State of race in Florida/OH by Targetsmart

[MyNameIsKhan]

Tom Bonier ‏@tbonier 24h24 hours ago
22% of ballots cast in FL thus far have come from voters who didn't cast a ballot in '12. Dems have a 3% advantage among these voters.

Tom Bonier ‏@tbonier Oct 29
15% of the OH vote thus far has come from people who did not vote in '12. That universe is +4% Dem. GOP is turning out likely voters.

Tom Bonier ‏@tbonier Oct 29
By this morning, over 1 million people will have voted in Ohio. Democrats have an 11% lead in modeled partisan vote share.

Tom Bonier ‏@tbonier 23h23 hours ago
Florida early vote, broken out by race/ethnicity. One of these images is reflective of the state's (and America's) diversity.

[geek tragedy]

1. Florida early vote is a lot whiter and older than the overall electorate and vs 2012

Last edited Mon Oct 31, 2016, 02:09 PM - Edit history (1)

Florida voter stats:

Black: 11.3% early vs 13.4% of registered
Hispanic: 13.5% early vs 15.6% of registered
White: 70.3% of early vs 64% of registered.

Compared to this point in 2012:

EIP:

Black--24% in 2012, 15% in 2016
Hispanic-- 10.4% in 2012, 15% in 2016
White--59.8% white in 2012, 65% in 2016

Currently we're behind in Florida.

[MyNameIsKhan]

2. Well I am getting all sorts of data, Targetsmart seems like probably most

reliable, the fact they are consulting many down ballet dem races in FL and elsewhere, makes me feel better. And their data is far more scientific than just monitoring early votes from state website.

[geek tragedy]

4. .03 * .22 = .66%

.03 * .15 = .45%

Really not much insight there. Especially since early vote is supposed to favor Democrats overall.

We shouldn't look at numbers to make ourselves feel better--data isn't meant to be therapy.

Nevada numbers are unambiguously good for us.

Ohio numbers look to be improving.

Florida not looking good right now.

Good news is that we only need to win 1/3 of those states and the election is pretty much over.

[MyNameIsKhan]

5. I am not looking for therapy with number crunching, I am just reporting

FL is incredibly close, if HRC is sending heavy artillery there President and First Lady, must be a hope, otherwise, they will send them where they can make difference, I know a little about statistics, so I am positive the trends must be matching somewhere in the winning turnout model, they want to keep it that way until the end. Number crunching firms like targetsmart have paid workers at polling stations to monitor the turnout, categorize new versus 2012 voters and etc. The campaign internals that is modeling races to voter engagement are extremely sophisticated which Trump has outsourced to san Antonio Firm but HRC has in-house in Brooklyn.

[geek tragedy]

10. To be blunt, I'm less than impressed with the utility of Clinton's data operation

She's adding margin, compared to 2012, on a national basis in deep red states like Texas and deep blue states like California, while losing ground in states like Florida, Iowa and Ohio.

Whereas Trump is overperforming in battleground states and losing vote share in places like California and Utah.

That means Trump's vote gains/losses are more efficiently distributed than Clinton's.

Also note that in every battleground state with a history of early voting besides Nevada, Trump is doing better than Romney did and Clinton is doing worse than Obama did. Compare numbers of Democrats vs Republicans, and Blacks/Hispanics vs White voters, in Florida/North Carolina etc.

Trump is going to lose, but it's not because of Clinton's campaign is outperforming his campaign (the numbers indicate campaigns are irrelevant to this election) but rather because Trump is a flaming cross made of dog feces.

If Clinton's sophisticated ground game were also an effective one, the early voting numbers would be improving from 2012 rather than getting worse (with a secondary explanation that Obama was simply a much more inspirational candidate whose supporters had a lot more enthusiasm).

