The NBC article about early voting is yet another example of the innumeracy of reporters

[dsc]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/republicans-outpacing-democrats-early-voting-key-states-nbc-news-finds-n922881


Is the "blue wave" turning purple?

Republican-affiliated voters have outpaced Democratic-affiliated voters in early voting in seven closely watched states, according to data provided by TargetSmart and independently analyzed by the NBC News Data Analytics Lab.

GOP-affiliated voters have surpassed Democratic-affiliated ones in early voting in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Montana, Tennessee and Texas, the data showed.

Only in Nevada have Democratic-affiliated voters exceeded Republican-affiliated voters so far in early voting, according to the data.

The latest data suggests robust enthusiasm among early Republican voters that could put a dent in Democratic hopes for a "blue wave" in next month's midterm elections.

Republicans typically dominate early voting by absentee ballots, while Democrats tend to have the advantage with in-person early voting. So, for example, the entire early voting picture in Florida, which has yet to begin in-person voting, is incomplete.

Note what is missing here. What is normal here? What did it look like in 2016? What did it look like in 2014? We have no idea because the person who wrote this article is apparently utterly innumerate. Apparently his editor is innumerate as well. Apparently they have no idea that we need this info for this information to have any meaning what so ever. In terms of the House, we need to do a bit better than we did in 2016 to win. Are we in terms of early voting? Thanks to these innumerate people we have no earthly idea. It is possible that we are actually in good shape in all the states except Nevada. It is possible we are in good shape in all or none of the states. A minimally numerate person would have known we needed those numbers. They apparently didn't.

To give you an example. Say a person says I am 5'10 and weigh 250. Now that sounds bad. But now say that person says a year ago I weighed 350. Then you would say wow you are heading in the right direction. Similarly if we normally are down by 20 points in early voting in races we lose by 2, but now are down by 10 in the same races, we should be very happy.

[underpants]

1. .

Innumeracy

I had to look it up. I like that word. Thanks.

[Cicada]

2. It says Dems usually outnumber repubs, now its the reverse

Looks bad to me

[Sunsky]

3. Where?

I've read nowhere in the article that states "Dems usually outnumber repubs, now it's reversed".

Many Florida counties and Texas began early in person voting today, this article could not have factored those in. Since the writer states that the picture is incomplete, why was it even written? This article is BS.

From the article-

Republicans typically dominate early voting by absentee ballots, while Democrats tend to have the advantage with in-person early voting. So, for example, the entire early voting picture in Florida, which has yet to begin in-person voting, is incomplete.

[Cicada]

4. I see my error now

[Laura PourMeADrink]

7. Yes..Texas just started today

[pnwmom]

5. Most of them are red states, so of course red voters outnumber blue voters.

And absentee ballots are usually heavily Republican.

So the question is how these numbers compare to the last off year election.

[rufus dog]

6. Read the article closely and look at the graphs

It is B.S.

repubs usually lead in absentee ballots, what they are doing is conflating two things, early voting and absentee ballots. Then trying to create a meme that the blue wave won't happen. It is early in the process for voting, then factor in absentee ballots and then push a conclusion.

1. What were the absentee ballots in the states in 2014?
2. What were the early voting numbers in the states in 2014?

They don't provide either. Because providing either and giving a proper perspective doesn't fit the narrative.

To be clear, the narrative is not to make it a horse race, the narrative is to depress Democrats.

[grantcart]

8. The way you formated its difficult to tell where the article ends and your comments start

I was surprised by the article so I researched Targetsmart.

They are 100% Democratic and serve all the Democratic campaigns by getting data on individual voters public party affiliation.

I don't think that the comparison with 4 years ago is going to be helpful in most cases because a) the number of early mail in voting has changed so much in 4 years. In the last 4 years Washington and Oregon have gone to 100% mail in, Colorado is 94% and Arizona is 72%.

Let's just see what happens over the next 3 days and see what trends are established.

These numbers don't seem to jive with a declining Presidential approval poll (yes it peaked and started back down) or the generic voting.

One more issue: In general there has been a significant rise in voters identifying as independent. All of the polls show them breaking our way in healthy numbers.

Most people think that AZ is a big red state. Here are the current breakdown by party registration which have changed significantly over the last 4 years:

Republican 1.28 million
Unaffiliated 1.23 million
Democratic 1.15 million.

I think we will have a much clearer picture by Friday.