Early voting favoring GOP

posted at 9:15 am on October 23, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Jim Geraghty got an e-mail from a reader who crunched the numbers thus far in the early-voting states, and the news looks pretty encouraging so far from the GOP.  Comparing the numbers from 2008, Geraghty’s reader says that in seven key states, Republicans have improved their performance in turnout for early voting thus far by almost 15 points, a stunning turnaround and one that may put the likely-voter models used by even the best pollsters in doubt.  The smallest gain is 4.2% in West Virginia, where even Democrats are breaking towards the GOP, to a 27-point gain in Florida, where over half of all early voting has been Republicans.

Both Florida and West Virginia are key states, but there are a couple more on Jim’s list.  In Colorado, where voters have to choose a governor and a Senator, Republican ballots increased over 7 points from the 2008 early voting.  That will be good news for Ken Buck for his Senate race and perhaps even Tom Tancredo in his independent bid for governor, both in tight races.  In Nevada, the Clark County vote (which includes Las Vegas) shows an increase of 7 points for Republicans, and in Washoe County (Reno, Tahoe) the GOP have increased over 11 points in early-voting turnout. That’s good news for Sharron Angle, and really bad news for Harry Reid.

Pollsters expected a more robust Republican turnout in 2010 than in 2008, of course.  In analyzing most of their likely-voter models in the last few weeks, it’s clear that they didn’t expect a +15 in the gap from 2008.  Many of them have been arguing that Democrats had begun closing that gap in the last two weeks.  Assuming that holds up not just in early voting but also in Election Day turnout (as well as absentee ballots, which get counted on Election Day and not as early voting), then most of the likely-voter models will have significantly underestimated the Republican wave, even apart from the right turn of the independents.  Even if GOP turnout on Election Day turns out to be half as significant, the likely voter models will still have left the polls short of the amplitude of the wave that’s coming.

Update: The Washington Post looks instead at Michigan and California and come to a different conclusion:

In an election year when good news has been scarce for Democrats, anxious party strategists are heartened by at least one development: In states that have started voting, early indications are that Democratic turnout could be stronger than expected.

Despite the much-discussed “enthusiasm gap,” early balloting suggests that the voter turnout engine that Barack Obama revved up in 2008 has not sputtered out entirely, according to the Atlas Project, a Democratic consulting firm that analyzed voter data.

The firm told its clients Friday that early ballots in the 17 states where voting has been sufficient to draw historical comparisons show a partisan balance that looks very much like that in 2006, the year Democrats took back the House and the Senate.

This is a different measure than Jim’s e-mailer uses, which was 2008 — a presidential election in which Democrats turned out strongly.  The Post focuses on California, which should have been safely Democrat if normal trends held:

In California, the Atlas Project’s analysis suggests that Democrats account for 42.9 percent of the more than 1 million ballots cast thus far, which means they are running slightly ahead of the 41.4 percent they got in 2006. By comparison, Republicans have cast an estimated 39.7 percent of the early California ballots, which is down slightly from the 40.9 percent they got four years ago.

However, Republicans in California note that Democratic registration overall has grown dramatically in the state. Democrats now have a 13-point edge, which is five points more than it was four years ago.

One thing is certainly true — we’re going to know for sure in ten days.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Been to many TEA party rallies, have you? Or are you merely engaging in rectal speak?

As usual…

JohnGalt23 on May 24, 2013 at 1:46 PM

As I just posted HotairLib has their whole head up their six o clock.

hamradio on May 24, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Who wrote the speech? Or are you just praising the messenger?

mixplix on May 24, 2013 at 2:57 PM

MSNBC consensus: Obama’s speech was historic, amazing, “one of the best of his presidency”

Connect the dots: journolist meeting by invitation only at the White House on, what Tuesday?, “big”speech by Obama on Thursday, lame stream media fawning over speech on Friday. Who would have seen that coming, huh?

parke on May 24, 2013 at 2:58 PM

They need the “war on terror” in order to further erode our Constitutional freedoms and to deflect criticism from the administration’s and Federal government’s ongoing corruption.

They are just trying to massage it so that they don’t offend the Muslims, international Libtards and their own sensibilities anymore than necessary.

A few Muslim terrorists here and there are quite expendable to this Administration despite their sympathies for them. These drone attacks also do much deflect any potential criticism that the Administration is weak in dealing with such matters.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 24, 2013 at 2:59 PM

MSNBC is nothing but a left wing propaganda machine serving their master, Obama.

rplat on May 24, 2013 at 3:07 PM

Nobel Peace Prize that he totally earned a mere nine months into his presidency? Yeah, that one.

I believe that he was officially nominated 10 days after he was sworn in. Wow! The WON really worked long hours that week and a half to earn that POS medal. During those ten days he ordered NO DRONE STRIKES to keep his peaceful record clean.

fred5678 on May 24, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Obama: Don’t worry about that Ben Ghazi guy. I killed Bin Laden, and Bush didn’t!

And Obummer still wants to close Gitmo? Good luck with that–not even Upchuck Schumer was willing to hold trials in New York!

Steve Z on May 24, 2013 at 3:24 PM

They need the “war on terror” in order to further erode our Constitutional freedoms and to deflect criticism from the administration’s and Federal government’s ongoing corruption.

They just changed the definition of terrorist. They used to be jihadis from the Middle East–now they’re Minutemen in Arizona and Tea Partiers in Ohio.

Steve Z on May 24, 2013 at 3:29 PM

…bromides about what we’re told are President Foreign Policy’s miraculous yet still oddly unmaterialized abilities to move us drastically closer to world peace.

Erika, sometimes your writing shows signs of rivaling even the Master of Snark himself, Allahpundit. Good work!

KS Rex on May 24, 2013 at 3:45 PM

I love how crazy Al invoked the Nobel Peace Prize in praise of a speech that spoke about dropping bombs on people’s head. Maybe it was the “fewer” bombs than before that raised this to historic levels.

Do they even know or care that they are morons.

marnes on May 24, 2013 at 3:46 PM

His speech made less sense than Bluto’s Animal House Speech and was far less entertaining. Nothing less than base rallying time. Never thought I would say this, but Code Pink was the best part.

DDay on May 24, 2013 at 4:01 PM

Sperling posted this at the Examiner on May 23 about this “historic speech of Obysmal’s:

During his foreign policy speech Thursday afternoon, President Obama warned that domestic terrorism would increase in the modern age of the Internet.

“[T]his threat is not new,” Obama said. “But technology and the Internet increase its frequency and lethality.”

Obama warned Americans that materials on the Internet could influence people to commit terrorist acts.

“Today, a person can consume hateful propaganda, commit themselves to a violent agenda and learn how to kill without leaving their home,” he said.

To combat domestic terrorism, Obama reminded Americans that it was important to reach out to Muslim communities.

“The best way to prevent violent extremism is to work with the Muslim American community — which has consistently rejected terrorism — to identify signs of radicalization and partner with law enforcement when an individual is drifting towards violence,” he said. “And these partnerships can only work when we recognize that Muslims are a fundamental part of the American family.”

You see, we are just not working hard enough to “work with the Muslim American community” who are a “fundamental part of the American family.” Watch out, too, because Obysmal is again trying to limit the impact of the Internet.

onlineanalyst on May 24, 2013 at 4:22 PM

That Chris Hayes is a bit of a twink, isn’t he?

onlineanalyst on May 24, 2013 at 4:25 PM

Obama apparently gave two speeches yesterday and I watched the other one.

myiq2xu on May 24, 2013 at 5:03 PM

Comment pages: 1 2