Poll Diving – part 3

Submitted by Marie on Tue, 10/20/2020 - 12:31pm

Ticket splitting in 2020? In 2016 I suggested that watching the Senate races would be more constructive than monitoring the Presidential polls and that ticket splitting wouldn't feature. Thus, I put FL and NC into the Trump column. NH was too close to call. The WI Senate polls totally tripped me up. And then I made the boneheaded (split-ticket) projection in PA – HRC and Toomey. It may be as clean this year as in 2016, but it doesn't feel quite right (my tinfoil hat may be on the blink). Therefore, Trump may still carry IA as Greenfield goes to the Senate.

There are two more ticket splitting possibilities: AK and MT. Trump will likely coast in both. However, the incumbent GOP Senators aren't particularly strong and their challengers are. Still Trump may carry both to victory.

1. Two “red states” - again.

North Carolina

2016 election outcomes:

President - Trump 50% and Clinton 46%
Senate – Burr 51% (inc R) and Democrat 45%

2020 election polling:

President – Trump 46% and Biden 49% (RCP aggregate)
Senate – Tillis 42% (inc R) and Cunningham 46%

It's somewhat traditional for North Carolina to have one Senate seat that turns over every six years. That was Class 2 seat until Jesse Helms captured it in 1972. Sam Ervin retired two years later, and then the Class 3 seat turned over. Since then, Richard Burr is the first NC Class 3 Senator to survive three elections. However, Helms retired in 2002, and the Class 2 seat has turned over three times; the incumbents losing their reelection bid. Tillis is Class 2, and oddly may be too nutso for NC. Or it's the one term and then out factor.

I usually spot the GOP candidates in NC three points from the polling. That still leaves Trump and Tillis behind. However, I'm clueless as to what's going on there that would adequately account for both of them to be trailing; therefore, let's put these in the toss-up category until more polls or information is released.

Texas

2016 election outcomes:

President - Trump 52% and Clinton 43%
Senate – none

2020 election polling:

President – Trump 49% and Biden 45% (RCP aggregate)
Senate – Cornyn 48% (inc R) and Democrat 40%

Add in that in a Democratic year, 2018, Cruz won with 51%.

Looks a lot more like Georgia than North Carolina.

2. The other 2016 surprises.

Pennsylvania

2016 election outcomes:

President - Trump 48.2% and Clinton 47.5%
Senate – Toomey 48.8% (inc R) and McGinty 47.3%

2020 election polling:

President – Trump 41 to 45% and Biden 49 to 54%
Senate – none

PA was polled more heavily by the larger polling operations in September and the results were much like the above numbers from October polling.

Wisconsin

2016 election outcomes:

President - Trump 47.2% and Clinton 46.5%
Senate – Johnson 50.2% (inc R) and Feingold 46.8%

2020 election polling:

President – Trump 41 to 46 and Biden 51
Senate – none

Pollsters are paying a lot of attention to Wisconsin this year. The polling external validity – all getting nearly the same results – is high. However, Marquette, that at one time was an accurate WI pollster, has Trump at 41 and Biden at 46.
On SARS-CoV2, Cases/M, TX is #13, WI is #16, NC is #27, and PA is #44. Deaths/M, PA is #16, TX is #18, and NC is #26, and WI is # #42 (Case fatality rate: TX 2.0%, PA 4.5%, NC 1.6% and WI 0.9%) A few of points on this. PA was hit hard in the March/April wave and the high CFR reflects the treatment confusion at that time. WI was hit a bit later but not early enough to control the initial spread. TX and NC infections came later. still PA, NC, and WI all have Democratic governors and they have pushed back on Trump's handling. Abbot in TX was more in tune with the WH 'herd immunity' fiction, until hospitals were overwhelmed. As in MI, this hurts Trump in all four states and by default benefits Biden.

Not enough Texans will change horses to given Biden or the Senate Democratic nominee a win. However, it's looking good for ticket splitting in NC, and wouldn't be a shock if Trump loses there. I've been instructed to factor in the GOP claims of massive new registrations in several states including TX, NC, PA, and WI, and presumably those new voters aren't showing up in the polling. (It's a common refrain for whichever party is lagging in the polling.) If true, how much of an impact would that have?

A “back of the envelope calculation for PA: 300,000 additional voters that split 80/20 for Trump. Using the 2016 turnout and applying the worst polling for Biden (49%) and best for Trump (45%) and adding those all new Trumpsters, Biden still wins. If the true percentages are 49-49 (which means that all the pollsters are flubbing) and doesn't include the new registrants, then Trump wins.

