Update: OH Absentees (Three more counties added, and, yes, looking good)

Jay Cost's Spreadsheet of OH Absentee/Early Voting ^ | 9/28/2012 | LS (courtesy of Jay Cost)

[LS]

In addition to the numbers posted this morning, a few later additions: Cuyahoga (heavily Dem Cleveland) county is STILL underperforming, coming in at 6% under 2008 levels.

Hamilton (Cincinnati) is just under 2:1 Rs, a net gain of just under 7 points for the Republicans over 08.

Franklin (Columbus) which went for Obama by 21(!) shows a very small but steadily increasing R lead in total votes (+5893) for a significant swing (+9 over 08 absentees, +26 overall for Rs).

Summit: important county near Cleveland, 1/4m voters, went for Obama by almost 18 points: Rs only 1300 back in total votes, or 5% difference (in 08 they lost by almost three to one).

Hardin: GOP had a 1400-1100 lead in 08. It's already three to one Rs, and about one third of total GOP ballots are in. Dems down in total requests by 2500 (!)

Logan: no 2008 data (McCain won by 26.5) Rs up four to one.

Pickaway: Rs up almost two to one---lost by 1000 absentee votes in 08 but went overall for McCain by 21.5.

Washington: Rs up two to one, absentees in 08 were three to two (McCain won by 15.5).

[mrsmith]

May be of interest to you.

http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2012.html

Has party breakdown for Iowa, Maine and NC but not, curiously, for Ohio.

[LS]

Yes, thanks we’ve been watching this one.

[RaisingCain]

I’m not exactly sure what the hubbub is. The percentages are lower for the Dems, but the total lists them as having 20,000 more ballot requests than the Republicans. Didn’t early voting just START this week also, and there’s about 4 million votes to go?

[LS]

No, the "hubbub" is that a) Dem numbers are down, but more important Dem percentages compared to 2008 absentee numbers. Then further, you have R numbers up, and in many counties way up, over 2008. Now, further let this sink in; it's across the board, in every county. The total vote is not the issue. The issue is, Can we make assumptions based on the comparisons between 08 and 2012 about the turnout in the general election? And history says, "Yep." The fact that this is universal means we can cross off statistical anomalies as accounting for the turnout differential.

The upshot is, the polls are badly off based on REAL DATA. There is no reason to assume even a 2-point D advantage, much less a +9 Dem advantage. It means we are looking at another 2012, not 2008 .

[MNJohnnie]

The hubba is they are in heavy Democrat areas. Democrats pushed their early voting scheme to give their lazy voters more time to get around to vote. One of the problem Dems have always had is GOP voters show up on election day, Dem voters some times do, some times don’t.

Having a massive down turn in their early voting totals indicates Dems are not nearly as fired up in 2012 as they were in 2008.

That is contrary to what all the Mass Media pollsters are claiming. According to their polls Dems just cannot wait to vote in 2012 like they did in 2008

[spicymayo]

Its extremely significant. In counties where both 2008 and 2012 data is available - Dems requested 14% more ballots than Dems in 2008. In those very same counties, Dems are requesting only 5% more in 2012. This suggests a 9% swing.

Obama won by 4.6% in 2008, this trend points to a Romney win by 4-5%.

[spicymayo]

Correction to my previous post - Dems requested 14% more ballots than Republicans in 2008. In those very same counties, Dems are requesting only 5% more in 2012. This suggests a 9% swing.

[aposiopetic]

Another 2010, right? :)

[mrs9x]

LS -

Put me on the ping list. I’m trying to track down similar data for Virginia, but I have not found stats yet.

[Typelouder]

Operation Chaos voters?

[Cruising For Freedom]

Hi guys,

I’m liking the numbers so far, but I’m slightly concerned that the Republicans in higher-D counties are outperforming the Republicans in higher-R counties, period. Given how OH does its voter registration, I’m worried that this indicates that voters crossed party lines to vote in a primary they considered more interesting. How would you interpret it?

[LS]

I do see a little of that. 1) those in red counties may psychologically think they don’t “have” to vote early because they know their counties are safe. Or, 2) there just may not be more room for Rs to grow in these counties. Think Warren: it’s going to be hard to make that county redder. Is this what you mean-—that Warren should be 4:1 R instead of 2:1?

[Cruising For Freedom]

Yes, that is what I mean. You’re right, I hadn’t thought about the “room to grow” angle. There are a lot fewer Rs in absolute numbers in those heavy D counties so.

I realized my concern doesn’t really address why Democrats in more Democratic countries are outperforming Ds in other Republican counties, as well. Not sure why that might be.

[LS]

Are they? I’ll have to look. Or are Rs just not on super steroids there?

[Cruising For Freedom]

Yeah, those particular %s in that spreadsheet aren’t too helpful. Here’s some better interpretation to show you what I mean: http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2937801/posts

[LS]

Well, Ham Co should be red, but it isn’t Warren or Defiance or even Greene. I think a 5,000 increase there is excellent. Remember, a LOT of Rs voted for Obama in 08, and you will see a lot of change just from them coming home.

[Ravi]

Perhaps. I was wondering the same thing.

[Jet Jaguar]

You are added!

[Kolath]

Could some of the Dem downturn in OH be due to the 2010 census???

[plushaye]

I don’t know but it happened across all the swing states, and correlates with an increase in registration as Independents. Republicans got some but most went indie. It’s all since 2008 and it’s a big puzzle.