[MyNameIsKhan]

12. That is your view, In my opinion HRC data operation is outstanding, they have connected...

turnout model to actual voter, phone banks and ground game is connected into voter database in swing states, they are *not* religiously modeling deep blue states like CA , so we do not know if voter participation will increase in such states other than due to population increase/naturalization which favors D. In CA voter participation is brought up every cycle by propositions that impact daily life. In essence, with boots on ground monitor polling stations, phone banks, voter outreach at community centers like church, a pretty solid data can be accumulated regarding state of race. Further, in a state like florida where Dems need to only win 11 counties, they know the margins needed in each that models a winning turnout.

This does not say HRC will win FL/OH/NC/IA but for sure none of them are lost cause, this was supposed to be incredibly close race and will be towards the end. The race will be decided by independents and new voters. Partisans will always come home and the race shows that happening, this has nothing to do with Trump over performing.

[geek tragedy]

14. then why is Trump overperforming in swing states vs national polling?

why is he gaining ground at Clinton's expense in early voting compared to 2012 in NC and FL?

So why is Clinton on her way to beating a human garbage fire with a non-existent campaign structure by a significantly smaller EV margin than that by which Obama beat a much better candidate (Romney) with a much better campaign organization?

The data stuff is a bell and whistle. It's not making a difference where it counts--votes in battleground states.

[MyNameIsKhan]

20. Data stuff is not bells and whistle, this is how modern campaigns are executed

None of scientific extrapolation of data says HRC is underperforming. You can crunch numbers yourself based on 2012 winning model and current turnout.

[geek tragedy]

23. What would you look for in terms of objective indicia for

Clinton's data and field staff making a difference?

I would look for two things:

1) Mobilizing early voters
2) a more efficient distribution in vote gains in battleground states than in non-battleground states.

Thus far, there is zero indication per either metric that Clinton's much-vaunted campaign operation is doing a better job than Trump's virtually non-existent one.

The gap in field/data teams in 2016 is much greater than it was in 2012, yet the Republicans are the ones gaining ground in early votes and enjoying a more efficient distribution of vote gains in battleground states than in non-battleground states.

There is no objective evidence that Clinton's campaign--advertising, field staff, data--is relevant. At the very best it's been completely neutralized by the superior enthusiasm for voting Republican voters have this year compared to Democrats.

[MyNameIsKhan]

24. We can talk again next week, while you do have a theory

I do not see any credible reporting into this matter.

[geek tragedy]

25. who I follow:

general early voting:

Prof. Michael McDonald

For Florida:
Steve Schale
Marc Capuato (Politico)
Prof. Daniel Smith

For Nevada:

Jon Ralston

[MyNameIsKhan]

27. Prof McDonald does not report fully as he will have media embargo very soon

He is part of the operations that will call races on Nov 8th. Steve Schale is reporting well this election and he being Obama veteran knows a lot about Florida, same is case with Jon Ralston for Nevada.

Calling races at this point need boots on the ground and poll monitors (not intimidators). There are many firms consulting races and micro or macro level but that data is not public and part of campaign internals.

NYT/Siena poll coming out with +4 for Trump in FL is fishy, this is equivalent to 400k votes. Even with higher turnout model of 68% this would assume 90% of all new voters are Trump, that notion itself is fishy. FL is 1 - 1.5% race.

[geek tragedy]

28. McDonald isn't reporting, he just assembles publicly available data

and breaks it down.

I don't think Clinton is behind by 4% in Florida. But I do think she's behind there, and there's really no excuse for that given the demographic trends and fact Obama won the state twice against guys who weren't Trump.

[iandhr]

26. Dems cut into the GOP's lead in vote by mail

[Awsi Dooger]

13. Hillary has been overly ambitious in red states

It's not going to happen. Narrower margins of defeat equates to defeat.

Trump has been overperforming in battleground states largely because he made a point of it. He mentioned Ohio in every debate, talking about job loss. Hillary didn't counter at all. She never said anything about Ohio or job plans in those states. There was one GOP surrogate on MSNBC who correctly mentioned it every time in the post-debate spin. Unforced error.

