Early Voting Tracker- Elections Lab

[Firemans4Horn 18034]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

High turnout? lol

Our turncoat Republican mayor don’t give a shit if lines are long in the actual city of Dallas. 

[scottsins 1966]

To add to this, 2022 was the first year the new district maps were in play. Tx31 went from R+3, and quickly moving left, to R+15 in the new gerrymander. There was zero Dem enthusiasm to challenge an R+15 seat, so Carter ran unopposed. He didn't even bother to put out campaign signs. It will be interesting to see how Whitlow fares this year. Anything less than R+10, and I don't think the gerrymander holds until 2030. Of course, Carter will be dead by then and one of his grandkids (or maybe Fitlump) will be in that seat. 

Carter is done after this term. Bill Gravell has his eyes on taking over that spot for the R’s at that point. He was a Justice of the Peace for a while before becoming the County Judge for Williamson County.

[Huckleberry 32848]

[StassneyHorn 6574]

So the story of early voting so far has to be the enthusiasm gap between genders. And Pennsylvania banking a crazy lead.

Georgia has a 300k gap in favor of women


Michigan has a 187k gap in favor of women


North Carolina has a 259k gap in favor of women


Pennsylvania early voting by voter registration.

[Pato del Muerto 52485]

34 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

That’s an interesting Friday data point. 

[Valmy77 13225]

38 minutes ago, StassneyHorn said:

So the story of early voting so far has to be the enthusiasm gap between genders. And Pennsylvania banking a crazy lead.

Georgia has a 300k gap in favor of women


Michigan has a 187k gap in favor of women


North Carolina has a 259k gap in favor of women


Pennsylvania early voting by voter registration.
 

This is why I think Michael Moore might be right and maybe we will win.

But obviously we need to keep a close eye on it. We win three of these four states and it is over.

Edited October 26 by Valmy77

[Huckleberry 32848]

[Pato del Muerto 52485]

2020 is skewing my view of things. Do you have a graph with 2020 not compressed into same timeline, to compare raw numbers?

[swraith 345]

El Paso county lagging at the back of the pack in terms of %RV 2024 through 2024.  Maybe that isn't unusual for that county but it stands out in that excel screenshot.

[SydneyCarton 48057]

22 hours ago, StassneyHorn said:

So the story of early voting so far has to be the enthusiasm gap between genders. And Pennsylvania banking a crazy lead.

Georgia has a 300k gap in favor of women


Michigan has a 187k gap in favor of women


North Carolina has a 259k gap in favor of women


Pennsylvania early voting by voter registration.

I mean, if we assume that the female vote is 60-40 democrat, which I feel is probably conservative, we’re talking about winning by 10s of thousands in states that were just thousands last go round, right?

[Huckleberry 32848]

17 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

2020 is skewing my view of things. Do you have a graph with 2020 not compressed into same timeline, to compare raw numbers?

[TexPx 2322]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/early-vote

[immamac 42837]

5 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

I like this view better FWIW. Both are fantastic though. 

[ztejas 43411]

5 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

I mean, if we assume that the female vote is 60-40 democrat, which I feel is probably conservative, we’re talking about winning by 10s of thousands in states that were just thousands last go round, right?

Well... men are going to vote at a higher % for Trump (than in 2020).

But yeah higher female participation should skew Kamala.

Edited October 27 by ztejas

[SydneyCarton 48057]

3 minutes ago, ztejas said:

Well... men are going to vote at a higher % for Trump (than in 2020).

But yeah higher female participation should skew Kamala.

Obviously. But the men number is baked in already. If there’s hundreds of thousands more female voters than men versus last election, and those break disproportionately democrat, we’re talking about winning a place like GA or AZ by 40-50k instead of 11k. That’s my thinking at least . 

[ztejas 43411]

1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

Obviously. But the men number is baked in already. If there’s hundreds of thousands more female voters than men versus last election, and those break disproportionately democrat, we’re talking about winning a place like GA or AZ by 40-50k instead of 11k. That’s my thinking at least . 

I agree I think it's an interesting data set. 

I wouldn't be surprised to see some states flip either way this go round. Like I could see Kamala taking a close Biden 2020 state easily and Trump taking a different Biden 2020 state. 

Personally I just hope the Yellowstone caldera goes off and nature can get back to healing. 