PA gives me some pause because the better pollsters have been absent in October. OTOH, there's less OH GOP bleed into western PA than in 2016 and Trump barely carried the state then. The polling has been consistent for a month and a half and is in line with results from 1992 through 2012. And I'm accepting that in 2016 “hope” shifted to Trump as Obama didn't deliver (and Clinton didn't even promise to deliver) for a dispirited sector of the electorate. Holding on to such voters from one election to the next isn't easy and Trump's record argues against him being able to do so, particularly when otherwise the state isn't moving in the same direction.

If Trump voters are declining to respond to pollsters anywhere, WI would be a likely place; so, expect 'better than expected' for Trump here. Still, candidates that consistently poll at 50% or above, when the polling is good enough as it appears to be in WI this year, rarely lose. Mindful of the Marquette poll and possible WI 'shy Trumpsters,' it could end up very close. That would be consistent with many prior presidential elections in WI.

If only AZ, MI, and PA flip from 2016 that would be a wrap. EC Trump 259 and Biden 279. If neither WI nor PA flips, well... Finally, if I have it backwards and it's WI and not PA that flips, it would be the dreaded 269-269 outcome.

Tags:

2020 election

Polling

Vote

Comments

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Tue, 10/20/2020 - 2:45pm

You could be our resident poll analyst.

You clearly have insight here, and an interesting sidebar with the Senate races and ticket-splitting. The rigging of the primaries and the deplorable mismatches on specific exit polls in the general election — has taken a lot of the fun out of it. Plus the buzz-kill of the Duopoly whose motto should be: "It doesn't matter which party sweeps the election, you're headed for a shit-ton of social austerity and record-breaking defense spending."

At this point, I always tune in Allan Lichtman and find out in advance which party is gong to win White House. Been doing that for years and years. For those who don't know him, AllanLichtman is a history professor at American University in DC. He came up with a simple rules-based system to correctly predicted the outcome of US Presidential elections. He's been doing it since 1984, and it also correctly predicts the outcome of elections going back to the Civil War.

He usually makes his announcement about 18 months to two years in advance, but not so in 2016. And not this election, either. Dying Empires that are spastically thrashing and flopping on the World Stage have continuous reversals of fortune. They are in a constant state of Reaction; violently reacting to everything in sight, Making dumb decision that backfire immediately. Leaving a mess of consequences that need to be cleaned up or covered up.

Under the circumstances, Lichtman makes his predictions as late as six weeks out these days. He doesn't look at polls The system he created — "The Keys to the White House" — are 13 statements or questions about the incumbent President or the state of the Nation. Each statement can be true or false. If seven or more statements are answered as true, then the current President or Party gets to remain in the White House, seven or more are false, there will be a new face and a new Party leading the country.

The 13 statement topics are: Midterm Gains, No contest during nominations, Incumbent President seeking re-election, No third party contesting the elections, Strong short term economy, Strong long term economy, Major policy change, Scandals, Foreign/military failure, Foreign/military success, No social unrest, Charisma of the President, Charisma of the challenger.

People are calling US elections 2020 one of the most unpredictable elections in the history of the US.
According to Allan Lichtman, "The secret is keeping your eye on the big picture of incumbent strength and performance. And don't pay any attention to the polls, the pundits, the day-to-day ups and downs of the campaign. And that's what the 13 keys gauge. The big picture,"

The Keys are never wrong.

But this time, not everyone agrees with Lichtman. Will he keep his 35 year winning prediction streak? And, what happens downticket?

—

IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"

Submitted by Marie on Tue, 10/20/2020 - 5:06pm

As the first twelve focus on

@Pluto's Republic the incumbent and the incumbent party, the last one seems out of place. There's also a degree of subjectivity to those to questions. In many Senate elections I've used a comparative level of charisma (the debates without sound highlights that for me), and it works every time when there's a difference. Useless when both candidates are charisma challenged, and haven't encountered a situation where both are highly charismatic.

Is it correct to assume that Lichtman projected Gore in 2000?

