2012 Cardenas Line. Nevada, Poor Evidence of Hispanic Turnout. May be LOW. GOT-Hispanic-V

[tevolit]

Hispanics are a much Greater % of the Dem Portion than of the Total Portion.
Hispanic Proportions of the categories are close to the following.

30 % of Dems
8 % of Reps
18 % of NP(Other)



Dem vote % of the total would likely be higher if high Hispanic Turnout were true.
(There is some weird logic to the idea that the only high turnout Hispanics were in the REP and/or NP(Other) groups.)

So, if Hispanic Turnout was Higher in 2016, Turnout data would be unlikely to show the following trend.

42.15 = Dem % of 2016 Early Vote+Mail Total
43.80 = Dem % of 2012 Early Vote+Mail Total

The long line of Hispanic Voters at the Cardenas Market on the last night of voting is ancedotal evidence.

But, 2012 had similar ancedotal evidence.

[link:?ig_cache_key=MzE2MTQyNTk3MDQzODkwNzky.2|

?ig_cache_key=MzE2MTQyNTk3MDQzODkwNzky.2


6:47 PM - 2 Nov 2012
https://twitter.com/BuffyWicks/status/264544369997119491?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

GOTV = GOT_Hispanic_V

[still_one]

1. I'll tell you what amazes me. Is some people who haven't posted for YEARS, suddenly feel

motivated to disperse a negative light against anything positive toward the Democratic GOTV, and they seem to have a pattern of doing it.

One thing I am quite confident of is that Hillary WILL be the next President, and the Susan Sarandon's, and selfish assholes over at JPR will NOT be having a very good time on November 9, as they wallow hate

[tevolit]

2. GOT-Hispanic-Vote

You need to realize that there is work to do.

GOTV

Don't come to some imaginary conclusion and then RUN AROUND SHOUTING "ALL IS WELL".

We do not want to drop the ball. And if you are accusing me of causing lower turnout, I ask you, how can we use the TRUTH to INCREASE the turnout.

Where is the Nevada Forum so that I can try to encourage a renewed focus on the GOT-Hispanic-V effort ?

[pat_k]

14. When we see lines, we need to get pissed off, . . .

. . .not happy.

More thoughts in Post #10

[tevolit]

18. Yes

I like your thought.

[pnwmom]

25. Sam Wang addresses the larger issue on his site: people are MORE likely to vote for a winner,

not less.

So you're concerns are noted -- and unnecessary.

[tevolit]

33. Turn them around.

Why stop there and drop the ball.

It sounds like your in favor of throwing up a whole bunch of fake information as long as it matches the "We Are Way Ahead" meme.

If so, that is fine and maybe you can get a job in a spin room.

But where is the forum folks that are willing to remaining positive while having somewhat honest discussions of planning and strategy and the state of the situation.

Expanding on the ideas of Ken Burch and alcibiades_mystery, the people that are here are not the kind of people that are more likely to vote for Dems just because they are winning.

[pnwmom]

46. No one is throwing around fake information. Jon Ralston has provided us

with hard numbers that are very encouraging.

And encouraged, hopeful people are MORE likely to work hard than dispirited, depressed, anxious people.

[tevolit]

53. The Hard Numbers Come From...

The hard numbers come from, at least, these two sites

nvsos.gov
and
elections.clarkcountynv.gov



Ralston did say there was a long Hispanic voter line at a location and he said,
***It's up 30 percent from 2012, data mavens tell me.***

[pnwmom]

55. Did you read this blog post of his where he explained the numbers?

http://www.ktnv.com/news/ralston/the-nevada-early-voting-blog

[tevolit]

57. No, not all of it

Thank You.

[fun n serious]

40. Yes indeed!

[JHan]

3. so list your receipts..

