Posted on 10/22/2010 3:42:20 PM PDT by paudio
He finds, “in every state where there is partisan split data for both years, the Republicans have gained in early voting.” The shift in partisan turnout has ranged from Republicans gaining 4.2 percentage points from the 2008 numbers (West Virginia) to 27.4 percentage points in the 2008 numbers (Florida).
(The stunning figure is that 52.8 percent of the more than 778,000 early votes in Florida this year come from registered Republicans.)
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
It looks like the “early voting” numbers voting does not take into account the independent vote. From what I have read that vote is leaning Republican. So far so good.
The average gain is 15% more Republican than 2008.
Christine got 35% in 2008. 35% + 15% = 50%
Let’s not get too far here. The article only talks about early voting. COD’s numbers that you cite refers to the overall voting numbers.
I’m not sure that percentages are your strong point.
I really don’t care what the numbers are. Voting should be hard enough that only those who feel a duty to vote will do so.
The woman who complained about not being able to wear an Obama shirt is a beautiful example. She said she’s going to “try again”. If it were a one day thing, she would likely return home and stay there rather than call the newspapers and think about going back in a few days.
If you guys haven’t seen this yet, it will probably interest you.
Christine got 35% in 2008. 35% + 15% = 50%
That would be great if it worked that way, but it doesn’t. Delaware doesn’t have early voting either.
I voted yesterday in Floriduh. We can not wait. It beats fighting in the streets.
Right. Do we have any understanding of the relationship between early voting and regular voting if there is any?
Perhaps. Explain to me why I’m wrong.
There might not be a tight correspondence between early voting and regular voting. But that’s not a “percentages” issue.
Yes, there’s an assumption that Republicans who are turning out big and early will be voting for the Republican candidate, and that the Democrats who are turning out in much smaller numbers early would be voting for the Democrat. That might be a flawed assumption. But it’s not a percentages problem.
Basically, we’ve been arguing all along that the polls aren’t accurate this year because we’re going to be turning out big and the Dems would be staying home, embarrassed.
These early voting results support our position.
And, if the assumptions that are made are correct, yes, on average the Republican will do 15% better than last time around. Again, if the assumptions are correct. I’m not saying the assumptions are correct.
Don’t know of any relationship between early voting and voting on election day as such. I vote early as it is much more convienient to do so when I’m by one of the voting locations. I think the more motivated voter tends to vote early and get it done but I can’t prove that.
15% increase over 35% would be 40.25%, not 50%
One reason why you might be wrong is DE’s extremely lopsided registration split. DE is 47% D and 29% R. Even if there were early voting in DE a 15% increase in GOP turnout would only amount to a 5% increase in total votes for the GOP, roughly.
That was a much more succinct way of explaining truthfreedom’s mistake with basic arithmetic.
what you’re saying is inaccurate, but what I said was inaccurate as well.
Here’s how Nat Review did the math
*************
Here’s Florida, based on the stats found in the links on the Nat Review site.
2008 Repub - 37.3
2008 Dem - 45.6
2010 r - 52.8
D - 33.7
***************
rep gain - 15.5
dem loss - 11.9
total 27.4
***
There isn’t anything about percentages more. it’s raw percentages, based on 100, not based on the last time.
If it was Delaware, that’s 53.1 percent for the Dem, 50.5 for the Rep. It was 65/35 last time. I added 15.5 to Christine’s total and subtracted 11.9 from the Dems total.
I’m not saying that Delaware will track with Florida, or that early voting turnout will track election day turnout.
Just describing how National Review did the math.
Yes, except that you’re farther from the truth than I am. Raw percentages are used, not percentages of gain or loss.
What you’re saying is wrong. Close, but not completely accurate.
Those numbers are - how much more Republican plus how much less Democrat. You can’t really take those numbers and add them to the Republican. More accurately, you can take those numbers, divide by 2, take that number and add it to the Republican and subtract that number from the Democrat.
That is, if you think that’s a worthwhile exercise, which it may or may not be.
I just quoted the article, indicating the people who such a circumstance would help. Didn’t comment on the numbers themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.