You clearly have insight here, and an interesting sidebar with the Senate races and ticket-splitting. The rigging of the primaries and the deplorable mismatches on specific exit polls in the general election — has taken a lot of the fun out of it. Plus the buzz-kill of the Duopoly whose motto should be: "It doesn't matter which party sweeps the election, you're headed for a shit-ton of social austerity and record-breaking defense spending." At this point, I always tune in Allan Lichtman and find out in advance which party is gong to win White House. Been doing that for years and years. For those who don't know him, AllanLichtman is a history professor at American University in DC. He came up with a simple rules-based system to correctly predicted the outcome of US Presidential elections. He's been doing it since 1984, and it also correctly predicts the outcome of elections going back to the Civil War. He usually makes his announcement about 18 months to two years in advance, but not so in 2016. And not this election, either. Dying Empires that are spastically thrashing and flopping on the World Stage have continuous reversals of fortune. They are in a constant state of Reaction; violently reacting to everything in sight, Making dumb decision that backfire immediately. Leaving a mess of consequences that need to be cleaned up or covered up. Under the circumstances, Lichtman makes his predictions as late as six weeks out these days. He doesn't look at polls The system he created — "The Keys to the White House" — are 13 statements or questions about the incumbent President or the state of the Nation. Each statement can be true or false. If seven or more statements are answered as true, then the current President or Party gets to remain in the White House, seven or more are false, there will be a new face and a new Party leading the country. The 13 statement topics are: Midterm Gains, No contest during nominations, Incumbent President seeking re-election, No third party contesting the elections, Strong short term economy, Strong long term economy, Major policy change, Scandals, Foreign/military failure, Foreign/military success, No social unrest, Charisma of the President, Charisma of the challenger. People are calling US elections 2020 one of the most unpredictable elections in the history of the US. According to Allan Lichtman, "The secret is keeping your eye on the big picture of incumbent strength and performance. And don't pay any attention to the polls, the pundits, the day-to-day ups and downs of the campaign. And that's what the 13 keys gauge. The big picture," The Keys are never wrong. But this time, not everyone agrees with Lichtman. Will he keep his 35 year winning prediction streak? And, what happens downticket?

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Tue, 10/20/2020 - 8:14pm

Yes. It does have elements of subjectivity.

@Marie

But in academic circles, they try to keep it honest.

Is it correct to assume that Lichtman projected Gore in 2000?

Sort of.... He has a special caveat that covers elections where the popular vote loses the election.

I'm not sure I agree with him, either. But he says he is just following the rules.

Although, seeing Trump defeated follows my new rule: Vote out all the incumbents in every election. Keep 'em fresh, inexperienced, and insecure.

—

IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"

Submitted by Marie on Wed, 10/21/2020 - 8:34am

IOW - he projected that GWB would win?

@Pluto's Republic @Pluto's Republic Except he didn't, and I'm not talking about the popular vote that isn't the way a win is calculated. He won FL, but Jeb! had rigged the state (only incompetently because his team underestimated how many votes bro would fall short), then the FL SoS did her best to shut down the count, GOP operatives did manage to shut down the recount in Miami-Dade, and finally when the FL SC ruled a statewide recount must be down, the US SC stepped in and shut it down. There would have been no reason for team Bush to run off to federal court within a couple of days of the election because they knew about their fix (not all has ever been fully revealed) and that they wouldn't survive a recount.

Projections only count as accurate if they are made prior to an event. So, projecting the known with a simple model is bs, imho. There's no model that would be 100% accurate, and those that fall below 60% aren't any better than flipping a coin. When getting it wrong, honesty demands a careful inspection of all the errors one made and make appropriate corrections for the next time. As well as pondering the possibilities of making new errors.

On my cheatsheet, Trump can't win without NC, but if NC flips, it's difficult to postulate that PA wouldn't also flip. Calling NC in 2016 was easy, and odds are that it's still easy, but there are some crosswinds. I want to review a few more states and wait for a few more polls to make my call on PA.

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Wed, 10/21/2020 - 1:45am

I look forward to your final, final final

@Marie

....call.

The reality test here is understanding just how hugely Trump fucked up the pandemic. He essentially killed 200,000 people who didn't need to die. That's how the rest of the world sees it. We lost 3,000 people on 9/11 due to Neocon assholes fucking around in the Middle East, and got stuck in 20 pointless years of war. But when 200,000 people are killed by an anti-science moron, Americans panic and start hoarding toilet paper.

I'll tell you what really happened during those critical first six weeks when Trump and the do-nothing Congress dropped the ball on the Pandemic. They've been trying to blame it on China, but only the dumbest Americans believe that mendacious narrative. From December 18, 2019 to February 5, 2020 the idiot Democrats monopolized the media with their stupid impeachment trial based on a ridiculous charge that nobody cared about. That's when the lives of 200,000 people were thrown in the garbage.

