Early voting: More good signs for Clinton in key states

[webfact]

Early voting: More good signs for Clinton in key states

By HOPE YEN

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The millions of votes that have been cast already in the U.S. presidential election point to an advantage for Hillary Clinton in critical battleground states, as well as signs of strength in traditionally Republican territory.

 

The strong early-voting turnout by those likely to support Clinton — registered Democrats, minorities, and young people among others — could leave Donald Trump with virtually no path to the 270 electoral votes needed for victory.

 

Clinton is showing strength in Florida and North Carolina, both must-win states for Trump, as well as the battleground states of Nevada, Colorado and Arizona. There are even favorable signs for Clinton in Republican-leaning Utah and Texas.

 

"It's going to be a very tall order for Trump to win," said Michael McDonald, a University of Florida professor who specializes in election turnout. Other analysts also point to a strong finish for Clinton based on the early vote.

 

Early voting, via mail or in-person, is underway in 37 states. More than 12.5 million votes have been cast, far higher than the rate in 2012, according to Associated Press data. In all, more than 46 million people —or as much as 40 percent of the electorate — are expected to vote before Election Day, Nov. 8.

 

A look at the latest trends:

___

POSITIVE SIGNS FOR CLINTON IN NORTH CAROLINA, FLORIDA

 

The Clinton campaign describes both North Carolina and Florida as "checkmate" states. Trump probably can't win if he loses either.

 

After trailing in mail ballots, Democrats surged ahead of Republicans in North Carolina ballots cast after the start of in-person early voting last week. Democrats currently lead in ballots submitted, 47 percent to 29 percent.

 

In-person voting is off to a slower start for both Democrats and Republicans compared to 2012, when Republican Mitt Romney narrowly won the state. But many Democratic-leaning counties reduced the number of polling stations in the first week, a likely factor in the decline. Several of those counties are opening more stations this week.

 

In Florida, more than 2 million voters have already returned ballots. In-person voting began Monday, and Democrats have pulled virtually even with Republicans, at 41 percent each. That's a much faster rate of catch-up than in 2012 and 2008, when Barack Obama won the state.

 

This year's numbers are troubling for Republicans.

 

"If current early vote trends hold, it's a real possibility that Clinton can sweep a majority of swing states including Florida," said Scott Tranter, co-founder of the Republican data analytics firm Optimus.

___

LATINOS, YOUNG PEOPLE BUOY DEMOCRATS IN WEST

 

Once Republican states, Nevada, Arizona and Colorado are in play for Democrats. All are crucial for Trump.

 

Overall ballots in Nevada are down but the Democratic lead widened after the start of in-person voting last week. Democrats lead in returned ballots, 46 percent to 35 percent. Ballots from older white voters declined significantly while those from Hispanics and Asian-Americans rose.

 

Nearly 70 percent of all Nevada ballots were cast early in 2012; Obama won the state by 6 percentage points.

 

Early voting is surging in Arizona, normally a Republican state but one that Clinton has targeted. More than 616,000 ballots have been cast and Democrats are about even with Republicans, 37 percent to 38 percent. Another 25 percent were independent or unknown. At this point in 2012, Republicans led by more than 7 percentage points. Ballots rose in Arizona especially among younger adults and Latinos.

 

In Colorado, where early voting has been by mail, Democrats led 40 percent to 34 percent among the 416,000 ballots returned. In 2012, Democrats trailed Republicans at this point by 10 percentage points. Since then, registered Democrats have surpassed Republicans in the state.

___

EARLY SOFTNESS FOR TRUMP IN UTAH, TEXAS

 

The trends out West may bode well for Democrats in two Republican strongholds.

 

In Utah, overall ballots are up from 2012, driven by faster gains among voters ages 22 to 49, according to Catalist , a Democratic analytical firm. Republicans barely led in total ballots cast compared to independents, 38.6 percent to 38.5 percent. That could mean that Evan McMullin, a third-party candidate, is drawing support from Republicans unhappy with Trump. Democrats still trail at 19.4 percent, but they're in an improved position from 2012, when Republicans held a 58 percent to 13 percent lead.

 

Texas began in-person voting Monday. More than 969,000 ballots were cast as of late Tuesday, based on reports from the top 15 counties, a 46 percent increase. The state did not provide breakdowns by party. The Clinton campaign believes higher turnout, especially among Latinos, could give it an edge.

