what type of Whites turnout. If it share of uneducated R & D whites is about the same or higher than 2012, it'd great news for Trump, if not, he'is done.

I base it on 2 polls from Upshot/Sienna and 1 from Selzer. Both use voter file. Trump was pretty strong among D whites.

Otherwise, I agree. More or less.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

To prove my point about uneducated white voters (Reps and Dems) if Florida and other ~similar states. It is not completely off-topic here, since we were talking about Dixiecrats.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/upshot/why-the-election-is-close-and-what-trump-and-obama-have-in-common.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

What looks like a 7 point drop for Clinton amongst those without a degree is amongst a group with a 55% turnout in 2012.

What looks like a 12 point jump in support for Clinton amongst those with a degree is amongst a group with a 78% turnout rate in 2012.

So for every vote lost (assuming no change in turnout correlation, even if white voters as a whole go up) through non college educated voters, she's picking up 2.4 amongst those who are college educated.

Have you even read the article?
Hint:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And the non-col:col-edu ~ 1.47:1

But of course, it assumes that turnout among them will be higher than in 2012 with 47% Mitt Romney. If polls are 100% right about turnout, then Trump has 0% to win.

College educated whites are ground zero for any "shy Trump" effect.

If there are Shy Trumpistas, they likely will be among those groups that "should not" vote for him/"should" be ashamed to vote for him. Not among groups that "love" him

The same applies to Shy Clintons.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Won't the ED vote in Florida reverse some of the diversification that's happened in the EV?  

According to the polls, I saw, ED will be less black. But they might be wrong.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Can someone explain, why you think Florida is in Hillary's pocket??

2012: D 42.9%, R 39.1%, Other 18.1%,         total Dems +170k
2016: D 39.6%, R 39.1%, Other 18.9%,         total Dems   +32k
(today is not included)

I took date from http://www.electproject.org/

Why is so good? Yes, I know many Dixies switched to Reps. Other is more Clinton-friendly. But how does this data implies that Florida is gone for Trump? Probably slightly lean D, but gone?

No entiendo nada

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Robby Mook did say he believes Clinton is ahead by about 170k in FL. This point in 2012, he said the Obama campaign thought they were down 15k. I don't believe it's in the bag for Clinton but it's definitely looking good.

He thinks they are making +140k today?

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Obviously his numbers of Dixiecrats are much better based upon macro data level analysis of voter history, party registration, and turnout levels, etc....

Hm, okay. Though there is no way to tell, if those who switched party didn't vote Obama 08'/12'
According Nate Cohn analysis there is plenty among white non-college-educated that voted Obama, but know switched to Trump (some of those likely switched from Dem to Reps, but not all). Both in Florida and nationally.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

2012
- 11 percent Latino
- 77 percent white

2016
-- 13. 5 percent Latino
--77 percent white

Is it not a relatively good news for Reps?

Latino increase vs black/other decrease. Black vote more heavily for Dems than any other group?

[Erich Maria Remarque]

2012
- 11 percent Latino
- 77 percent white

2016
-- 13. 5 percent Latino
--77 percent white

Is it not a relatively good news for Reps?

Latino increase vs black/other decrease. Black vote more heavily for Dems than any other group?

Not when Trump loses white women/educated whites.

Yes, but he is doing much better among non-col whites, and there is plenty of them. Look here on Nevada. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/upshot/why-the-election-is-close-and-what-trump-and-obama-have-in-common.html
That's why Trump is doing 1-4% better in polls than Romney.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Either way, Republicans perpetually getting only <25% of the Hispanic vote would be awful for their long-term electoral prospects. Even if Hispanic turnout only increases a little, their pop. growth is still significant and will continue to shrink the GOP's share of the electorate every 4 years like clockwork.

Culturally, Hispanics are much more closer to non-Hispanics white than to Blacks (at least in Sweden). They indeed might be assimilated into white culture. Blacks are though lost for GOP.

I might see how GOP transforms partly into "worker class party", still holds Whites, but "assimilates" more Hispanics.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Either way, Republicans perpetually getting only <25% of the Hispanic vote would be awful for their long-term electoral prospects. Even if Hispanic turnout only increases a little, their pop. growth is still significant and will continue to shrink the GOP's share of the electorate every 4 years like clockwork.

Culturally, Hispanics are much more closer to non-Hispanics white than to Blacks (at least in Sweden). They indeed might be assimilated into white culture. Blacks are though lost for GOP.

I might see how GOP transforms partly into "worker class party", still holds Whites, but "assimilates" more Hispanics.

Hispanics in Sweden?

Haha, OK. Latinos? People from Latin America?