China has started pushing back on the never-ending stream of lies and smears coming from Trump and Pompeo and the Neocon chorus on Capitol Hill. These maniacs are trying to gin up a hot war in the Pacific and drag China back into poverty and isolationism by breaking their technology and crashing their economy. China is finally defending itself and setting the record straight. The declaration below is an excerpt from one of dozens of responses published by the Chinese government in recent months.

Bob Woodward, a prominent American investigative journalist, reveals in a new book, Rage, that while Donald Trump downplayed the dangers of the coronavirus last winter, he knew full well how dangerous, fast-spreading and deadly the illness actually could be. The book clarifies just how much Trump knew about the disease long before the first recorded U.S. death.

The chaos caused by a lack of leadership has thrown America's epidemic prevention into disarray. George Packer, a staff writer for the Atlantic, wrote: "Every morning in the endless month of March, Americans woke up to find themselves citizens of a failed state. With no national plan -- no coherent instructions at all -- families, schools, and offices were left to decide on their own whether to shut down and take shelter."

When test kits, masks, gowns, and ventilators were found to be in desperately short supply, governors pleaded for them from the White House, which stalled, then called on private enterprise, which couldn’t deliver. States and cities were forced into bidding wars that left them prey to price gouging and corporate profiteering. Civilians took out their sewing machines to try to keep ill-equipped hospital workers healthy and their patients alive. The United Nations sent humanitarian aid to the world’s richest power -- a beggar nation in utter chaos.

History will record the absurdity of reality, but the absurdity of reality persists:

A few lawmakers and corporate executives did act swiftly -- but instead of protecting the American People and preventing impending disaster — they used their intelligence briefings to profit from the stock market. According to an Associated Press poll released Sept.20, the People's approval rating for the U.S. government's response to the pandemic was a low 39 percent. Yet over the past eight months, the White House has not changed its approach to the epidemic. They are inactive at home and they intervene where they are not wanted, abroad. All that has changed is the U.S.'s ever-growing death toll.

These are not merely numbers. They are lives lost. They were older people without protection, children whose lives had not yet begun, young people with ambitions for the future... More often, they are African-Americans and other ethnic minorities who hoped to embrace the American Dream.

When lives are gone, where do dreams lie?

Human life is the most precious. The right to life and the right to health are the first human rights. Will the loss of 200,000 lives serve as a wake-up call to those in power who have a "disregard for life?”

In any event, many pundits think that the pandemic was Trump's Waterloo. Until he — or the TDS-addled Democrats — screwed up the early response, Trump was set to coast into a second term.

Sorry for the long OT.

—

IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"

Submitted by Marie on Wed, 10/21/2020 - 8:33am

I'd like to take this up in an essay/thread

@Pluto's Republic on the whole damn mess. IMHO the failures are more extensive and much worse than what you've cited. (The virus wasn't exported from China after 25 January; it was exported by every country that didn't similarly stomp on it.) Will mention that I don't buy that Trump comprehended the issue; he's too thick and there's no way to verify an after the fact claim. However, as Trump hasn't changed course on this issue, he still doesn't comprehend the issue.

The "do nothing Congress" charge isn't at all correct. It wasn't in 1948 when Truman coined it. 1947-1948 the GOP congress was doing a lot, all bad. Similarly, 2017-2019 Congress rubber stamped whatever the nincompoop in the Oval Office wanted. Democrats were obsessed with a completely fictitious claim because they were too thick to acknowledge the Obama/Biden failures, still believe that Bill Clinton was a great president, and that Hillary was a particularly bad nominee for the times. Had Biden actually been involved in an effective response to the Ebola outbreak, he wouldn't have been silent for months. Having monitored that one closely gave me the tools as to what to look for, question, and do in this one. Meanwhile the "pandemic gameers" were also silent. Note there was no official blame China in those first three weeks. Behind closed doors they were gleeful that China had shutdown and therefore, their economy would be hobbled. Talk about thick. China chose to act when the information and science were still preliminary, but no way would they shutdown if the infection wasn't spreading rapidly, a high percentage became very ill, and the death rate was high.

#1.1.1.1

....call.

The reality test here is understanding just how hugely Trump fucked up the pandemic. He essentially killed 200,000 people who didn't need to die. That's how the rest of the world sees it. We lost 3,000 people on 9/11 due to Neocon assholes fucking around in the Middle East, and got stuck in 20 pointless years of war. But when 200,000 people are killed by an anti-science moron, Americans panic and start hoarding toilet paper.

