turnout reports, voting problems, and last minute dirty tricks

[Nichlemn]

Prediction markets haven't budged all day, indicating bettors think these tea leaves have no informational value (or else are exactly in line with expectations).

[GeorgiaModerate]

McMullin is on the ballot in SC according to ballotpedia.org (a good source for this kind of information).  Their list:

Hillary Clinton/Tim Kaine (Democratic)
Darrell Castle/Scott Bradley (Constitution)
Evan McMullin/Nathan Johnson (Independence)
Jill Stein/Ajamu Baraka (Green)
Donald Trump/Mike Pence (Republican)
Peter Skewes/Michael Lacy (American)
Gary Johnson/Bill Weld (Libertarian)

[Sigh144]

Do you have the link to broward?

On my phone and don't have it on here

[Classic Conservative]

CNN is saying that Macomb County MI is on track for 1980 turnout

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

tl;dr turnout is extremely high basically everywhere except for AA areas where it's lower (I would have thought it was obvious that the AA vote would decline without Obama but apparently some people are surprised by this)

Calling it now, this election is going to come down to the educated white vote. If Trump wins, it's because the educated white vote swung back to him and gave him the edge in NC, NH and the Midwest. If he loses, it'll be because they voted Clinton instead.

I'd give Clinton an 85% chance at winning, but I'm almost certain that the crosstab story of the cycle will be how whoever won was pushed over the edge by a proportionate advantage with educated white voters.

And Hispanics?...

Overrated. Most of the states where Hispanics are actually a significant part of the electorate are either states Hillary needs to win regardless (California, New Mexico, Colorado) or states where increased Hispanic turnout won't be enough on its own (Texas, Arizona). The only swing state that could be decided by Latinos is Florida, but Cuban voting patterns are so different from "Generic Latino" voting patterns that I hesitate to even say increased turnout from them would significantly change the outcome of the election.

If Trump loses Arizona and/or Florida due to the Hispanic vote while still winning any of New Hampshire, Michigan or Pennsylvania (and losing the election after, obviously) then I'll concede that they're the bigger influence. Barring that, this'll be the "who brings over more undecided college educated whites" election.

[Likely Voter]

Has this been posted yet?



http://wvua23.com/have-you-seen-this-fake-sign-in-tuscaloosa/

[Fusionmunster]

CNN is saying that Macomb County MI is on track for 1980 turnout

Wasn't turn out bad in 1980?

[The Free North]

Has this been posted yet?



http://wvua23.com/have-you-seen-this-fake-sign-in-tuscaloosa/

They did that in GA as well.

[Chaddyr23]

Do you have the link to broward?

On my phone and don't have it on here

http://www.voterfocus.com/voterturnout/GetVoterTurnout.php?county=broward&election=213

[Wiz in Wis]

CNN is saying that Macomb County MI is on track for 1980 turnout

What does that even mean?

[IceSpear]

CNN is saying that Macomb County MI is on track for 1980 turnout

What does that even mean?

muhhhhhh reagan democrats!

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I though McMullin was on the ballot in SC?

He may have been, I just didn't notice when I went to vote. We didn't have an option for write ins either for President that I Saw.

[Yank2133]

https://twitter.com/julito77/status/796097304239411201

Angry Puerto Ricans!

[GeorgiaModerate]

Durham County NC requests a 90-minute extension of voting hours following a glitch with the check-in system: http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/08/politics/north-carolina-durham-county-glitch/index.html

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

CNN is saying that Macomb County MI is on track for 1980 turnout

What does that even mean?

It means that things are probably looking up for Trump in Michigan. Macomb is the sort of place Trump has been focusing really hard on winning, lots of blue collar workers, mostly uneducated,  leans a bit towards the Republicans even when they don't run a candidate basically designed for them.

Mark my words, Trump will overperform in Michigan, though whether that will be enough to actually win the state depends on his overall performance.

[Ebsy]

CNN is saying that Macomb County MI is on track for 1980 turnout

What does that even mean?

It means that things are probably looking up for Trump in Michigan. Macomb is the sort of place Trump has been focusing really hard on winning, lots of blue collar workers, mostly uneducated,  leans a bit towards the Republicans even when they don't run a candidate basically designed for them.

Mark my words, Trump will overperform in Michigan, though whether that will be enough to actually win the state depends on his overall performance.

I remember much ado being made about Macomb in 2012. Didn't amount to much and Obama won Michigan more than comfortably.

[Hollywood]

Some of the Republican turnout is gigantic in many of the Rep and Dem counties.  I'm looking at total republicans in certain counties and the election data illustrates that 75% to 85% made it to the polls and early voting.

[Ebsy]

Turnout in Miami and Tampa is very, very high. Already eclipsed 2012 numbers.

[Dr. Arch]

Turnout in Miami and Tampa is very, very high. Already eclipsed 2012 numbers.

Great news

[Erich Maria Remarque]

In all counties I saw Reps are doing relatively better than Dems relatively to EV. It was as expected though. But there were no really big R counties though.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

CNN is saying that Macomb County MI is on track for 1980 turnout

What does that even mean?

