Early Voting Results for 2024 Election

[Danderman123]

There are a couple of sites providing analysis of the results of early votes so far:

 

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

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/early-vote

 

Spoiler alert: the Dems are pretty far ahead. Since Trump's campaign organization has zero effort to contact people to vote, Trump is using some workaround, a patched up effort by Elon to use canvassers who get paid by the numbers of doors they claim to knock on. Yeah, you know how that works.

 

Anyway, Trump's lack of a ground game is killing GOP early voting numbers and will impact turnout on November 5.

 

The only states where early voting favors Trump are Georgia and Arizona.

 

Pennsylvania is so bad for Trump, that Harris may build a firewall so large by November 5 that it can't be overcome by Election Day turnout.

[Danderman123]

Surprising numbers from Florida 

[earlinclaifornia]

Spent time looking at specifics.

So thanks for contributing to pointing out details leading to more hope when the 5th is reailty.

[TheAppletons]

OP seems politically savvy enough to know but referring to this as "early voting results" is not exactly accurate.  There are no "results" yet - just demographics of early voters.  

 

"It’s unclear what this means for the election, however. The early vote data only reveals whether voters are registered with a party, not who they are voting for, and the early electorate can change from day to day as more people vote early.

 

The surge in 2020 Democratic early voting was largely a reaction to a pandemic that no longer exists, skewing historic comparisons. And what might seem like demographic trends in the early vote can suddenly disappear once Election Day votes are factored in."

 

https://apnews.com/article/early-vote-records-trump-harris-1c219d0d27d56996388f2e2be5a58fac

[earlinclaifornia]

2 minutes ago, TheAppletons said:

OP seems politically savvy enough to know but referring to this as "early voting results" is not exactly accurate.  There are no "results" yet - just demographics of early voters.  

 

"It’s unclear what this means for the election, however. The early vote data only reveals whether voters are registered with a party, not who they are voting for, and the early electorate can change from day to day as more people vote early.

 

The surge in 2020 Democratic early voting was largely a reaction to a pandemic that no longer exists, skewing historic comparisons. And what might seem like demographic trends in the early vote can suddenly disappear once Election Day votes are factored in."

 

https://apnews.com/article/early-vote-records-trump-harris-1c219d0d27d56996388f2e2be5a58fac

Do you believe that this time the increase is what verses Covid19?

 

[TheAppletons]

2 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Do you believe that this time the increase is what verses Covid19?

 

 

Sorry, I don't understand the question as you've written it.....?  

 

If you are asking if I think the early voting is higher than during COVID19 - or because of COVID19 - I'd venture to guess that COVID19 got people used to voting early and they realized it's a lot easier than standing in a line for hours on election day.  

 

 

 

 

[earlinclaifornia]

Just now, TheAppletons said:

 

Sorry, I don't understand the question as you've written it.....?  

 

If you are asking if I think the early voting is higher than during COVID19 - or because of COVID19 - I'd venture to guess that COVID19 got people used to voting early and they realized it's a lot easier than standing in a line for hours on election day.  

 

 

 

 

That explanation was exactly what I was looking to read. Thanks

[Danderman123]

26 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Do you believe that this time the increase is what verses Covid19?

 

Enthusiasm 

[Danderman123]

Texas sees record early-voting numbers, particularly in Democratic-leaning areas

 

Texas is trending purple, the question is when will it break for the Dems?

[Danderman123]

31 minutes ago, TheAppletons said:

OP seems politically savvy enough to know but referring to this as "early voting results" is not exactly accurate.  There are no "results" yet - just demographics of early voters.  

 

"It’s unclear what this means for the election, however. The early vote data only reveals whether voters are registered with a party, not who they are voting for, and the early electorate can change from day to day as more people vote early.

 

The surge in 2020 Democratic early voting was largely a reaction to a pandemic that no longer exists, skewing historic comparisons. And what might seem like demographic trends in the early vote can suddenly disappear once Election Day votes are factored in."

 

https://apnews.com/article/early-vote-records-trump-harris-1c219d0d27d56996388f2e2be5a58fac

The pros understand that banking early votes is one of the keys to winning.

 

But, you can use polls to learn who is going to win. Up to you.

[Danderman123]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/georgia-results

 

It's close in Georgia. No sign of a Red Wave, early voting seems to be following the polls.