I'll tell you what really happened during those critical first six weeks when Trump and the do-nothing Congress dropped the ball on the Pandemic. They've been trying to blame it on China, but only the dumbest Americans believe that mendacious narrative. From December 18, 2019 to February 5, 2020 the idiot Democrats monopolized the media with their stupid impeachment trial based on a ridiculous charge that nobody cared about. That's when the lives of 200,000 people were thrown in the garbage.

China has started pushing back on the never-ending stream of lies and smears coming from Trump and Pompeo and the Neocon chorus on Capitol Hill. These maniacs are trying to gin up a hot war in the Pacific and drag China back into poverty and isolationism by breaking their technology and crashing their economy. China is finally defending itself and setting the record straight. The declaration below is an excerpt from one of dozens of responses published by the Chinese government in recent months.

Bob Woodward, a prominent American investigative journalist, reveals in a new book, Rage, that while Donald Trump downplayed the dangers of the coronavirus last winter, he knew full well how dangerous, fast-spreading and deadly the illness actually could be. The book clarifies just how much Trump knew about the disease long before the first recorded U.S. death.

The chaos caused by a lack of leadership has thrown America's epidemic prevention into disarray. George Packer, a staff writer for the Atlantic, wrote: "Every morning in the endless month of March, Americans woke up to find themselves citizens of a failed state. With no national plan -- no coherent instructions at all -- families, schools, and offices were left to decide on their own whether to shut down and take shelter."

When test kits, masks, gowns, and ventilators were found to be in desperately short supply, governors pleaded for them from the White House, which stalled, then called on private enterprise, which couldn’t deliver. States and cities were forced into bidding wars that left them prey to price gouging and corporate profiteering. Civilians took out their sewing machines to try to keep ill-equipped hospital workers healthy and their patients alive. The United Nations sent humanitarian aid to the world’s richest power -- a beggar nation in utter chaos.

History will record the absurdity of reality, but the absurdity of reality persists:

A few lawmakers and corporate executives did act swiftly -- but instead of protecting the American People and preventing impending disaster — they used their intelligence briefings to profit from the stock market. According to an Associated Press poll released Sept.20, the People's approval rating for the U.S. government's response to the pandemic was a low 39 percent. Yet over the past eight months, the White House has not changed its approach to the epidemic. They are inactive at home and they intervene where they are not wanted, abroad. All that has changed is the U.S.'s ever-growing death toll.

These are not merely numbers. They are lives lost. They were older people without protection, children whose lives had not yet begun, young people with ambitions for the future... More often, they are African-Americans and other ethnic minorities who hoped to embrace the American Dream.

When lives are gone, where do dreams lie?

Human life is the most precious. The right to life and the right to health are the first human rights. Will the loss of 200,000 lives serve as a wake-up call to those in power who have a "disregard for life?”

.

In any event, many pundits think that the pandemic was Trump's Waterloo. Until he — or the TDS-addled Democrats — screwed up the early response, Trump was set to coast into a second term.

Sorry for the long OT.

Submitted by travelerxxx on Wed, 10/21/2020 - 4:07pm

Write on!

@Marie

I'd like to take this up in an essay/thread on the whole damn mess. IMHO the failures are more extensive and much worse than what you've cited.

I suspect most of us here are in anticipation of you doing exactly that: writing on "...the whole damn mess." Since a book could be written, guessing you might cover it in installments - similar to what you've done with this "Poll Diving" series. After all, the "mess" is deep and wide.

Submitted by Marie on Wed, 10/21/2020 - 9:15pm

Oh, didn't mean to suggest that

@travelerxxx I would initiate it, much less present an accurate and chronological review. My first response was, "That's a huge and daunting task." A worthy endeavor, but ... Unfortunately, I didn't keep much a personal journal as this unfolded; so, I'd have to do a lot of research. On further consider, doing as you suggest in bite size chunks might not feel so overwhelming and allow all of us to reflect on what we knew and thought in each of the developing periods, including what we got wrong.

63,663 new cases and 1,225 deaths reported today. Not record breaking on either. New cases and death peaked from 14 - 31 July. Increases in deaths lagged increases in cases by seven days. New case high - 78,278 was on 16 July and highest number of deaths was 1,696 on 20 August. So, looks as if our chronic SARS-CoV2 is kicking back up.

Submitted by travelerxxx on Wed, 10/21/2020 - 10:11pm

Info overload

@Marie

...bite size chunks might not feel so overwhelming and allow all of us to reflect...

