Georgia SHATTERS Early Voting Record in GOOD NEWS for Kamala Harris

[Yavin4]

This is why I put more faith in actual voting instead of betting markets and polls. Early voting has shattered the early voting turnout in 2020.

CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/15/politics/early-voting-record-georgia/index.html

[msongs]

1. maybe. its the final total that counts nt

[Sky Jewels]

2. Yep.

There is so much effort being put into downplaying Harris’ successful campaign so far and depressing the blue vote. Fuck that. We’re gonna win!

[Bluedawgbill]

3. How is that good news for us?

Republicans have pushed early voting HARD this cycle.

[PSPS]

4. LOL. Your "concern" is noted.

[Yavin4]

6. Historically, high turnout is a positive sign for the Democrats

Most of the early votes are in Atlanta.

[Self Esteem]

7. Unless we know the breakdown, it's hard to say who this helps.

If a good chunk is coming from the Atlanta area, absolutely a positive sign for Harris.

But I know Republicans have pushed early voting this go around, so, I don't know.

[Yavin4]

9. At this point, all we can ask for is high turnout which has historically helped Dems.

High turnout gives us our best chance. This is why Republicans work so hard to suppress the vote.

[Self Esteem]

12. Honestly, I don't know anymore.

Trump has changed the dynamics so thoroughly that I am not sure high turnout helps.

It used to be the case. You're absolutely right. But that was because Democrats used to have a hold on low-propensity voters. This is why they would always get creamed, it seemed, in midterm elections in the 90s and 2000s (outside 2006). But Trump has shifted things so much that a lot of those voters are now MAGA and the more consistent voters, those who tend to show up every election (generally white collar voters) have moved Democratic.

In 2016, turnout was higher than 2012 and Democrats lost.

In 2020, turnout was at an all-time high (well 100 year high) and Democrats barely won.

Meanwhile, Republicans have struggled in elections where Trump is not on the ballot (2018 and 2022).

76% of Pennsylvania voters voted in 2020. Biden won 50-49. In 2012, it was 67% - so nearly ten-points less - and Obama won 52-47.

It's just a weird overall dynamic when Trump is included.

Trump is definitely focusing on low-propensity voters. The higher turnout, the more possible they're the ones voting.

TO BE FAIR, it was the same strategy Romney attempted in 2012.

Hopefully to the same success!

[Yavin4]

13. Look at it this way...

What if the turnout was lower than 2020? That would clearly be a bad sign for Harris.

[Self Esteem]

15. I think turnout will be lower than 2020.

I do not believe it'll be as high overall. 2020 was the highest turnout in 100 years.

[Quiet Em]

16. It's gonna be bigger.

I know we disagree on this. I still think you are underestimating why it will be bigger. So much has changed since then and Trump hasn't done a single thing to bring more voters into his fold, but he sure as hell repelled a lot more.

[Self Esteem]

20. I just don't see it.

I see nothing from this race to indicate the environment is more favorable to turnout than 2004, 2008 and 2016 - the three highest turnout elections of the last 56 years (not counting 2020, obviously).

2020 was such a unique situation. The hate for Trump was much larger it feels like than it is now and on top of that, COVID altered how we voted - as many voted by mail. More people will vote in person this go around and that dynamic does absolutely lead to potentially less turnout.

I would bet on this election shifting more toward 2016. It will not be at the high of 2020. I just don't see it.

Here's a breakdown on how enthusiasm might be down. I get most will be skeptical but...

[Quiet Em]

23. Wait. You think Trump has gained more support since 2020?

I don't see that at all.

[Self Esteem]

26. I did not say that at all.

The premise of my whole theory is that turnout across the board will be less than 2020.

If that's the case, my assumption is both Trump and Harris will lose votes compared to four years ago.

Whoever wins will be the one who loses the fewest votes. I am hopeful that's Harris - and Trump loses the most votes.

[SomedayKindaLove]

32. I'm not sure how you don't see it

If 4 of the highest vote totals are in 4 of the last five Presidential elections, that suggests an upward trend, does it not?

[Self Esteem]

33. 2020 was an anomaly in my view.

It had the highest turnout of any election in 100 years. I think we'll revert back to the totals we were seeing between 2004-2016.

[marble falls]

36. Nope. This will be the record turnout. This one is deep and angry. That last was a relief to dump the drumph ...

... this one is about the termacity of the MAGA to not grasp reality. It's deep, it's mad as hell, it's about not taking it lying down. Last time we shoving back. This time. we're sharpening knives. They've run out of road and we are not messing around. We are not being polite, we are dead serious.

