Great analysis of early voting by Prof. Michael McDonald

[WI_DEM]

So, the various estimates of early voting data each show an edge for Republicans: their voters have been slightly more inclined that Democrats in most states thus far. Under the most favorable set of assumptions for them, their advantage is around 9 points; by the least favorable set of assumptions, it is more like a 4-point edge.
Unfortunately, Nate's analysis is fatally flawed. Molly provides the key damning evidence against Nate -- and against her own headline.

California provides an illustrative example of the complexities of interpreting early returns. According to data gathered by the Atlas Project, a private Democratic consulting firm, 43 percent of California early voters have been Democrats, while 39 percent have been Republicans. Considering the Democrats' current 44-31 registration advantage in the state, the GOP appears to be outpacing its share of the electorate, while Democrats appear to be staying home. Then again, in the 2006 early vote -- a great year for Democratic candidates -- each party drew 41 percent, a performance that was below Democratic registration and well above the Republican share.
In other words, in 2006 Democrats and Republicans were even in party registration among California's early voters. In 2010, so far registered Democrats have a plus 4 advantage over Republicans. Democrats are doing better among California early voters than in 2006 -- the year that Democrats took control of both chambers of Congress -- and this is evidence for GOP passion? For Nate, the answer is, "Yes." He reaches the conclusion that because there are far more registered Democrats in the state than Republicans, the 2010 early voting percentages will translate into a plus 9 advantage for Republicans over their baseline support in the state when the vote is tallied.

To make a valid comparison, one needs to compare apples to apples. In this instance, we need to know the partisan breakdown of early voters in previous elections so that we have a good baseline for comparison. California is the only state that Molly makes this comparison, and Nate doesn't have a single case. They both proceed to compare a state's partisan registration to the partisan registration of early voters. There are any number of reasons why these two are not the same. Here are the three most damning errors in Nate's and Molly's analyses:

Nate and Molly assume that overall voter turnout rates are typically similar for registered Democrats and registered Republicans. This is not the case. Registered Republicans tend to vote at higher rates. It is invalid to compare early voters to all registered voters in the current election.
Nate and Molly assume that early voters are the same as Election Day voters, when there is plenty of evidence that they are not - except for the all-mail ballot states. Nate's biggest pro-Republican state, Pennsylvania, exposes this poor assumption. There is a simple explanation for the apparent doom that Nate spells for Joe Sestak. Pennsylvania has a relatively small number of returned ballots because the state requires an excuse to vote an absentee ballot. There is a mountain of survey evidence that excuse-required absentee voters tend to be Republican (think: retirement homes and traveling businessmen). A valid comparison is early voters in the current election to early voters in a previous election, not registration in the current election -- or exit polls in 2008, which Nate also analyzes.
More generally, the first early voting numbers a state reports tend to heavily composed of absentee mail ballots, like those in Pennsylvania. As Election Day draws closer, the numbers have tended to shift in a Democratic direction. A more valid comparison is early voters now to early voters at a similar point in time in a previous election.
In the past, Republicans tended to vote early. That changed in 2008. And here is the final difficulty in these forecasts, no one knows if 2010 will be a continuation of 2008 or a reversion to previous elections. At this point, the best prognosticating that I can say is that these early voting numbers are neither as good for Democrats as they were in 2008 nor are they as doom and gloom as Gallup and Rasmussen polling suggests. There are also state variations, too, such as Republicans performing very well in Florida. By and large, I believe that the early voting numbers generally confirm the polling showing key competitive U.S. Senate and governor races.

Nate comes to a somewhat similar conclusion, although Nate over-estimates the national Republican "enthusiasm gap" from the early voting due to his misunderstanding of the limitations of the election data he analyzes. I admit it is easy to snipe at someone's work. The analysis I outline in the bullet points above is possible for a couple of states where data are available, though I am uncertain of the value of such analysis because there is no good baseline election. As Molly quoted me, "We are in uncharted territory

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/does-early-voting-show-re_b_773236.html

[daa]

1. I must agree it will not be the bloodbath takeover

the talking heads are looking for. When you have this tea party crap eliminating social security and medicare, George Bush saying his biggest failure was not privatizing social security and the general wackiness of many candidates, they sell well to wing nuts but not electors in general.

As far as enthusiasm, I have none, but my unenthusiastic vote for dems that don't deserve it counts just as much a repug "enthusiastic" vote.