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Either way, Republicans perpetually getting only <25% of the Hispanic vote would be awful for their long-term electoral prospects. Even if Hispanic turnout only increases a little, their pop. growth is still significant and will continue to shrink the GOP's share of the electorate every 4 years like clockwork.

Culturally, Hispanics are much more closer to non-Hispanics white than to Blacks (at least in Sweden). They indeed might be assimilated into white culture. Blacks are though lost for GOP.

I might see how GOP transforms partly into "worker class party", still holds Whites, but "assimilates" more Hispanics.

Hispanics in Sweden?

Haha, OK. Latinos? People from Latin America?

I generally thought of them as multi-racial people who grew up in a Romance-language speaking household so that you could include Brazilians.

I mean, are Spanish people Hispanic? Are Italians, Quebecios, and Portuguese Latino?

I use term Hispanics/Latinos = people from Latin America. And I think Latinos are much more quickly and easily to become a part of "western cultural society". One of the reason is that they want to, IMHO.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

So is this election more like Sweden or Austria?

I personally see more parallels to the 1973 West Bromwich by-election. Enoch Powell's refusal to back the Tory is Romney refusing to endorse Trump and the 16% the National Front got is like the Johnson/Stein protest vote.

I know this sounds like irrelevant nonsense but as a provincial little Englander I am incapable of understanding international elections without somehow relating it to my country. Foreign concepts are hard.

Lol, yeah. There is no similarity between all right whatsoever. It is just coincidence that they happen to occur in the whole Western world at the same time. The demographics/pattern of voters are similar to Brexit/France/Sweden as well.

If it wasn't for non-english talking Hispanics or whatever the reason is that polls have very different results, I'd bet that polls would underestimate Trump by 1-4%.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

https://www.buzzfeed.com/johntemplon/how-the-electoral-college-screws-hispanic-and-asian-voters

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Those same polls assume AA's make up the same amount of the vote as they did in 2012. This is why Kay Hagan isn't a senator anymore

The NYT/Siena poll has African American vote share in North Carolina down 2 points (23 to 21) and their model still has Clinton winning the state by 1.

It was 22% during EV. They estimate it will be 20% on ED. I'd say Blacks might decide NC.

It is also interesting that among white EV it was just 3% to other. Among white ED it is 6%. Might be important.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/08/upshot/this-time-there-really-is-a-hispanic-voter-surge.html

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Here's a summary of all the polling data of early voters in Florida:

FLORIDA polling of early voting summary

Presented from most-to-least percent of Early Voters (EV), with absolute number of EV (which can be used as a proxy for MOE) in parentheses:

Opinion Savvy: 71% (607 EV)-- Clinton +8

Quinnipiac: 65% (575 EV)-- Clinton +6 (48-42)

YouGov: 63% (748 EV)-- Clinton +10 (51-41)

Opinion Savvy: 55% (333 EV)-- Clinton +9 (53-44)

Emerson: 51% (257 EV)-- Clinton +15 (57-42)

TargetSmart: 43% (311 EV)-- Clinton +18 (55-37)

Quinnipiac: 42% (263 EV)-- Clinton +6 (48-42)

NBC: 36% (356 EV)-- Clinton +17 (54-37)

FAU: 26% (226 EV)-- Clinton +12 (54-41)

Based on the most recent polling, and how well the Dems did in early voting this past weekend, I think it's safe to say that Clinton is heading into election day with almost a 10-point lead among the ~76% of the population that has now voted.

Wow. If I'm doing my math right, Trump would have to win ED vote 68-32 to pull even

Trump will need a 32% lead, if he really is losing by 10% right now. But turnout might be higher than this. Then he will need a smaller margin.

EDIT:
If EV is 68% of total as Ozymandias wrote, Trump will need a 21% points lead.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Dave Wasserman ‏@Redistrict  3m3 minutes ago
As expected, Election Day turnout slightly more GOP than early vote (at least in Broward Co., FL):

Slightly? It is pretty big difference, but probably will change (like in Ohio? in 2012)

Rep share of Dem in VBM + EV = (48+86)/(105+239) = 39%
Rep share on election day         =  30/45 =                     66%

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Dave Wasserman ‏@Redistrict  3m3 minutes ago
As expected, Election Day turnout slightly more GOP than early vote (at least in Broward Co., FL):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Hope for Clinton in North Carolina. 21% of Republicans voted on election day, vs 17% of Democrats and 19% unaffiliated. Not a huge difference...

https://twitter.com/BowTiePolitics/status/796052564466958336

What do you mean not huge difference? It would better for Dems if it was as huge difference as possible? => bigger cannibalization...