[Self Esteem]

42. 2020 was the highest turnout in 100 years. It's not breaking 2020 level turnout.

It's just not.

[marble falls]

41. Today Georgia recieved 300,000 mail-in ballots.

[Self Esteem]

43. That's great to hear! Turnout is still not going to exceed 2020 levels.

[marble falls]

44. What would you care to wager - proceeds going to the charity of your choice?

[Self Esteem]

45. I'm down for $1,000 to his/her preferred charity.

To be clear: I am talking about nationally - not specific to states.

[marble falls]

46. Two things: total number nationwide and in the interest of keeping this friendly, $100.

[Self Esteem]

47. I was thinking total percentage since population growth skews things.

What I mean:

In 2004, turnout was 60.1% and 122,294,846 total voted.

In 2016, turnout was literally the exact same (60.1%) and 136,669,237 total voted.

So, turnout was the same but the overall vote was higher because there were more eligible voters in 2016 than 2004.

So, I am saying turnout (in terms of percentage) will be lower than 2020. Total raw vote might be similar only because of the population change.

And I'm good with $100.

[marble falls]

48. Done. I look forward to winning graciously.

[Self Esteem]

49. I hope you do. Would love to be wrong.

[Buns_of_Fire]

50. I checked a little while ago. Mine was one of them.

Issued Monday the 7th; I got it Friday the 11th; back in the mail on Saturday the 12th; received and accepted yesterday (the 16th). All in all, not bad turnaround.

[W_HAMILTON]

11. Then Republicans are absolutely failing at it...

...because in states that tell us early voters by party, 50%+ of the early voters have been Democrats versus less than 30% Republicans so far.

Souce: https://election.lab.ufl.edu/early-vote/2024-early-voting/

[Self Esteem]

14. But how does that compare to previous elections (like 2016?).

If eight years ago, Republicans were only at 15% of the early vote and they've boosted it to 30%, that's a big improvement. Or if they were at 30% four/eight years ago ... it means they're getting the same numbers and could either equal a win or a very narrow loss.

Conversely, yeah, if Republicans in 2016 were higher than 30%, they're absolutely not hitting their previous totals.

It's not a question of whether Republicans will out-vote Democrats in the early vote but what percentage of early voters are Republican and how that compares to previous elections.

[Quiet Em]

17. Why do you keep bringing up 2016?

A LOT has changed since then. A whole lot.

Is it because the top of the ticket is a woman? Like in 2016? Is that why you keep bringing up 2016? I don't get it.

[Yavin4]

19. Sometimes I think some people just look for the negative no matter what.

If turnout was low, people would be in full panic.

[Quiet Em]

21. I get it.

Glass half full vs. glass half empty.

I'm feeling good. We are clearly in a better position than Republicans are.

[Self Esteem]

22. I bring up 2016 because it's an election the Democrat lost. This isn't hard.

Why wouldn't anyone compare this to both 2020 and 2016? Harris' best path forward is to have similar results to 2020 ... not 2016. So, how does all this compare to 2020 and 2016 (notice you didn't mention anything about my comparing it to 2020).

[Quiet Em]

24. I'm not seeing what you are seeing at all.

I see all the momentum on our side, not his.

I see Harris/Walz making inroads in gaining more votes, not him.

I see huge Trump fatigue and a desire to move on from him.

[Self Esteem]

28. I see a very close election.

I am sorry that isn't what you want to hear. I pray to god I am wrong and on November, Harris wins in a romp and we can laugh at how fucking wrong every single poll was.

But I am not expecting it. I am expecting a race similar to 2020 ... very narrow Harris wins in the important swing states.

[Quiet Em]

29. No need to feel sorry, I'm content with how I feel.

Trump peaked in 2016, he barely held on in 2020, he's done now. He has a ceiling. He has not added to it and he hasn't attempted to add to it. His whole hope is that he wins over new voters. I wish him luck with that.

[Self Esteem]

30. And this is why I think you're misjudging things.

Trump did better in 2020 than he did in 2016.

I know that sounds insane to say because he lost.

But he did. He improved his vote total in nearly every swing state between 2016 and 2020. Even Arizona, a state he won by 3.5 or so points in 2016 (he won 48.08 in 2016 there and 49.06 in 2020, so he increased his total by a point in a state he lost that he won four years earlier).

The only reason Trump lost in 2020 as opposed to 2016 is that Biden won over more third party voters from 2016 than Trump did.