[sushihorn 3233]

The issue is not whether more women are voting than men; they are. The issue is are women a larger proportion of the EV electorate than they were in 2020; they are not. In Georgia, the major demographic slices all are skewing more R than the 2020 electorate. 
 

The 2024 vote so far is significantly whiter, older and more rural than 10 days out from the 2020 election. That is true across many states. In Texas, the black vote share is stable but Hispanic share is down and white share is up. In Georgia, white share is up and black share is down almost 3 points. 

Rural share is up and urban down pretty much everywhere. It’s a 9-10 point shift in Texas and 5-6 in GA. 65+ voters are a larger share in Texas this year by 6.6 points. 50-64 is flat to slightly down. Every age group under 50 is a smaller share this year. That dynamic is also playing out widely. In the Georgia example, it’s a 5.4 point shift towards the olds. 

While gender shifted 1-2 points from female to male in 4 years, it’s probably less significant than the other demographic shifts in the EV electorate. If I told you the 2024 votes would be much older and more rural, significantly whiter and slightly more male than 2020, would you think those groups are turning out to vote enthusiastically for Kamala and the Democrats?  Not sure I buy that. 

[immamac 42837]

1 minute ago, sushihorn said:

The issue is not whether more women are voting than men; they are. The issue is are women a larger proportion of the EV electorate than they were in 2020; they are not. In Georgia, the major demographic slices all are skewing more R than the 2020 electorate. 
 

The 2024 vote so far is significantly whiter, older and more rural than 10 days out from the 2020 election. That is true across many states. In Texas, the black vote share is stable but Hispanic share is down and white share is up. In Georgia, white share is up and black share is down almost 3 points. 

Rural share is up and urban down pretty much everywhere. It’s a 9-10 point shift in Texas and 5-6 in GA. 65+ voters are a larger share in Texas this year by 6.6 points. 50-64 is flat to slightly down. Every age group under 50 is a smaller share this year. That dynamic is also playing out widely. In the Georgia example, it’s a 5.4 point shift towards the olds. 

While gender shifted 1-2 points from female to male in 4 years, it’s probably less significant than the other demographic shifts in the EV electorate. If I told you the 2024 votes would be much older and more rural, significantly whiter and slightly more male than 2020, would you think those groups are turning out to vote enthusiastically for Kamala and the Democrats?  Not sure I buy that. 

You say all this but where's your data. Show your source. 

[SydneyCarton 48057]

There was also polling early this summer that Harris was making massive inroads with Olds. 

[sushihorn 3233]

https://targetearly.targetsmart.com/g2024?count_prefix=current_eav_voted_count_&demo_filters=[{"key"%3A"urbanicity"%2C"value"%3A"All"}]&state=TX&view_type=state
 

You may have to set up the comparison years but you can access state data by various demographic slices. I don’t fully understand or trust their modeled party data so I don’t use it but known demographics like age and race aren’t malleable in modeling. 

[ztejas 43411]

6 minutes ago, immamac said:

You say all this but where's your data. Show your source. 

I'm going to trust - in my book - one of the most purely intelligent persons that posts here. 

Especially because it falls more in line with what I expect to happen. 

[sushihorn 3233]

I’m going to say that the trends I’m seeing across a lot of states match the much more detailed reports from Ralston in NV. Rural turnout is massive. Urban turnout is low and Clark County is only a few points +D. Racial minorities are not showing up in large numbers.

Race is a minor factor in AZ and WI. But in PA, black vote share is down by a third and that matters. There is a small in black vote share in MI but NC and GA have large black populations, which are the Democrat core in those states. A 3.4 point decline in NC is potentially decisive.

I did a thought experiment: if a group that traditionally favors one party heavily starts to shift away, how would that manifest? Votes share shift would not be visible until ballots are counted. But partisan slippage would also manifest as non-participation to a degree. Would rural turnout increase dramatically, only to shift towards Democrats? It seems unlikely. What I would expect is that as some votes shift, others would stay home rather than vote D instead of R.
 

So which demos are showing this pattern of declining participation? Young voters, non-white voters, urban voters and to a small extent, female voters are. 2020 is a terrible year to use for a baseline due to Covid and mass mail, but it’s what we have. We can build models but we also need real world historical data as a reality check.

There is still time to change the trend, but the total EV is getting pretty large and that task is growing more difficult. If Ralston is estimating turnout correctly, 40-45% of the final total votes have already been cast. 