Even itty-bitty chunks might not be a bad idea. Perhaps starting with your tempting statement re the Florida debacle (my bold):

"There would have been no reason for team Bush to run off to federal court within a couple of days of the election because they knew about their fix (not all has ever been fully revealed) and that they wouldn't survive a recount.

Many of us know only what the MSN reported at the time. I'm one of them.

Submitted by Marie on Thu, 10/22/2020 - 12:08am

My the "whole mess." I was

@travelerxxx only speaking of SARS-CoV2, and not the past fifty years of crap done by politicians and US business. wrt FL 2000 dirty tricks, I only know what was reported. While I don't think that was the proverbial tip of the iceberg, I do suspect that there was more that hasn't made its way into public reports. What we do know and in no particular order:
1) purging of registration rolls
2) GOP operatives showing up at senior care facilities and "helping" people fill out their ballots.
3) police blocking roads for AA voters in the Panhandle.
4) several counties did actually do the mandatory machine recount
5) Jacksonville reported late in the initial count and magically added enough to Bush's tally to keep him ahead. (later review found a high percentage of overvotes attributed to voter error -- the officials had plenty of time to muck with those ballots and probably throw out some.

John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Barrett were all down in FL assisting with the project to shut down the recount. That alone should have been sufficient to reject their nominations.

Submitted by travelerxxx on Thu, 10/22/2020 - 10:35pm

Thanks.

@Marie

My the "whole mess." I was only speaking of SARS-CoV2, and not the past fifty years of crap done by politicians and US business.

Got it. I was probably hoping for too much from any one person anyway. Hell, huge news organizations haven't even been able to do it.

Even the "whole mess" of the COVID thing would be too much for most. It certainly would be for me.

Submitted by Marie on Fri, 10/23/2020 - 12:15am

May be too much for me as well.

@travelerxxx Had to turn off the Donnie and Joe show after a bit because neither of them could get it straight either. Joe criticized Donnie for the only things that he actually (probably inadvertently) got right, but Donnie doesn't yet understand that he managed that. Both of them went on about "it's China's fault" blah, blah, blah. Joe would have done better to stick to Donnie's actual errors and failures. I tune out when any of these yokels go off on China/Xi or Russia/Putin. The countries that paid attention to what China said and did about the virus have managed it very well.

Submitted by OzoneTom on Tue, 10/20/2020 - 4:05pm

"If only AZ, MI, and PA flip from 2016 that would be a wrap"

What if Alabama flips the other way?

But at least a flip in Maine, North Carolina or Colorado might offset that.

Submitted by Marie on Tue, 10/20/2020 - 4:49pm

To refresh -- in 2016

@OzoneTom Alabama and NC were red. Maine was blue except for one CD that was red. CO was blue.

Alabama isn't going to flip. A Democratic optimist (or Clintonista) would project blue in NC. It could but as electoral strategy to get to 270, it's dumb. NC goes blue when it doesn't matter. As for Maine, Trump will be lucky to hold that one CD and he's not even working that state and NH the way he did in 2016. Colorado isn't going to flip.

Submitted by usefewersyllables on Wed, 10/21/2020 - 11:12am

Agreed WRT Colorado, but not

@Marie

necessarily for the reason that the SoS seems to want us to think.

I'm still crunching on numbers- I'm going to work up 2009-2020 when I'm all done with it. But just looking strictly at current, active voter registrations between August and September 2020:

Dems 1,067,541 -> 1,097,559, increase of 30,018
Reps 973,545 -> 997,785, increase of 23,250
Unaf 1,441,872 -> 1,489,012 increase of 47,140

Okay, so the dems show a net gain of ~7000 active voters WRT the reps month-to-month, on the face of it. Reason enough for the look-at-all-those-new-registrations happy dance, I suppose. Now, let's go look at the inactive voter rolls: those who haven't voted in several elections, have left the state, have moved and not updated their address after the state was informed about it, or have become deceased and the state was informed about it. These inactive folks do not automatically receive VbM ballots- they have to take an action to reactivate themselves and vote.

Dems 130,295 -> 117,718, decrease of 12,577
Reps 123,456 -> 113,830, decrease of 9,626
Unaf 238,761 -> 218,335, decrease of 29,426

This tells me that a little less than half of those "new registrations" above are likely to be previously-registered people who have simply updated their addresses or done other things to change their status back to active. And more may be unaffiliateds who picked a party- or maybe they stayed unaffiliated. Who knows?