___

CAN WHITE SUPPORT HELP TRUMP?

 

Boosted by white voters, Trump may still hold an edge in Ohio, Iowa and Georgia — states that still won't be enough for him to garner the presidency without multiple come-from-behind wins in Democratic-leaning states.

 

In Ohio, the heavily Democratic counties of Cuyahoga and Franklin continue to show double-digit declines in ballot requests compared to 2012. The state does not break down ballots by party affiliation. By race, voter modeling by Catalist found the white share of Ohio ballot requests was up to 91 percent from 87 percent. The black share declined to 7 percent from 10 percent.

 

Democrats lead early ballot requests in Iowa, 43 percent to 35 percent. But that lead is narrower than 2012, when Democrats held an advantage of 14 percentage points. Obama ultimately won the state by 5 percentage points.

 

And in Georgia, which does not report party affiliation, ballots submitted are up from 2012, but mostly among whites.

 

The white share of ballots rose a percentage point to 66 percent. The black share fell to 31 percent from 34 percent, according to Catalist.

___

AP's Election Research and Quality Control Group contributed to this report.

 

-- © Associated Press 2016-10-27

[siam2007]

Can't believe that results of early voting are already being made public before the actual election day. Unthinkable in my home country.

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, siam2007 said:

Can't believe that results of early voting are already being made public before the actual election day. Unthinkable in my home country.

It's not a tally of actual votes. Just how many people voted and what if any party they are registered with. 

[Jingthing]

Can't believe that results of early voting are already being made public before the actual election day. Unthinkable in my home country.

They aren't results.

[ttthailand]

I have spoke to many registered democrats who said they were not voting for Hillary, about 30 % or more of the ones I know. This includes me by the way. So I would not count your chickens before they are hatched. Hell ... She may be in jail before the 8th so it won't really matter.

[ilostmypassword]

 

4 minutes ago, ttthailand said:

I have spoke to many registered democrats who said they were not voting for Hillary, about 30 % or more of the ones I know. This includes me by the way. So I would not count your chickens before they are hatched. Hell ... She may be in jail before the 8th so it won't really matter.

Wow! your own personal experience. I think you've earned  yourself a Bill Mitchell merit badge.

http://www.vox.com/2016/10/24/13361482/liberals-bill-mitchell

Edited October 27, 2016 by ilostmypassword

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, ttthailand said:

I have spoke to many registered democrats who said they were not voting for Hillary, about 30 % or more of the ones I know. This includes me by the way. So I would not count your chickens before they are hatched. Hell ... She may be in jail before the 8th so it won't really matter.

It's true many democrats will vote for trump and many republicans will vote for our next president HILLARY CLINTON, but rest assured not very many black/Latino/Jewish/Asian/LGBTQ DEMOCRATS will vote for trump. 

 

So if you see a wave of Latino democrats voting, those are mostly Clinton votes without a doubt.

Edited October 27, 2016 by Jingthing

[ttthailand]

It's true many democrats will vote for trump and many republicans will vote for our next president HILLARY CLINTON, but rest assured not very many black/Latino/Jewish/Asian/LGBTQ DEMOCRATS will vote for trump. 
 
So if you see a wave of Latino democrats voting, those are mostly Clinton votes without a doubt.

Johnson and Stein will take together about 15% of the votes and mostly from Hillary. Many Bernie supporters, which I am one, will not vote. Black and Latino votes are normally democrat so not a surprise there if they vote for Hillary. Early voting is the only thing that could save Hillary as the more time goes on the more dirt comes out by Wikileaks. Two big ones now being discussed by the networks. One that has been confirmed by a consulting firm regarding the Clinton foundation and some shady doings. And another regarding plans to disrupt the Trump campaign. The funny thing is that they were starting to plan this back in February, how did they know trump would win back then ??? Totally corrupt system the right and left are fixing the books ....

[Jingthing]

Johnson takes significantly from trump actually. Enjoy your pipe dream, dude. President trump ain't gonna happen. 

[hdkane]

14 hours ago, ttthailand said:

I have spoke to many registered democrats who said they were not voting for Hillary, about 30 % or more of the ones I know. This includes me by the way. So I would not count your chickens before they are hatched. Hell ... She may be in jail before the 8th so it won't really matter.