[Valmy77 13225]

34 minutes ago, ztejas said:

I'm going to trust - in my book - one of the most purely intelligent persons that posts here. 

Especially because it falls more in line with what I expect to happen. 

You expected massive increase in rural voting and a massive decrease in urban voting compared to 2022? Damn.

Well if true we are cooked.

[ztejas 43411]

1 minute ago, Valmy77 said:

You expected massive increase in rural voting and a massive decrease in urban voting compared to 2022? Damn.

Well if true we are cooked.

I expect Trump to win. 

Don't be a child. 

[BamaATL 16593]

50 minutes ago, sushihorn said:

The issue is not whether more women are voting than men; they are. The issue is are women a larger proportion of the EV electorate than they were in 2020; they are not. In Georgia, the major demographic slices all are skewing more R than the 2020 electorate. 
 

The 2024 vote so far is significantly whiter, older and more rural than 10 days out from the 2020 election. That is true across many states. In Texas, the black vote share is stable but Hispanic share is down and white share is up. In Georgia, white share is up and black share is down almost 3 points. 

Rural share is up and urban down pretty much everywhere. It’s a 9-10 point shift in Texas and 5-6 in GA. 65+ voters are a larger share in Texas this year by 6.6 points. 50-64 is flat to slightly down. Every age group under 50 is a smaller share this year. That dynamic is also playing out widely. In the Georgia example, it’s a 5.4 point shift towards the olds. 

While gender shifted 1-2 points from female to male in 4 years, it’s probably less significant than the other demographic shifts in the EV electorate. If I told you the 2024 votes would be much older and more rural, significantly whiter and slightly more male than 2020, would you think those groups are turning out to vote enthusiastically for Kamala and the Democrats?  Not sure I buy that. 

I've been tracking GA turnout pretty much daily, I see out of 159 only 2 counties with statistical anomalies

1.  Pickens County - rural turnout exceeds 2020 - 117% Here's the catch, there are 29k of voters, and it's a growth county just outside Metro Atlanta.

2.  Clarke County - Athens GA only 49.5% turnout compared to 2020  - low by the mean set everywhere well else in the state

There is no real statistical difference anywhere else between rural and urban, everything else falls within pretty much the same margin of 60 to 80%.  This also ignores that larger areas are going to be a bit delayed because of lines at the polls (I.e. turnout will stagger).  

You can see these numbers here updated from yesterday: georgiavotes.com 

 

 

[Valmy77 13225]

12 minutes ago, ztejas said:

I expect Trump to win. 

Don't be a child. 

Ok gotcha. Excuse me for the childish understanding you were discussing the topic we were currently discussing.

[sushihorn 3233]

12 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

You expected massive increase in rural voting and a massive decrease in urban voting compared to 2022? Damn.

Well if true we are cooked.

Baseline is 2020, not 2022. But in some cases this looks more like a midterm electorate than any recent presidential year. The polls depend on representative population samples and the early voters so far look nothing like what most pollsters are modeling. 

[Valmy77 13225]

Just now, sushihorn said:

Baseline is 2020, not 2022. But in some cases this looks more like a midterm electorate than any recent presidential year. The polls depend on representative population samples and the early voters so far look nothing like what most pollsters are modeling. 

I guess I don't understand baseline. The 2022 numbers are visible right there and show a significant and dramatic decline in urban voters nationwide in 2024 compared to 2022. But sure I might not be understanding what the graph is saying.

[SydneyCarton 48057]

6 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

I guess I don't understand baseline. The 2022 numbers are visible right there and show a significant and dramatic decline in urban voters nationwide in 2024 compared to 2022. But sure I might not be understanding what the graph is saying.

He’s saying the baseline is 2020 and not 2022 because 2022 wasn’t a presidential election year, it was an off year. 

[Valmy77 13225]

7 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

He’s saying the baseline is 2020 and not 2022 because 2022 wasn’t a presidential election year, it was an off year. 

Gotcha. What appears to be showing is a massive increase in rural voting and a decrease in urban voting from 2020 to now in a consistent manner. I know there was some flight from urban areas during the pandemic but a national 31.6% rural vote and a 28% urban vote, down from 23.9% rural and 37.6% urban in 2020 is incredible. That is a seismic shift.