[Yellowtail]

Harris beating Trump soundly in the national:

And the polls are clearly trending to Harris in the battleground states: 

 

 

 

RealClearPolitics - Live Opinion, News, Analysis, Video and Polls

[Danderman123]

8 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Harris beating Trump soundly in the national:

And the polls are clearly trending to Harris in the battleground states: 

 

 

 

RealClearPolitics - Live Opinion, News, Analysis, Video and Polls

Now is the time to look at actual voting numbers instead of the polls.

 

You can cry about the polls after Trump loses.

[Yellowtail]

7 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Now is the time to look at actual voting numbers instead of the polls.

 

You can cry about the polls after Trump loses.

No actual votes have been counted. 

 

You claimed polls irrelevant when Trump was ahead, then when Harris too the lead you were all over the polls and they were the be-all-end-all until they stated looking bad for Harris, now they're back to irrelevance. How funny is that? 

 

[G_Money]

9 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Now is the time to look at actual voting numbers instead of the polls.

 

You can cry about the polls after Trump loses.

Your ability to predict the future is noteworthy.

 

Never met anyone like you before.

 

How did you obtain this divine talent?

 

Did God visit you in your sleep and grant you and only you this wonderful power ?

[Yellowtail]

Speaking of early voting, Nevada is (was?) Harris's strongest battleground state, yes? 

 

"Republicans lead in counted ballots by about 6,000, roughly 2 percent, Ralston noted in an updated post Tuesday morning.

 

He explained Monday that the “firewall” that generally contributes to a Democratic advantage from Clark County has “collapsed,” with Democrats only leading Republicans there by about 4,500 votes. The county is the most populous in the state and home to Las Vegas."

 

Nevada early voting data shows potential danger for Kamala Harris and Democrats

 

[Danderman123]

34 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

No actual votes have been counted. 

 

You claimed polls irrelevant when Trump was ahead, then when Harris too the lead you were all over the polls and they were the be-all-end-all until they stated looking bad for Harris, now they're back to irrelevance. How funny is that? 

 

Nope.

 

Last Spring, I said that early polls were not predictive, and to wait until after the conventions, when people start paying attention.

 

I was posting polls until 2 things happened:

 

Republicans started flooding the zone with junk post to get the low information types excited; and

 

We now have early voting data, which tells us the level of support for the parties in this election.

[Danderman123]

35 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Speaking of early voting, Nevada is (was?) Harris's strongest battleground state, yes? 

 

"Republicans lead in counted ballots by about 6,000, roughly 2 percent, Ralston noted in an updated post Tuesday morning.

 

He explained Monday that the “firewall” that generally contributes to a Democratic advantage from Clark County has “collapsed,” with Democrats only leading Republicans there by about 4,500 votes. The county is the most populous in the state and home to Las Vegas."

 

Nevada early voting data shows potential danger for Kamala Harris and Democrats

 

Nevada has never been a solid Dem state. There is currently a Republican governor.

 

Jon Ralston knows Nevada politics.

[Danderman123]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/michigan-results

 

The Michigan electorate so far is 55% female, and about half the vote is in.

 

To have a chance, Trump is going to need big turnout on Election Day that is 57%+ male.

 

Unlikely, but possible.

 

 

[bangadang]

If Trump wins I would love to see your smug face  LOL

[Danderman123]

27 minutes ago, bangadang said:

If Trump wins I would love to see your smug face  LOL

I won't have a smug face if Trump wins.

 

And it's possible that Trump will win. But unlikely as 50% have voted in the swing states. All Harris really needs are the 3 Midwest swing states, and early voting numbers there are good for Harris.

[Hanaguma]

8 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

I won't have a smug face if Trump wins.

 

And it's possible that Trump will win. But unlikely as 50% have voted in the swing states. All Harris really needs are the 3 Midwest swing states, and early voting numbers there are good for Harris.

So I take it you are giving up on the 3 sunbelt states as well as North Carolina?

 

Another way to see it is that Trump just needs one of the rust belt states, or possibly to flip any other state that is close, to win. So in theory Harris could carry the rust belt and still lose.

 

Anyway, we shall see!

[Danderman123]

6 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

So I take it you are giving up on the 3 sunbelt states as well as North Carolina?

 

Another way to see it is that Trump just needs one of the rust belt states, or possibly to flip any other state that is close, to win. So in theory Harris could carry the rust belt and still lose.

 

Anyway, we shall see!

Your math is off.

 

If Harris takes the 3 Rust belt swing states + NE-2, she has 270 Electoral votes.

 

So, I am not so concerned about the other swing states.

 

However, per the NBC site, there is a very high female vote in those states, and there really isn't a precedent for this election concerning the gender gap. It is possible that all the swing states end up on the same side.