Like you, I'm not voting for Clinton...this morning, I was catching up on the news, and the Washington Post story about "Clinton, Inc." was being discussed...basically that the Clinton Foundation was serving to shakedown companies...I am stunned at the brazen corruption the family demonstrates in their dealings with the public...thank god for the freedom of the press...in Thailand, such dealings might never see the light of day...

[sgtsabai]

All of these Clinton revelations coming out won't matter in the least. That was determined when the fumbling bureau of idiots failed to indict. Had not the DNC/Clinton stolen the primary all the early voting would have been for Bernie and a landslide victory assured. Unless both the Senate and the House become Democrat, look for impeachment proceedings by the end of her first year and hopefully one and only term.

 

Ah no, very, very few Democrats would vote for the neo-fascist Trump nor Johnson. Some of us will/did vote for Jill Stein. I'll never vote lessor of 2 evils again. I certainly wouldn't vote for either of the so-called candidates who couldn't have gotten elected dawg catcher in a one dog town when America still had some intelligence and sanity left, before the Reagan regime (not including the Nixon cabal but I've not forgotten those pricks). 

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, sgtsabai said:

All of these Clinton revelations coming out won't matter in the least. That was determined when the fumbling bureau of idiots failed to indict. Had not the DNC/Clinton stolen the primary all the early voting would have been for Bernie and a landslide victory assured. Unless both the Senate and the House become Democrat, look for impeachment proceedings by the end of her first year and hopefully one and only term.

 

Ah no, very, very few Democrats would vote for the neo-fascist Trump nor Johnson. Some of us will/did vote for Jill Stein. I'll never vote lessor of 2 evils again. I certainly wouldn't vote for either of the so-called candidates who couldn't have gotten elected dawg catcher in a one dog town when America still had some intelligence and sanity left, before the Reagan regime (not including the Nixon cabal but I've not forgotten those pricks). 

How often does this nonsensical lie about Clinton stealing the nomination have to be put down.  Where is the proof?

[Morch]

12 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

How often does this nonsensical lie about Clinton stealing the nomination have to be put down.  Where is the proof?

 

The "proof" is that he lost. Same as Trump's preemptive "proof" that the elections are "rigged" if he doesn't win.

The other "proof" is that HRC is evil, and that Bill....whatever.

[boomerangutang]

22 hours ago, ttthailand said:

 Many Bernie supporters, which I am one, will not vote...

 

If you like Bernie, then you probably detest Trump.  By not voting, you're helping Trump.  If that's what you want to do, then vote for Trump.  If you don't like Trump, then vote against him.

[Pinot]

Don't worry people are going to vote. 13 days and counting. 

 

This is the same sentence I've been writing for the last year: "It's a slam dunk." 

 

Republicans are lost in the wingnut wilderness

 

[sgtsabai]

Ah, some posters can't seem to read wikileaks and understand why the chair of the DNC was fired, then hired again by Clinton. Some posters can't understand voter suppression or the California failure to count votes or the switch of votes or the erasure of thousands from the roles in NY, or the deliberate lack of Bernie coverage by the lame stream media. But that's ok, just keep thinking Clinton is going to be a good liberal. What she will be is a better right winger than the Trump.

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, sgtsabai said:

Ah, some posters can't seem to read wikileaks and understand why the chair of the DNC was fired, then hired again by Clinton. Some posters can't understand voter suppression or the California failure to count votes or the switch of votes or the erasure of thousands from the roles in NY, or the deliberate lack of Bernie coverage by the lame stream media. But that's ok, just keep thinking Clinton is going to be a good liberal. What she will be is a better right winger than the Trump.

Too much lunacy to deal with in its entirety here. Schulz was fired because she wasn't neutral as chairman. But she never actually did anything to harm Sanders.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2016/07/25/the_dnc_s_emails_show_it_had_no_idea_how_to_rig_an_election.html

[Jingthing]

9 minutes ago, sgtsabai said:

Ah, some posters can't seem to read wikileaks and understand why the chair of the DNC was fired, then hired again by Clinton. Some posters can't understand voter suppression or the California failure to count votes or the switch of votes or the erasure of thousands from the roles in NY, or the deliberate lack of Bernie coverage by the lame stream media. But that's ok, just keep thinking Clinton is going to be a good liberal. What she will be is a better right winger than the Trump.