[geek tragedy]

16. to me, as a political science degree holder, the story really is how little campaigns

have mattered in the 2016 election. Trump has run by far the worst presidential campaign ever, Clinton has had every possible advantage in terms of data/field staff/advertising, and it's all irrelevant.

Trump will lose, but his belief that the nuts and bolts of campaigns mean very little is being vindicated, even though he arrived at it via intellectual and physical laziness.

[Awsi Dooger]

30. I always look at big picture factors

Far beyond campaigns and day to day hysteria.

IMO, GOTV is overrated. Preference overwhelms GOTV. The current late shift is very logical preference change, a return of reluctant Republicans to their nominee. It was always going to be that way. To think otherwise you'd have to rely on an extreme outlier and not normalcy. That's why I've always preferred the lower range of Hillary's advantage, and a drift back toward the beginning. The double digit margins were laughable.

This is an open race after 8 years of one party owning the White House. That is always the first variable I evaluate: Is there an incumbent? Incumbents whose party has been in power only one term hold massive advantage and benefit of a doubt. That's why I'm petrified of Trump winning. If so, he will almost certainly be re-elected in 2020.

After 8 years there typically is small edge toward the out party. But it can be tilted via economic factors and popularity of the holding party and president. Bush at mid 30s approval post Katrina, and overall a 12% right track number on election day 2008 gave McCain no chance. This time Hillary benefits from Obama's approval boost to 55% and above. The economic news is just good enough.

Frankly I have no idea why Hillary doesn't mention that 12% right track number from November 2008. I'd be saying it multiple times in every speech, as stark reminder of what 8 years of Republican rule brought us. The right track number isn't great now but once you establish where Obama started, it looks vastly different.

White working class males have shifted toward Republicans. That was the ominous trend entering 2016. Obama didn't feel it in his two races but he steadily turned off a critical segment of that voting block. I doubted Hillary's chances against a standard Republican due to that factor alone. I still think it is a devastating development, guaranteed to impact midterms because that demographic votes more dependably in midterms than single females, for example.

Fortunately Trump managed to shift other key demographics even more toward our side, like women and Hispanics. It is likely fragile and short lived.

The best long term development is millennials voting Democratic. Studies show that new voters are influenced by the party of the president when they turn 18, and the popularity of that president. Since Bush was very unpopular late in his presidency and Obama has remained reasonably popular, we now have an extended age bracket who should grow up self identifying as Democrats and voting blue. We'll lose some of that edge as the females get married and some take on the conservative beliefs of their husband. That's simply the way it works. It happened to one of my two sisters, a 180% degree shift.

Hillary will need every bit of that millennial advantage in 2020, assuming she wins this time and runs again. She'll be trying to win a fourth consecutive term for one party, something that hasn't happened since the ratification of the 22nd Amendment in 1951.

[geek tragedy]

31. I don' think Obama turned off WWC men; it's just that the Republican party has

fiercely transformed itself into a white identity party, which has particular appeal for white men who are looking for a reason to feel good about themselves

[Charles Bukowski]

7. It's so obvious that anything resembling good news

drives you crazy.

[geek tragedy]

15. the news has been very good in Nevada. It's starting to get better in Ohio.

The news has been disappointing in NC and FL.

Overall, Clinton is almost assured of (a) winning by (b) a significantly smaller margin than Obama did in 2012.

And we have a 50/50 of chance of taking the Senate.

But, a few weeks ago the talk was of us having a 75% chance of taking the Senate, with Clinton flipping multiple red states on her way to 350+ EVs, and the House being in play.

So, yes the final result is satisfactory, but the trend as of late has been negative.

[Awsi Dooger]

6. Now I'm back to where I was yesterday

Those Florida numbers don't look promising:

Hispanics are showing up in 3/2 rate than 2012 but still not matching their registration percentages.

Blacks obviously aren't as motivated to support Hillary.

Angry white males are determined to make a last stand for Trump.

We can't afford for those trends to attach nationwide.

[MyNameIsKhan]

9. can you provide data to support your argument?