That's the only difference and that was likely because a lot of those third party voters came home after four years of Trump,

The hope is they stay with Harris. I suspect many will. But I don't feel there's as much unity around Harris compared to with Biden four years ago.

To be fair, though, I think there's much more unity among Harris compared to Biden a few months ago. But we'll see if it'll be enough.

[Quiet Em]

31. OK, but I think you are ignoring what people think about what happened on January 6th.

And other things.

Have a good night.

[Yavin4]

18. I honestly don't know what to tell you.

Simply put. Democrats definitely don't win when turnout is low, and so far the early voting shows more registered Democrats.

It's a positive sign. Does it mean a slam dunk victory? No. But it also means that it's not a slam dunk defeat.

[Self Esteem]

25. The problem is that your argument has no real answer.

How are you defining low/high turnout?

You make such an emphatic claim but turnout was higher in 2016 - an election Democrats lost - than it was 2012.

Turnout was lower in 2012 - an election Democrats won - than it was in 2004.

That's my point: how do you define what is and isn't high turnout.

2020 was a very high turnout election - and Democrats barely won.

Turnout in 2020 was eight-points higher than 2012.

But in 2012, Obama did better in swing states than Biden did, including the blue wall.

In 2020, Biden essentially won the electoral college by 43,000 votes. That was his combined total in Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin.

In 2012, Obama essentially won the electoral college by 527,737 (between four states: Florida, Ohio, Virginia and Colorado).

That's a huge difference. So, again, what do we consider 'low turnout'. 2012 was a lower turnout than two elections Democrats lost.

[Yavin4]

34. You are conflating different states, different years, and different candidates to make what point?

This thread is about GA. A state where the Democrats won the last presidency in 2020 and two senate elections. And again won the senate in 2022. In all of those elections, turnout was high.

If you cannot see that a high turnout in GA is a good sign, then I don't know what to tell you. I'm thinking that you're interpreting my point to mean that Harris is going to win GA which I AM NOT SAYING.

Here's what I am saying. Record smashing early vote turnout is a good sign for Harris as opposed to a lower turnout in GA which has not been a good sign for Democrats.

[Self Esteem]

35. I am not interpreting anything from these numbers.

That's where you and I are disagreeing. I don't know what to make of any turnout numbers because I don't assume high turnout automatically helps Democrats. I'm not even saying it hurts. I am saying I don't know.

[Persondem]

38. Georgia just damn near tripled its previous record 1st day turnout.

You throw generalities around about this year or that. Stuff it. Each year is it's own situation. Trump is waaaaaay underwater in approval ratings. People are tired of his shit. More Red voters will vote Blue this year than vice versa by a long shot. You want some real data ... here you go ... check out PA, MI and WI .... https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/early-vote

[Self Esteem]

40. None of that has anything to do with my point.

But I appreciate the links.

Look. I get many of you think this election is over and Harris is going to win in a Reagan-like landslide. I wish I had that confidence. Trump has better approval numbers than he did four years ago, an election where he improved his vote total nearly across the board.

I am not convinced the bottom will fall out on his campaign. I think he loses but it's going to be tight.

I don't think Harris is going to win this in a landslide.

[Bev54]

8. I suspect it is mostly dem voters as it has been in other states who already have early voting.

It helps the dems to know who has already voted so they can concentrate on those who have not voted. I am sure the ground game has pushed to get people out early to ensure they use their resources where needed most.

[Yavin4]

10. If turnout was low or less than 2020, that would be a major cause for concern.

High turnout indicates that people are taking this election seriously.

[Silent Type]

27. Traditionally it's a good sign, especially a strong Atlanta area vote. But elections aren't rational anymore.

Last edited Wed Oct 16, 2024, 12:56 AM - Edit history (1)

[Torchlight]

37. The strong, quiet current of voters is making itsd presence known.

Another day, and another positive indicator for Vice Pres. Harris' commanding victory next month. I can certainly understand the GOP narrative to paint this as something other than what it is, as what is, is is just not a good sign for them. By any measure.

[Yavin4]

39. The most under reported story this election cycle is the number of Republicans who are openly against Trump

I posted earlier about how 157K Republican voters voted for Haley in the PA primary a full month and half after she had dropped out. Yes, Trump has MAGA, and they're big and loud, but he doesn't have the absolute full support of all Republicans like he had in 2016 or 2020.

Does that mean that Harris will definitely win? Of course not, there are multiple other variables at work here. But most of the signs point to her favorably.