.. where did you get those numbers from? can we get a citation? I'm not being snarky btw, just intrigued

[tevolit]

12. Sure :)

Here are some of the resources and methods I used.
If there is any data that you still don't see how I could have gotten, please ask.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
http://nvsos.gov/sos/home/showdocument?id=4518
General Election Close of Registration, October 18, 2016
Active Voters by County and Party

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
http://nvsos.gov/sos/elections/election-information/2012-early-voting-turnout-statistics
2012 General Election - Cumulative Turnout

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
http://www.clarkcountynv.gov/election/Pages/EV_TurnoutData.aspx
General Election Files
(Oct. 22 - Nov. 4, 2016)
Cumulative File
https://elections.clarkcountynv.gov/VoterRequests/EVMB/ev16G.zip

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
http://www.clarkcountynv.gov/election/Pages/ElectionHistory.aspx

The Voted History File is a formatted text file containing a list of voters who voted in the selected election
Voter Name (Last, First)
Method of Voting (ED=Election Day, EV=Early Vote, MB=Mail Ballot)
Registered Party (At time of election)

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
http://names.mongabay.com/data/hispanic.html

Most common last names for Latinos in the U.S.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

I used all names with >=88% of people with surname self-identifying as 'Hispanic'
I used 524 Last Names
I used sources that claim about a 20% of overall Hispanic turnout.
Then I found the % of times that these names were found within the DEM REP and NP(Other) Groups
Then normalized so that it meets the 20% overall expectation.

[JHan]

49. thanks! Will check them out

that's a lot of work you did.

[tevolit]

54. Your Welcome

Have Fun @@@@@@@@

[Awsi Dooger]

4. Comparing a Nevada victory to a Nevada victory

Very clever.

It's humorous to imagine all the desperate research this thread required, as opposed to simply understanding a 72,000 vote net in relation to Nevada turnout.

I watched a horse in a Breeder's Cup turf race today, Highland Reel. He controlled the early pace, blitzed the field with a surprise move in midrace to build a 9 length lead, and it was plenty enough to hold on. Funny how that works.

[tevolit]

5. GOTV

The effort is to make sure that 2016 is a winning effort.

If we assume we have it in the bag based on a false narrative we will make mistakes.

These are important times times and they deserve effort.

[pnwmom]

47. Obama won by 7%. That gives us quite a bit of leeway to not quite reach his numbers

but still win.

[tevolit]

58. We Will Win.

We will Definitely Win. We Will Leave No Doubt.

[ffr]

32. You are mostly correct. I did some numbers crunching to verify Jon Ralston's analysis.

And while I'm only a 3rd of the way there to matching all of his scenarios, there is emphatic logic to why he comes to the conclusions he does. Namely, Clark County's Democratic Firewall, active voters, voters in each group who've already cast their votes in each county, then forecast what the anticipated overall turnout will be in each county, to find the numbers remaining.

As it turns out, the forecast is fairly clean using 2012 as a model, for two reasons. One, Clark voter turnout was 81% and so was the overall turnout and two, Clark County represented 68% of all votes cast. Ralston (if I'm correct) takes it a step further, by comparing registration and the historic ratios of those who've EV'ed and waited until election day, to see if there are trends. Thus the importance placed by Ralston on the Clark County's Dem Firewall.

I won't tell you what my formulas currently show, but Ralston's methodology is an eye opener. If Democrats, Republicans and others continue to vote in their current ratios up to their potentials, based on who is left to vote yet in each county, and giving Donald 8% (47-39) of the Others as national polls show he might have (Romney had 5%), Ralston's scenarios hold true. At least the one's I've run the numbers on.

My advice is to encourage & stress the importance of voting to every democrat. Pay no attention to stupid talking heads on TV, on DU, unreliable polls or idiotic analysis by anybody, JUST VOTE. If you're a Democrat, you're going to want to be a part of this historic election, particularly in the state of Nevada.

[tevolit]

35. Thank You

I like your point of "importance of voting to every democrat".

I had been focused on the Hispanic part of it. So, you are right about EVERY Democrat.

How about a focus on just the Hispanic part of the "NP(Other) Group?

[ffr]

38. the Hispanic part of the "NP(Other) Group?

No way to tell.

I was actually replying to Awsi Dooger or thought I was. I tried to follow your analysis and got lost.

I'm analytical, no doubt, but find your analysis too complicated with too many unknowns and for what result, I'm not sure. Ralston's, however, is one that I can kind of find systems and methods behind. It's far more simple and appears to be sound. It's a numbers game where you can solve for X.