It is not my fault that Obama is weak, did not pass effective stimulus or public option, or even stand up for himself until the last week but republicans are still what got us into this mess and all they have to offer is going back.d

He will go down as a one termer that was constantly looking for the ONE republican bipartisan vote. He was elected for change, not bipartisanship.

Maybe, just maybe, if we hang on, our guys will get the message, forget the tea party, we have you back, do you have ours?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. If Obama Is A One Termer So Would McCain, Hillary, Or Anybody That Was Elected in 2008

Unlike FDR who had the "good fortune" of being inaugurated in 1933, a full four years after The Great Depression began, Obama was inaugurated in 2009, while The Great Recession was starting to unwind. Obama didn't have the luxury of attatching total ownership of The Great Recession to his predecessor as FDR did. The cruel and ironic thing is The Great Recession, would be unwinding, at about the same speed, regardless of who was elected.

[daa]

5. Its the economy stupid (not you)

Congress is worthless and they would not have taken any more action, just different at the margins. McCain for sure would not be a better leader, not sure about Hillary.

It only gets more interesting because with all the stupid deficit cutting going on it is a repeat of the depression and we will have (I believe we are still in) a severe downturn.

One big difference is that now the downturn provides cover for companies to ditch their US workforce faster and then hire overseas sp their will be no recovery in employment.

[Valienteman]

6. How many seats will we win or lose?

What's your forecast.

[daa]

10. Not enough to lose control of the house

and the Senate will not be the 8 or 9 many are saying. You have to remember that incumbents have the money, incumbents always win, and oh yeah, all the nut jobs are in nut job districts or they replaced moderate repugs. Where I live north of Atlanta they are all fired up, but guess what? The tea party crackpot that has been in for 10 years, Dr. Tom Price, is unopposed and will get the same 80% Look at Strickland closing. When big money comes in from outside the district the locals always get pissed and don't want told how to vote by big money. Limbaugh and Hannity never got anybody elected.

Keep your hopes up and remind people we have to vote. An unenthusiastic vote still counts and the enthusiasm gap means nothing, else why would dems be voting so strongly in early voting?

I amy be stupid but I am optimistic that we hold. Not optimistic that our guys get it, or that Obama gets it, but we will hold.

[bemildred]

2. Nate's argument is unfalsifyable bullshit.

Aggregating bad statistics with pretty colors and speculating about how voters feel doesn't somehow magically generate clairvoyant insights.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. You Are Correct

At the end of the day Silver just averages all the poll. However if they are all wrong, and aggregate polling is largely based on the principle that "good" and "bad" polls will average themselves out , it will be the first time in the history of modern polling, that is so on such a widespread basis. We are not talking about a primary or state a state race but 435 House races, 38 gubernatorial races, and 34 Senate races.*

I guess Nate is going to look like Nostradamus or Nostradumbass next Tuesday.

Should be interesting.


*My numbers might be a tad off.

[bemildred]

9. Well, I could see what he is doing as an experiment:

"Suppose I just average all the polls over the course of election cycles. Do the results have any predictive value for how the culminating election comes out? How strong is the predictive effect? Do successful predictions correlate with other things in the election cycle?"

Something along that line. But you would have to do that over a fairly large number of election cycles to draw any conclusions, and there is no guarantee our political situation will remain stable long enough to do that.

[Valienteman]

7. It generated clairvoyant insights in 2008

To be fair to Silver.

[bemildred]

8. I'm not saying he can't be right. I'm saying his narratives compel nothing.

I'm not even saying one ought not read what he has to say, I'm just pointing out that he is speculating, inventing narratives, on the basis of very thin evidence. That's the great thing about statistics, even if you are wrong, you can say it was an outlier, no need to throw the theory out.

[daa]

11. Look the polls are wrong just like Dewey beat Truman

Technology is to blame. Back then Dewey supposedly won because the polls said so. Guess what? Democrats didn't have phones, they weren't counted. The polls were wrong and the Nate Silver of the day was wrong.

Today, same story. Repugs have land lines and answer pollsters. Dems are disconnected, they all have cell phones and pollsters do not call cell phones. Dems ARE NOT being counted again.

The tea party is the angry white male of a couple cycles ago and what did they do? Perot with money and name recognition, 19%.

[Valienteman]

12. How often do polls predict the wrong Presidential winner

?

[daa]

13. I remember exit polling saying Gore won (well he did)

But what major technology changes have there been in polling until now? Blue dogs are going to lose but were they ever with us?