Any case bad news, though I guess the gender skew is still what we have been saying. 

I guess I hadn't detected the massive increase of enthusiasm in the rural areas and decrease in the urban areas.

Edited October 28 by Valmy77

[sushihorn 3233]

14 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

I guess I don't understand baseline. The 2022 numbers are visible right there and show a significant and dramatic decline in urban voters nationwide in 2024 compared to 2022. But sure I might not be understanding what the graph is saying.

Trump was not on the ballot in 2022. The electorate in 2022 was almost R+3 based on votes for House candidates. R+3 this year probably would result in an electoral landslide at the top of the ticket, which would make this discussion moot. I think Nate Silver models over 90% chance of a Trump victory if the popular vote splits 50/50. R+3 is something like 330 electoral votes. 
 

In a few demos, the early electorate is even more R-friendly than 2022. For example, NC went from 45.4% rural EV in 2020 to 49.2% in 2022 to 51.0% as of yesterday. However that is the exception. Most slices are more R biased than 2020 but less so than 2022. 

[bluto 4913]

Using 2020 as a baseline seems sketchy as shit. 

[sushihorn 3233]

3 minutes ago, bluto said:

Using 2020 as a baseline seems sketchy as shit. 

It’s far from ideal but it’s what we have. Can you see a better alternative?

[Valmy77 13225]

Well in any case it is pretty clear our voters aren't showing up.

We may have this big advantage in woman voters but if they are elderly rural woman voters, that is probably not a good thing.

My optimism has definitely been shaken. Thank you for the data though @sushihorn, always better to go into these things with your eyes open.

[Biff Tannen 45665]

So this has been a fun read. 

Fuck em all. Let’s battle. 

[sushihorn 3233]

33 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

Well in any case it is pretty clear our voters aren't showing up.

We may have this big advantage in woman voters but if they are elderly rural woman voters, that is probably not a good thing.

My optimism has definitely been shaken. Thank you for the data though @sushihorn, always better to go into these things with your eyes open.

There’s still a chance that the electorate will change significantly. I expect changes but not enough to alter the trend. The underlying issue is that the partisan composition of the electorate seems to be drifting R in many states where voters register by party. In 2004, FL had a D+400k registration advantage. Today that is R+1M. The Democrat’s registration advantage in PA is half what it was in 2020 and a quarter of the difference from 2012. 

Ruy Texiera’s axiom that demographics is destiny assumes that demographic change is transformative. Well, the PA and WI electorates aren’t cooperating. PA EV is well north of 80% white and WI is over 90% white. It also assumes racial identity = political identity. That seems to be under challenge as well with working class minorities drifting away from the Obama coalition. I don’t expect a paradigm shift but class is become more influential and race less with regard to voting behavior. 

[Huckleberry 32848]

The issue with using 2020 is specifically regarding early voting trends. Pre-2020, Rs voted early and Ds voted on election day. I don't think you can draw conclusions either way. There's not really a good reason why we wouldn't expect to trend back that direction post-pandemic. It's just impossible to say how much until after the real final data comes in unfortunately. 

[henrygandorf 29189]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

The issue with using 2020 is specifically regarding early voting trends. Pre-2020, Rs voted early and Ds voted on election day. I don't think you can draw conclusions either way. There's not really a good reason why we wouldn't expect to trend back that direction post-pandemic. It's just impossible to say how much until after the real final data comes in unfortunately. 

it also doesn't take into account mail-in vote, which has been popular in many states for a while, but didn't take off nationally until covid, which frankly changed everything and shouldn't be used as a baseline for other presidential election years.

1 hour ago, sushihorn said:

Trump was not on the ballot in 2022. The electorate in 2022 was almost R+3 based on votes for House candidates. R+3 this year probably would result in an electoral landslide at the top of the ticket, which would make this discussion moot. I think Nate Silver models over 90% chance of a Trump victory if the popular vote splits 50/50. R+3 is something like 330 electoral votes. 

there won't be a 50/50 pv split anytime soon. i would say "within your lifetime" but i have no idea how old people are.

[Firemans4Horn 18034]

9 minutes ago, sushihorn said:

That seems to be under challenge as well with working class minorities drifting away from the Obama coalition.

White college educated voters are drifting away from the Republican coalition. 