[tevolit]

52. Try This

I posted this below, but I wanted you to see it.
Very little unknowns here. We could look to exact Dem Registration #'s to see the precise increase from 2012.
But, something is so obviously amiss that the extremely precise data would little change the analysis.

See if you can follow my thinking here.


Let's say that it is a given that Hispanic turnout is up 30% in the Dem category.
This is what you would expect to see if other areas of the Dem Group turned out as in 2012.


308,828 = 2012 Dem Early Votes

30% of Dem Voters are Hispanic.
so, 92,648 Dem Voters are Hispanic.
92,648 + 30% increase for this year = 120,443 Hispanic Dem Voters this time.

120,443 Hispanics Dems voted early this time. 2016



216,180 Dems that voted in 2012 were not Hispanic.

216,180 lets say their raw numbers grew 10% (Active voters grew 16% overall)

216,180 + about 10 % more = 238,000 Dems that are not Hispanic expected to vote early for 2016
so, 238,000 Dems that are not Hispanic Early Voters.

##############
238,000 Dems that are not Hispanic Early Voters Expected.
120,443 Dems that are Hispanic Early Voters Expected.
_______
358,443 Dems Expected to have voted Early in 2012
#################


358,443 Dems Expected to Early Vote... in 2016
323,466 Dems Actually Voted in 2016

35,000 Missing Votes (Approximately)

We are missing about 11 % of our expected Early vote.

Why?

[kimbutgar]

6. 46 posts new to du?

I am dubious of your reporting,

[tevolit]

13. Take a look for yourself

If you see the possible gravity of the situation, take a look for yourself.

I posted the numbers, they are rather easy to verify and/or estimate.

It is not complicated. No reason to long be dubious.

[Onlooker]

8. Your post is a good one

Lots of people on DU only want to hear good news as if bad news would somehow be harmful. But, you are right. We need to all be aware that Trump is highly competitive in our racist, sexist nation. We have a lot of hard work to do if we're going to win on Tuesday.

[tevolit]

16. Thank You

Thank You, that is how I feel.

"Trump is dead. GOP in big trouble"
"he needs a Miracle in Vegas on Election Day"
"vote lead in Clark County. Game over."

You think maybe that could cause some to get lazy and stay home instead of Vote or Volunteer?

[pat_k]

22. i got blasted when I. . .

. . .posted concerns about the danger of overconfidence.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512575439

Since I returned to DU after a (very) long break, I found it be a very different place. I see a large contingent that appears to have a knee jerk negative response to things that strike me as perfectly reasonable posts.

It's not just not wanting to hear doubts or "bad news." There is a different undercurrent. Instead of "Question Authority" the watchword for many appears to be "Don't Question Authority."

[tevolit]

29. Nice effort

I commend you for the thought, effort and time you put into that post.
It is sincere discussion. It appears obvious that your (6,482 posts) didn't come from thousands of pizza comments.

If we blow nothing but smoke, it becomes a cartoon.

[pat_k]

36. Wow

Funny. I didn't realize how many posts i have to date. I do a lot of kicking, so that is a big contributor.

When I do an OP, i tend to get wordy.

"Old timer" journal
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/?az=archives&j=1280&page=0

Recent Journal
http://www.democraticunderground.com/~pat_k

[pnwmom]

48. Good news is NOT harmful. It is encouraging and energizing.

Bad news is discouraging and dispiriting.

Ever hear of the bandwagon effect? People want to be on the winning team. They want to jump on the bandwagon.

We don't have to worry about passing along good, hopeful news. That actually encourages people to work even harder, because it tells them that their efforts are succeeding and will be worth it in the long run.

From Professor Sam Wang at the Princeton Election consortium:

election.princeton.edu

I’m getting mail claiming that when voters are sure their candidate will win, they are less likely to vote. Therefore (these are Democrats writing) I should pipe down. However, this speculation contradicts both human nature and empirical evidence.

First, think about why we vote. Since a single vote basically never swings a race, the rational argument for voting is not strong. Instead, we vote because it is our duty, because we build the habit over time, and because voting makes us feel good. In light of that, the obvious consequence of supporting a winner is increased likelihood of voting – there’s more emotional reward.