The dems still have the active registration advantage (and have had for some years), but there's a lot of noise in those numbers. The dems are indeed at their highest point as of 9/31, but since 2018 they have dropped as low as 985,835. The reps are puttering along just under 1M, but have been as high as 1,004,578 and as low as 960,613. Swings of 10-20,000 month-to-month are normal in these numbers.

And if we look back to November of 2016, the previous high-water mark for both parties, the dems were at 1,040,938, the reps at 1,031,512, and Unaf at 1,140,909. I guess the reps really did piss some people off in 2016.

Given that the population of the state has increased from 5,539,215 at the end of 2016 to 5,758,736 at the end of 2019 (a gain of 219,521) I don't think that either party has a lot to cheer about with respect to "winning new registrations". While it is true that some number of those folks are too young to vote, there are a lot of people who have come here and haven't become active- even though they automatically get registered when they get their driver's licenses. Not surprising, because I know several new folks who haven't signed up for their CO licenses, ostensibly to try to avoid jury duty...

These tea leaves are hard to figure out, but certainly ripe for exploitation. Anyhoo, according to my own personal cynical spin, it seems to me that the state is indeed most likely to go blue again this time. I could be utterly and completely wrong, and your mileage will most certainly vary.

(Source: CO SoS web site)

—

Twice bitten, permanently shy.

Submitted by Marie on Wed, 10/21/2020 - 9:58am

Nice dive on your part.

@usefewersyllables Agree that registrations in CO tell us very little to nothing. The plurality is held by "unaffiliated." Roughly 1:1:1.5 Dem, Rep, Unaffl.

Registration by congressional district might provide a clue as to how those registrations split in recent elections. Or if new registrations indicate that a red or blue district is becoming redder, bluer, or the same and how that bubbles up to statewide races. But doubt that analysis would be worth the effort. I haven't focused on CO because a glance at the polling indicates that the recent trends will hold. However, mindful of the 2016 flips that I paid little (WI) and no (MI) attention to in 2016 perhaps it warrants more attention.

#2.1 necessarily for the reason that the SoS seems to want us to think. I'm still crunching on numbers- I'm going to work up 2009-2020 when I'm all done with it. But just looking strictly at current, active voter registrations between August and September 2020: Dems 1,067,541 -> 1,097,559, increase of 30,018 Reps 973,545 -> 997,785, increase of 23,250 Unaf 1,441,872 -> 1,489,012 increase of 47,140 Okay, so the dems show a net gain of ~7000 active voters WRT the reps month-to-month, on the face of it. Reason enough for the look-at-all-those-new-registrations happy dance, I suppose. Now, let's go look at the inactive voter rolls: those who haven't voted in several elections, have left the state, have moved and not updated their address after the state was informed about it, or have become deceased and the state was informed about it. These inactive folks do not automatically receive VbM ballots- they have to take an action to reactivate themselves and vote. Dems 130,295 -> 117,718, decrease of 12,577 Reps 123,456 -> 113,830, decrease of 9,626 Unaf 238,761 -> 218,335, decrease of 29,426 This tells me that a little less than half of those "new registrations" above are likely to be previously-registered people who have simply updated their addresses or done other things to change their status back to active. And more may be unaffiliateds who picked a party- or maybe they stayed unaffiliated. Who knows? The dems still have the active registration advantage (and have had for some years), but there's a lot of noise in those numbers. The dems are indeed at their highest point as of 9/31, but since 2018 they have dropped as low as 985,835. The reps are puttering along just under 1M, but have been as high as 1,004,578 and as low as 960,613. Swings of 10-20,000 month-to-month are normal in these numbers. And if we look back to November of 2016, the previous high-water mark for both parties, the dems were at 1,040,938, the reps at 1,031,512, and Unaf at 1,140,909. I guess the reps really did piss some people off in 2016. Given that the population of the state has increased from 5,539,215 at the end of 2016 to 5,758,736 at the end of 2019 (a gain of 219,521) I don't think that either party has a lot to cheer about with respect to "winning new registrations". While it is true that some number of those folks are too young to vote, there are a lot of people who have come here and haven't become active- even though they automatically get registered when they get their driver's licenses. Not surprising, because I know several new folks who haven't signed up for their CO licenses, ostensibly to try to avoid jury duty... These tea leaves are hard to figure out, but certainly ripe for exploitation. Anyhoo, according to my own personal cynical spin, it seems to me that the state is indeed most likely to go blue again this time. I could be utterly and completely wrong, and your mileage will most certainly vary. (Source: CO SoS web site)

Submitted by usefewersyllables on Wed, 10/21/2020 - 10:17am

Agreed, and thanks

@Marie

for the kind words. I'm just looking at this for my own amusement, and as a partial counterbalance to the spin that's out there. Our massive 9 EVs (that make CO such a coveted prize) are almost certain to go Blue, which means that we really don't matter much in any case. Makes my little heart go pitter-pat, that does, and makes me even happier with my Green protest votes.

