Why such sparse coverage of the early GOP lead?

spectator.org ^ | Oct 26, 2018 | Sikhs Grok

[kabar]

Dems hold a 128,000 vote lead in early voting. Similar voting percentage as 2016 where they won early voting by over 300,000 votes. Is this a good thing?

[Ravi]

Guess what the key metric in NC is. It’s not necessarily D’s vs R’s. But it’s the percentage of the AA vote. As of this morning, AA were 19.9% of the vote. They were 22% in 2016. That is the key figure.

Lots of white Dems in name only who are basically conservative Republicans but haven’t changed their party affiliation.

[MIA_eccl1212]

with black americans NOT voting this one, and 9 percent of them not participating like they did the last time, in the previous election... the democrats are toast.

[AAABEST]

They're saying NJ is a tossup now too.

That would be something.

[kabar]

Thanks. Makes sense. I guess you also need to look at the white vote as well. In most of the South, Dems can only pull from the mid to low 30s of the white vote.

[kabar]

Thanks for another great link. You really can get deep into the weeds. Fascinating stuff.

[BradyLS]

Because it’s wall to wall coverage of the Democrat’s early “lead.”

[38special]

All those Senate seats gains won’t matter much if we don’t retain the House majority.

[Basket_of_Deplorables]

“I think the double whammy for the Dems is not just the large turnout on the GOP side, but they have to wonder how many of their voters are crossing over to vote for the Republicans.”

I just got back as a volunteer handing out voter guides outside a olusia, FL early voting place. 1st day for Volusia, btw. I can confirm your theory. Two admitted dems quietly told me they vlted for DeSantis; that they couldn’t vote for Gillum.

Also, fwiw, long lines, huge turnout, huge pubbie presence and signs, and probably 70% pubbies voting. Unprecedented turnout.

Yeah baby!!!

[deport]

By the end of the first week of early voting, elections officials had
accepted 716,463 ballots — about 10 percent of registered voters.
That includes ballots cast in person at an early-voting site and those
sent in by mail.

The number is slightly lower than at the close of the first week of
early voting in 2014, when 735,205 ballots had been accepted.

There are a couple of important differences between the midterm
elections in 2014 and 2018. This year is a “blue moon” election,
which means there are no major statewide races to draw voters out
to the polls. In 2014, there was a U.S. Senate race. But this year,
voters will consider six constitutional amendments, which some
pundits predicted would boost turnout.

https://www.islandpacket.com/news/state/north-carolina/article220567670.html

[dowcaet]

I think the number of Democrat crossover votes in this midterm may be unprecedented. Most rank and file Democrat voters are not hardcore leftists.

[enumerated]

“Mueller knows if the republicans hold the house and increase the senate, Trump is free to fire Sessions after the mid-terms and install someone willing to take on the Deep State....”

I wouldn’t put too much stock in this theory that Trump has not been free to fire Sessions. If he wanted to, he would have/could have done it at any time.

Jeff Sessions will still be AG at Christmas time and the haters here on FR will just revise their prediction yet again: “Sessions will be fired the minute that [fill in the blank]”

The funny thing is that eventually, after being wrong so many times, one of these predictions will finally come true (because there is normal turnover in these cabinet positions - it’s rare for a department head to serve an entire four year term) - and the haters will say “See? I told you Sessions would be out!”

[11th_VA]

If NJ Senate seat flips GOP, it’s Katie Bar the Door, and the country will have transformed - but not the way Obama wanted ...

[edwinland]

I’d say the odds of that all working out for you are at least one in a thousand, and probably considerably higher than that.

Working out for me (and the country and the integrity of the FBI) would be that Mueller does nothing at all until after the election. But based on how he has acted so far, my fear is otherwise. And no, saying "my guess is" is not "forecasting" it's just that, a guess.

[edwinland]

"Mueller knows if the republicans hold the house and increase the senate, Trump is free to fire Sessions after the mid-terms and install someone willing to take on the Deep State, including Mueller, if there is an unfair October surprise."

Agree. But if the Democrats take the house he is saved, whether by October surprise or just general electoral trends. But my fear is that if the latter starts looking unlikely he will opt for the former.

[Ravi]

Thanks!

[Republican Wildcat]

I’m pretty sure I remember the Texas Republican primary being a record turnout for Republican primary voters and strong showings elsewhere as well, and there was the recent win of a Texas State Senate seat that had been Dem for 100 plus years. His comments just were not true - and certainly not true about the things Hannity has been saying.

[Eleutheria5]

Either the question’s rhetorical, or the asker is clueless.

[StAnDeliver]

"I wouldn’t put too much stock in this theory that Trump has not been free to fire Sessions. If he wanted to, he would have/could have done it at any time."

I agree. Trump wants a weak AG, he can stand on his neck Tweet-wise, and it gives him a better vector to direct his exec crew to direct the AG's exec crew.

[Impala64ssa]

I wonder how many Freepers have been conservative Republicans since their teens; in other words, always. I have.
I changed my ways by the time I was in HS. I was influenced by my parents and grandparents, as well by listening to the late great Bob Grant on the radio when I started driving, also my 11th grade history teacher who would make Rush Limbaugh sound like Naom Chomskey.