Now, some evidence.

[tevolit]

56. Bandwagon Effect is Real

The Bandwagon Effect is Real.

I guess that is why Trump keeps saying the sky is yellow.

So, then, here we are all on the same bandwagon(I know right). We can discuss the nuts and bolts. But when we present it to others we should do so like any good salesman would, correct?

[pnwmom]

61. But a good salesman doesn't present the dark, alternative picture of possible failure.

If you want to sell something, sell the next positive steps you think should be taken.

No one here thinks the party should be sitting on its laurels.

[tevolit]

62. Yes. That's Exactly What I Was Saying.

[Maru Kitteh]

9. Aren't you the cute one?

Planning quadrennial visits to grace us with these bursts of sunshine are you?

[tevolit]

17. Love

Let the Sun Shine Through.

I'm not even supposed to be here, but here I am.

Perhaps I would be less cute if I never came out of my corner to be a part of the effort.

[pat_k]

10. Lines = voter suppression

If turnout proves to be lackluster, it won't be the first time people have drawn an erroneous conclusion about "high turnout" when they see long lines.

Sure, sometimes lines can mean turnout is much higher than expected. But many, many times, that is simply not the case. When we see the actual results, turnout often looks lackluster.

Lines = voter suppression, almost by definition. A line is a barrier that discourages voters. It is tantamount to a poll tax. For every 10 voters standing in a line, you can bet there are one or two who saw the line and left.

Instead of getting excited about seeing long lines, we need to get pissed off. We need to demand to know why there are insufficient resources in the jurisdiction to enable voters to cast their votes quickly and easily.
We need to demand immediate action to solve whatever problem is causing the line.

Related:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512586226

[tevolit]

20. Agreed

And that is why it is important to continue to work after Nov. 8th.

I admit that I am remiss in my efforts after the elections.
As Maru Kitteh pointed out above

[pat_k]

24. A small way to help in ongoing election protection efforts:

Make a contribution to verifiedvoting.org

https://www.verifiedvoting.org/donate/

[tevolit]

37. Help Election Protection Efforts

Yes.

[molova]

23. Do you like pizza?

Anchovies?

[pnwmom]

26. No one cares about that line. What matters are the 72K votes that separate

the Dems and the GOP.

[tevolit]

43. Yes that is nice.

Those 72K are GREAT. Should be enough to win Nevada for Clinton.

No one cares about the line other than as pat_k points out, voter suppression.

But we do care about not staying focused.

[pnwmom]

45. Everyone is focused. If people were depressed and worried they'd be LESS likely to GOTV,

not more. We should be whipping up excitement, not stressing people out.

Confidence is associated with INCREASED turnout.

http://election.princeton.edu/2016/11/05/confidence-is-associated-with-increased-turnout/

I’m getting mail claiming that when voters are sure their candidate will win, they are less likely to vote. Therefore (these are Democrats writing) I should pipe down. However, this speculation contradicts both human nature and empirical evidence.

First, think about why we vote. Since a single vote basically never swings a race, the rational argument for voting is not strong. Instead, we vote because it is our duty, because we build the habit over time, and because voting makes us feel good. In light of that, the obvious consequence of supporting a winner is increased likelihood of voting – there’s more emotional reward.

Now, some evidence. . . . .

[tevolit]

59. We Will Win. I'm Trying to Strategize.

We Have This.

I see your point. I do believe we are all on the same bandwagon here; Wherever that wagon takes us.


I was thinking that this is a forum where we create strategies. I now think I'm posting in the wrong forum. I felt it just makes sense to not get caught up in a false narrative. To chase a Rabbit down a hole that is not the truth.

[RandySF]

31. Have you been following Ralston?

[tevolit]

42. Not specifically

Not specifically.

I do read a lot of posts and news articles. I was watching his video
***Jon Ralston explains voting early in Nevada and what it means for the election***

While ago and going over some of his tweets to see what he has said about Hispanic turnout.

As far as Hispanic turnout, the best, and perhaps only, real claim I was able to find from him was the long line at the Cardenas Market.