[kara37]

I don't know if this guys numbers are correct or not, but it did make me feel better. It might help a few people that are hanging off the ledge too.

Cicatrizatic said...

The media is declaring victory for Hillary in Nevada based on early vote numbers. As usual, they are ignoring the above-mentioned variables.

I just ran the numbers. 767,000 Nevadans have voted so far. Among the ballots returned: 42% Democrat, 37% Republican, 21% Independent.

To allocate the votes to specific candidates, I averaged the cross-tabs on Democrats, Republicans, and Independents from the last 3 Nevada polls. I did not include the previous poll before that (Emerson) as it was taken 10 days ago. The last 3 polls are all within the last week.

Based on the last 3 Nevada polls, the cross-tabs are:

Democrats: 82% Clinton, 14% Trump

Republicans: 85% Trump, 9% Clinton

Independents: 46% Trump, 34% Clinton

As you can see, Trump has a significant cross-over advantage and handily wins Independents.

Applying these cross-tabs to the early vote numbers, you get:

Trump - 360,413 votes Clinton - 344,459 votes

That puts Trump at a 2% lead.

Obviously this is all contingent on the poll cross-tabs being accurate. But based on the available data, Trump is likely narrowly winning Nevada.

[Alberta's Child]

If I compare your D-R-I figures of 42%-37%-21% to the figures I posted previously, it looks like Democrats are +2% in this turnout, Republicans are +4%, and Independents are -7%.

I don't know how accurate these figures are, and I've said for months that party affiliation is not really relevant in this unusual election.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

21% independents is the key here, Trump wins indies handily (I’m one of them), also early voting is skewed heavily to Vegas - Vegas is democrat and heavy with 1/3 Hispanic and 12% Asian. The rest of the state, which votes more heavily day of, is as conservative as anywhere you can think of - as conservative as Wyoming. I wouldnt start crying yet, it will be close but the 5% margin in early voting is probably not enough for the Tyrant Queen.

[KC Burke]

A very reasoned and thoughtful analysis.

I need to ask — does anyone here remember 2012? I don’t think it is necessary for posters that have posted media articles indicating Hillary leading in X or Y to be called “trolls.” We need to see all of it — even the biased that the leftist wishful thinking that is structured to push results to the left.

While our site is well known, it is not big and pervasive. Leftist articles posted here from bona fide media is useful to critique. It doesn’t drag down Donald.

[comebacknewt]

Best post of the thread by far. RATS can close the gap by superior turnout, but it isn’t enough to erase a 6 point lead.

[enumerated]

What surprises me is 9% of republicans voting for Clinton. Seems high.

I know there are disgruntled #neverTrumps like the Bushes that famously say they might vote for her, but I’m not even 100% sure whether the really will. Most of these types just won’t vote, or will write do so e in, etc.

But are there really 9% of Republicans who are actually planning to pull the lever for the democrat? I wasn’t aware of that happening to that extent in that direction.