It means that things are probably looking up for Trump in Michigan. Macomb is the sort of place Trump has been focusing really hard on winning, lots of blue collar workers, mostly uneducated,  leans a bit towards the Republicans even when they don't run a candidate basically designed for them.

Mark my words, Trump will overperform in Michigan, though whether that will be enough to actually win the state depends on his overall performance.

I remember much ado being made about Macomb in 2012. Didn't amount to much and Obama won Michigan more than comfortably.

Obama had the benefit of an inflated AA vote in the Midwest, not to mention that Trump has way more appeal to blue collar whites than Romney ever did.

Take a regular Michigan election, significantly reduce AA turnout, increase turnout everywhere else, and give the Republican an advantage with uneducated whites. That's a recipe for a close election in Michigan, and it's what seems to be happening right now. The only real upside Hillary has over Obama in Michigan is the possibility of higher college educated white support, something that might give her the win but won't give her the sort of margin a Democrat should expect from Michigan.

[Mallow]

CNN is saying that Macomb County MI is on track for 1980 turnout

What does that even mean?

It means that things are probably looking up for Trump in Michigan. Macomb is the sort of place Trump has been focusing really hard on winning, lots of blue collar workers, mostly uneducated,  leans a bit towards the Republicans even when they don't run a candidate basically designed for them.

Mark my words, Trump will overperform in Michigan, though whether that will be enough to actually win the state depends on his overall performance.

I remember much ado being made about Macomb in 2012. Didn't amount to much and Obama won Michigan more than comfortably.

Obama had the benefit of an inflated AA vote in the Midwest, not to mention that Trump has way more appeal to blue collar whites than Romney ever did.

Take a regular Michigan election, significantly reduce AA turnout, increase turnout everywhere else, and give the Republican an advantage with uneducated whites. That's a recipe for a close election in Michigan, and it's what seems to be happening right now. The only real upside Hillary has over Obama in Michigan is the possibility of higher college educated white support, something that might give her the win but won't give her the sort of margin a Democrat should expect from Michigan.

You just contradicted yourself. If you're comparing to 2008/2012, by your own logic, you're not comparing to a "regular election". Even in 2000, Gore won the state by 5%. And it's unlikely black turnout will be as low as it was in the 2000 election.

[Fusionmunster]

Apparently all Colorado state systems are down.


https://twitter.com/Jessica9NEWS/with_replies

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

CNN is saying that Macomb County MI is on track for 1980 turnout

What does that even mean?

It means that things are probably looking up for Trump in Michigan. Macomb is the sort of place Trump has been focusing really hard on winning, lots of blue collar workers, mostly uneducated,  leans a bit towards the Republicans even when they don't run a candidate basically designed for them.

Mark my words, Trump will overperform in Michigan, though whether that will be enough to actually win the state depends on his overall performance.

I remember much ado being made about Macomb in 2012. Didn't amount to much and Obama won Michigan more than comfortably.

Obama had the benefit of an inflated AA vote in the Midwest, not to mention that Trump has way more appeal to blue collar whites than Romney ever did.

Take a regular Michigan election, significantly reduce AA turnout, increase turnout everywhere else, and give the Republican an advantage with uneducated whites. That's a recipe for a close election in Michigan, and it's what seems to be happening right now. The only real upside Hillary has over Obama in Michigan is the possibility of higher college educated white support, something that might give her the win but won't give her the sort of margin a Democrat should expect from Michigan.

You just contradicted yourself. If you're comparing to 2008/2012, by your own logic, you're not comparing to a "regular election". Even in 2000, Gore won the state by 5%. And it's highly unlikely black turnout will be as low as it was in that election.

George Bush wasn't running on a "NAFTA was bad" Pat Buchanan style platform.

[Mallow]

CNN is saying that Macomb County MI is on track for 1980 turnout

What does that even mean?

It means that things are probably looking up for Trump in Michigan. Macomb is the sort of place Trump has been focusing really hard on winning, lots of blue collar workers, mostly uneducated,  leans a bit towards the Republicans even when they don't run a candidate basically designed for them.

Mark my words, Trump will overperform in Michigan, though whether that will be enough to actually win the state depends on his overall performance.

I remember much ado being made about Macomb in 2012. Didn't amount to much and Obama won Michigan more than comfortably.

Obama had the benefit of an inflated AA vote in the Midwest, not to mention that Trump has way more appeal to blue collar whites than Romney ever did.

Take a regular Michigan election, significantly reduce AA turnout, increase turnout everywhere else, and give the Republican an advantage with uneducated whites. That's a recipe for a close election in Michigan, and it's what seems to be happening right now. The only real upside Hillary has over Obama in Michigan is the possibility of higher college educated white support, something that might give her the win but won't give her the sort of margin a Democrat should expect from Michigan.

You just contradicted yourself. If you're comparing to 2008/2012, by your own logic, you're not comparing to a "regular election". Even in 2000, Gore won the state by 5%. And it's highly unlikely black turnout will be as low as it was in that election.

George Bush wasn't running on a "NAFTA was bad" Pat Buchanan style platform.

Is that worth a five point swing? I'm not convinced.