[Awsi Dooger]

11. Numbers from Post #1 in this thread

2016 compared to 2012

The angry white male line was admittedly a conclusion but I don't think it's a stretch, given the much higher early vote participation from whites in Florida early voting this cycle compared to 2012.

Whites have been going the other direction steadily since the mid '80s. They were 88% of the electorate when Reagan ran. Now it's in the 70% range. I'm talking nationwide. In studying polling and betting on politics for 20 years, it's virtually unheard of to see any type of jump in white participation like this, whether it's early vote or primaries or anywhere.

[MyNameIsKhan]

18. Well based on scientific data, I do not see that happening in FLorida

Look at data from targetsmart, 24% of early physical vote is African American,14% Hispanics and 2% others, This is scientific data collected by them.

Based on latest 2015 Census data, Florida has 16.8% AA population and 24.5% Hispanics (41.3% of total), In 2012, there was 63.3% turnout based on electproject.org. The turnout maps into ideally 24% of AA participation 36% of Hispanic participation. We can assume, the higher end of the turnout due to enthusiasm is probably around 68%.

Based on 2012 Exit polls Obama received 91% of AA and 60% of Hispanic votes, this maps into 24-26% of AA votes and 20-22% of Hispanic votes, this is the winning turnout model for 63-68% of total voters. As you see HRC is on track for AA votes and lagging behind Hispanic votes by 6-8% points. Hispanics further are more inclined to vote on election day. I do not know what winning model looks like in campaign internals but nothing to me show a defeat.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

8. What is the percentage of Republicans that support Trump again?

Wasn't it nearly 25% of Republican voters who are not voting for Trump nationally? There will be a lot more Republicans that will vote Democratic this time, so just looking at party break down isn't likely to give a really good picture of things.

[geek tragedy]

17. Numbers are back up to 90%. They're all falling in line to oppose Clinton.

Lots of high profile Never Trump Republicans, but in reality Trump is going to win the same # of Republicans as every other Republican nominee.

[Charles Bukowski]

19. I'll need a link to that 90% claim.

That might be the percentage as of Friday, but every poll had it lower prior to that, in some cases much lower, when early voting began.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

21. I remember it being at like 74% or something like that

And it was around 90% of Democrats for Hillary.

[geek tragedy]

22. Florida is an early voting state, here's a poll based on calls using the actual voter file

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/30/upshot/florida-poll.html?_r=0

Mr. Trump won 86 percent of self-identified Republicans — the highest percentage of that group in any Upshot/Siena survey so far this year.


He had the support of 84 percent of registered Republicans, up from 72 percent in September and also the highest of any Upshot/Siena survey this year.


Mr. Trump’s consolidation of Republican-leaning voters is a trend in national surveys, and it comes alongside a corresponding decline in the number of supporters for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, who received just 4 percent of the vote in our survey — the lowest of any Upshot/Siena poll. Republicans have been likelier than Democrats to support Mr. Johnson in most of our polls.


Even college-educated white voters, who have been skeptical of Mr. Trump nationwide, are showing less skepticism in Florida. He has a lead of 51 percent to 35 percent among those voters in our survey.


Clinton weakness among white working-class Democrats


Mr. Trump leads among white voters without a college degree by an impressive margin of 63 percent to 24 percent. He’s so strong that Mrs. Clinton has just 55 percent of the vote among white registered Democrats without a degree, compared with Mr. Trump’s 32 percent.


The combination of Republican unity and a large dissenting vote among registered Democrats is responsible for Mr. Trump’s lead.

This largely corroborates the disappointing early vote totals from Florida.

[tableturner]

32. Look at that huge number of Hispanic GOP voters - how many will vote for Clinton?

I think a significant percentage of Hispanic Republicans will vote for Clinton, or at least not vote for Trump. You can probably take about 50% of the Hispanic "GOP early voters" shown above and move them out of the GOP column. That totally changes the inferences you can draw from the early voting stats, and makes things look a lot better for Democrats.