Hillary more right wing than trump?

You're tripping.

On foreign policy, probably yes, on matters such as Syria and Putin.

 

On pretty much everything else, NO WAY DUDE!

 

Abortion

Taxes

Health Care

Same Sex Marriage

Minimum Wage

Higher education finance

Police brutality

Immigration

 

and many more ... 

 

 

[sgtsabai]

While there is much more than the slate article out there and is true, just the fact that the DNC, the party elite and corporate blue dawgs were against him from the git-go instead of being neutral is damning in itself. If you don't believe removing thousands from the rolls that would most likely voted for Bernie and refusing to count ballots in California is voter suppression then I have a bridge from Los Angeles to Bangkok to sell you, replete with fueling stations all along the way. If you don't believe the media's refusal to cover Bernie, except for the Clinton attack people, was on purpose you better wake up and smell the crap. Clinton was to be appointed empress long before Bernie entered the race and it never was a race when he did thanks to the DNC and the corporate blue dawg elites. But perhaps America deserves yet another neocon/neoliberal tool of Wall Street criminals/banksters and the military/spy/industrial/Congressional cabal.

 

Sorry, she won't be more right wing than the Trump, just right wing as she and hubby always have been. Godwater Girl. Are you saying Clinton actually supports those positions? Sober up. She supports that which will bring her to power, all the talk is just that talk. And all that alleged populism she adopted to counter Bernie will be out the window the very second she is anointed.

[ilostmypassword]

17 minutes ago, sgtsabai said:

While there is much more than the slate article out there and is true, just the fact that the DNC, the party elite and corporate blue dawgs were against him from the git-go instead of being neutral is damning in itself. If you don't believe removing thousands from the rolls that would most likely voted for Bernie and refusing to count ballots in California is voter suppression then I have a bridge from Los Angeles to Bangkok to sell you, replete with fueling stations all along the way. If you don't believe the media's refusal to cover Bernie, except for the Clinton attack people, was on purpose you better wake up and smell the crap. Clinton was to be appointed empress long before Bernie entered the race and it never was a race when he did thanks to the DNC and the corporate blue dawg elites. But perhaps America deserves yet another neocon/neoliberal tool of Wall Street criminals/banksters and the military/spy/industrial/Congressional cabal.

 

Sorry, she won't be more right wing than the Trump, just right wing as she and hubby always have been. Godwater Girl. Are you saying Clinton actually supports those positions? Sober up. She supports that which will bring her to power, all the talk is just that talk. And all that alleged populism she adopted to counter Bernie will be out the window the very second she is anointed.

http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2016/jun/10/blog-posting/pants-fire-viral-rumor-bernie-sanders-won-californ/

[boomerangutang]

12 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Hillary more right wing than trump?

You're tripping.  On foreign policy, probably yes, on matters such as Syria and Putin.

On pretty much everything else, NO WAY DUDE!

Abortion

Taxes

Health Care

Same Sex Marriage

Minimum Wage

Higher education finance

Police brutality

Immigration

and many more ... 

 

It's hard to tell whether Trump is hard right or just right wing.  He flip flops so often.  He's been a Democrat, even donating funds to earlier HRC political campaigns.  He's praised Bill Clinton when Bill was being attacked for sexual dilly dallyings.  Trump says he would punish women who sought abortions, then, on the next day, says he would not.  On ISIS, Trump says, "bomb the hell out of them" on the next day he says HRC is the militaristic hawk.  Last year, Trump said "I would love to release my tax forms."   .....yet he never will.  Why can he not do what he would love to do.  He paints himself as Mr. Can Do, yet he can't even show paper forms for any of the past 20 years.

 

He's the consummate snake oil salesman. He'll say whatever the customer (voter) wants to hear.  You want "tough on ISIS"? no problem.  You want stay out of wars?  no problem.  You want "punish women who seek abortion"? no problem.  You want a deportation force to forcibly deport 11 million illegal aliens?  No problem - that will be my first order of business on January 21.

[SaintLouisBlues]

Just now, boomerangutang said:

It's hard to tell whether Trump is hard right or just right wing. 

Or just has a hard-on?