[Valmy77 13225]

22 minutes ago, sushihorn said:

In 2004, FL had a D+400k registration advantage

For all the good that did the Democrats. Bush won that state by a larger margin in 2004 than Trump did in 2020.

[sushihorn 3233]

34 minutes ago, Firemans4Horn said:

White college educated voters are drifting away from the Republican coalition. 

White voters have flipped party affiliation by class. Obama won easily by gaining college educated white voters while losing fewer working class whites and then adding high turnout with enthusiastic black voters on top of that. Trump really juiced the reverse flow of white blue collar voters to the GOP. That’s not a good trade for the Democrats since there are more white voters without a college degree than those with one. It’s an especially bad trade in the Midwest. Look at what’s happened to Iowa and Ohio. Those used to be swing states. 

[Valmy77 13225]

Yeah and unfortunately the Democrats shifting back to being more pro-Union hasn't done much to quell that...for now. Hopefully that will eventually pay off.

[Firemans4Horn 18034]

2 minutes ago, sushihorn said:

White voters have flipped party affiliation by class. Obama won easily by gaining college educated white voters while losing fewer working class whites and then adding high turnout with enthusiastic black voters on top of that. Trump really juiced the reverse flow of white blue collar voters to the GOP. That’s not a good trade for the Democrats since there are more white voters without a college degree than those with one. It’s an especially bad trade in the Midwest. Look at what’s happened to Iowa and Ohio. Those used to be swing states. 

interesting to see if this is Trump specific or if they remain sticky for the GOP long term. 

[LurkingHorn 1066]

The Daily did an interesting podcast about this in PA. Short version is the WWC (non-college) is a rapidly shrinking demographic. I don’t see that being a sustainable strategy long term. As an example, the county they were reporting in was something like 70% WWC not that long ago and it had shrunk to a hair over 50% very rapidly. 
 

I think this is the last hurrah for MAGA in that regard. They might be able to make it work one more time. We’ll see. 

[sushihorn 3233]

Historically, black turnout lags white turnout by 7-8 points. Obama actually managed to get black turnout higher than white turnout. We have seen movement back towards prior trends since he left the WH. Ten points higher turnout in 13% of the population with an 80% margin covers a multitude of sins. 

[Francisco 2.0 32389]

8 minutes ago, LurkingHorn said:

I think this is the last hurrah for MAGA in that regard. They might be able to make it work one more time. We’ll see. 

 

One more time is all they need.  Then we won't need threads like this in the future.

[sushihorn 3233]

14 minutes ago, Firemans4Horn said:

interesting to see if this is Trump specific or if they remain sticky for the GOP long term. 

This is where the internal conflict in the GOP becomes critical. I doubt someone like McCain could hold them. No way Mitt Romney could. JD Vance might accelerate the trend. Trump is a billionaire who can speak to the working class. Vance actually comes from the working class. So add cultural affinity to the protectionist policies. OTOH, I have no idea if Vance can match Trump’s appeal to the non-white blue collar voter. He not an icon of success in business, nor has he had a high pop culture profile for 30+ years. 

[bluto 4913]

And Vance has zero natural or comedic charisma/timing that trump has that appeals to his nitwits. 
 

From Nevada 

 

[linux 1660]

Ultimately the biggest tell is that women voters are dramatically leading the early vote, they are the slight majority and are even distributed in every state, the reason 2022 was a Democrat tie when historically it is a monumental bloodbath for the party in power (and polls were saying it would be) is the hidden female vote after Dobbs.

The second biggest tell is that internal polling is the only one worth a damn and the Harris camp are confident while Trump has practically given up is avoiding interviews, and is doing rallies in NYC. In 2016 and 2020 he was softening up his image (remember he actually semi apologized about grabbing them by the pussy, the shitstain never says sorry). Instead he is conjuring images of  Nuremberg rallies.

Hillary lost in 2016 because there was a monumental demographic shift, and everybody loves an outsider, but Donny is an outsider no more he has a 4 year track record of disaster and we know it will be worse.  I don't see the monumental shift again that surprised everyone back then.

Edited October 28 by linux

[linux 1660]

We don't even need a positive delta in voting differences a repeat would net 300 EC votes, you think it is easy to target 30,000 undecideds? Luntz just tried to get a handful and he gave up.

Donny 100% knows he lost the election, and needs a miracle, his meltdowns about wanting Biden back are too fucking obvious.