It will be mildly interesting in the future if the referendum to join the National Popular Vote Compact passes this time out. The reps really hate that one...

—

Twice bitten, permanently shy.

Submitted by Marie on Wed, 10/21/2020 - 10:28am

Never discount that a state could matter.

@usefewersyllables A blue CO in 2000 would have changed everything.

While implausible, it's possible that a single House Rep could change everything. Might play with this a bit in the next part.

Submitted by usefewersyllables on Wed, 10/21/2020 - 5:46pm

Here's the data for

@Marie

CO active registrations, dem/rep/uaf for May 2013 to September 2020. It is mostly amusing to see that the registration totals really did reverse back in mid-2016, lending some credence to purple-trending-blue. So perhaps there is something to be learned from reading these tea leaves over a longer interval. I still think that a determined bunch of Trumpers could possibly overcome the gap, given the cosmic meh-ness of the dem ticket, and the fact that the dem party really did completely reverse the will of the voters here. Nothing matters until the votes are counted...

Shorter intervals are somewhat polluted by what look like periodic resets that contribute tremendously to the noise- it seems that they may only move people from active to inactive once a year or so. I don't have any explanation for that; it simply is a fact of the data. But that is one of the reasons that I'm so sensitive to cherrypicking data over a short term- this dataset is really, really noisy. However, I think I can say without fear of contradiction that Unaffiliated is running away with it since 2013... I think that that is a great sign of generalized battle fatigue. Can't wait for it to be over.

—

Twice bitten, permanently shy.

Submitted by Marie on Wed, 10/21/2020 - 8:44pm

Knowing a little something about

@usefewersyllables the historical economic bases, culture and political landscapes about a state is often a good guide to election projections. Simplified example. I don't recall that Gore made much of an effort in CO. Clinton/Gore carried it in 1992 with 40% in a three-way, which at the time was a bit of an anomaly, but lost in 1996 with 44.4% to Dole's 45.8% and Perot's 6.6%. Gore lost 42% to 51%. Kerry did focus on CO and ended up at 47% to GWB 52%.

CO was a resource extraction and ranching state, and the political culture identified with similar states, particularly Texas, but also had a strong libertarian, self-made/self-sufficient ethos. Perot most definitely cost GHWB CO, but CO was halfway back to normal in 1996 (KS is close enough) and fully back in 2000. Thus, even though Kerry thought that having been born in CO would give him an edge, there was no way he was going to beat a Texan. Yet, it was apparent to me that culturally Obama fit better with CO than either McCain or Romney did (AZ and Utah don't "bleed" into CO), and they acknowledged that GWB had been a disaster. They didn't respond well to the NYC hustler either even if he was a Republican. That's a somewhat dramatic flip in a relatively short period of time.

Submitted by Blue Republic on Thu, 10/22/2020 - 8:31am

NPV...

@usefewersyllables

It will be mildly interesting in the future if the referendum to join the National Popular Vote Compact passes this time out. The reps really hate that one...

Plenty of people of varying ideological persuasions are not down with National Popular Vote.

Just the top four most populous states CA,TX,FL,NY, have about 1/3 of the US population, numbers five through sixteen, PA-TN, make up another 1/3 with 34 states and DC together amounting to less than 1/3 since the final third includes PR and the various other Commonwealths and Territories.

It's beyond me why a state like Oregon would move to disempower itself by supporting NPV.

If it comes down to a choice between 'United State of America' - which seems to be the direction NPV would take us versus 'United States of America' I'd go for sticking with the latter...

Keeping the EC but awarding electors proportionally would empower minor parties and put any state adopting it in play - and be accomplished at the state level.

For example, California's 55 electors - if they had been awarded proportionally in the 2016 general election: with 14.2 million votes cast, one elector would have been awarded for approximately 260,000 votes and both Green and Libertarian would have each gotten one elector.

Would tend to add interest to the proceedings, anyway.