Early reads on early voting
Too much of a hassle to dig through the polls and cut up the data, but if you look at some of the samples, like this SUSA out of Ohio, or this national Pew (or even if you look at some of the raw state by state party affiliation data) it does seem clear that the early voting is going disproportionately to Obama.
That's probably a good sign for the Obama ground game, although it's also possible that this imbalance represents more of an enthusiasm gap than an enlarging of the voter base.
My guess is that it's probably somewhere between the two.
(However, African American early voting is off the charts.)
(And, credit to the politically savvy Charlie Crist for getting the Fla early voting locations to stay open longer, even if he is just hedging his reelection bets.)
That's probably a good sign for the Obama ground game, although it's also possible that this imbalance represents more of an enthusiasm gap than an enlarging of the voter base.
My guess is that it's probably somewhere between the two.
(However, African American early voting is off the charts.)
(And, credit to the politically savvy Charlie Crist for getting the Fla early voting locations to stay open longer, even if he is just hedging his reelection bets.)
posted by mikevotes at
2:51 PM
4 Comments:
...although it's also possible that this imbalance represents more of an enthusiasm gap than an enlarging of the voter base.
It's too early to tell about the expanded voter base, but it really tends to disprove the notion (constantly repeated by Republicans) that the Republicans will all turn out "like clockwork" and the Democrats won't show up at the polls.
It also makes one doubt the putative existence of those hordes of Republican voters, un-polled but ready to answer the call of duty, that would swell the voting booths due to the selection of Palin.
The big surprise is that there is no surprise.
Early voting seems to be much like what the polling predicted, which is bad news for the Republicans. And this is also a test run for voter intimidation tactics, which do not seem to have surfaced in a big way.
And if Democrats are going to have a high turnout, it's best to get as many people as possible out of those long lines by voting early.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 5:47 PM
Yeah, maybe, but aren't Republicans turning out at close to regular levels? I haven't done the homework, so I don't know, but I would think if they weren't, I'd have read about it somewhere.
And, broadly agreed on the Dem turnout.
The curious question I have is whether the black vote on election day mirrors the huge black early vote. (I think it will.)
By
mikevotes, at 5:56 PM
Yeah, maybe, but aren't Republicans turning out at close to regular levels? I haven't done the homework, so I don't know, but I would think if they weren't, I'd have read about it somewhere.
The link you posted shows low Republican turnout in NV (54/29), NC (55/28), IA (49/29), LA (59/29), with CO and FL looking pretty normal.
In NC, D is 5 points ahead of 2004 levels, and R is 9 points behind the 2004 turnout. Youth vote there at 12% in early voting is pretty good, too (18% expected nationally).
All of this could change on election day, of course, but so far Republican turnout seems like a yawn. You have to consider that all of those states went for Bush, so by Republican logic their voters will once again turn out like clockwork.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 12:15 AM
Okay, ya got me.
Part of the reason I don't do alot of the polling posts is because I'm not willing to do the legwork.
(And, I can't imagine that election day GOP turnout will suddenly be huge.)
By
mikevotes, at 7:09 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home