So, I am open-minded but not super persuaded by this. There are a handful of counties to have counted provisional ballots so far and those ballots indeed went for Trump, but they came from counties where the rest of the vote was *even stronger* for Trump. electionreturns.pa.gov/General/County…
Maybe the provisionals—which should mostly reflect cases where the voter originally requested a mail ballot, then decided to vote in person—are slightly D leaning but not as D leaning as mail votes. Maybe they're about neutral. They'd have to be strongly R-leaning to help Trump.
Also, about 40K of the provisionals are in Philly County, which is a considerably higher proportion than Philly's share of the vote overall.
Furthermore, the universe of requested-but-unreturned mail ballots, which is where most of these provisionals originated from, was D +17 by party registration. Not as D as completed mail ballots, but obviously still quite D.
One other point of context here is that there *was* some confusion about provisional ballots earlier because York County incorrectly listed some of its provisional ballots as mail ballots. Those were very D, but they weren't actually provisional ballots.
Nonetheless, we have 3 points of evidence that the provisionals are somewhat D (party registration on unreturned mail ballots, concentration in Philly, comparison to other ballots in counties to have counted them) when they'd have to be *MASSIVELY* GOP-leaning to save Trump.
Another thread from local reporters and experts that comes to the same conclusion:
Statewide, provisionals represent ~1.5% of all ballots cast.
In eight very red counties to have counted them so far, they represent 0.8% of ballots.
If there are 40K provisionals in Philadelphia County, that would be ~5% of Philly's ballots.
Now, the 40K estimate in Philly includes overseas absentees and error ballots in additional to provisionals, so 5% is probably too high. Still, it seems like the provisionals are much more frequent in blue counties.
And even if the provisionals were red relative to their counties (which they aren't so far; they almost exactly match the overall Trump vs. Biden percentages in the counties), the fact that you're adding far more ballots in blue counties makes it very hard for them to help Trump.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Gonna preface this by again reminding you that I'm not a pollster and instead my job is to assess how accurate polls are and build models of what the errors look like. So as someone who spends a lot of time on this, I'd say media coverage on this topic has been crappy so far.
The main issue is "you should wait for all votes to be counted to judge the accuracy of polls" may sounds like lame excuse-making from pollsters, but actually that's pretty damn important as vote counts have changed dramatically and are still changing in many states.
We also know very little about the whys. Why was polling bad in the Midwest (except in Minnesota?) but pretty good in the Southwest? Why did it work in New England but there was a big miss in Florida? This will take a while to unpack, and a lot of initial takes won't age well.
One other thing—and being in a pandemic where there's less casual social interaction probably makes this worse—is that I've never had less idea what people outside the politico-journo bubble are thinking. Do they think it's anybody's race? Would a call for Biden be surprising?
Replies here suggest the average person (not my followers, but the friends/associates of my followers) thinks it's a toss-up. Makes sense, especially since the media has been exceptionally careful/pious about not wanting to get ahead of the story.
That does imply, however, that there could be a strong *reaction* if/when a call gets made. Not necessarily a negative reaction. Maybe there's a lot of celebrating in blue/liberal cities, for instance. But hard to know what to expect.
Although there do seem to be about 12,000 votes in other/unspecified counties in this tally. If we assume the unspecified counties are slightly redder/rural than the state on average and voted for Trump by +10 in 2016, then that would make the average more like 11 points bluer.
A few more counties here, although not enough to get up to 61,000 votes. Assuming unspecified counties went Trump +10 in 2016, the outstanding vote is in counties that are D +9 relative to the state.
You could debate the order. I think WI is actually the most certain since I don't see many ways for Trump to gain votes there. The same probably holds for NV although *in theory* it's possible late-arriving mail votes could be red if R's waited longer to send in their ballots.
AZ is the only one of the four that's been *called* by anyone, including the AP, which is usually pretty cautious, but some AZ-focused data folks think that was too aggressive.
There's a LOT of vote left to count in MI and I haven't spent too much time looking at it myself, but it *seems* like it's mostly mail votes from blue counties which you'd think would be quite good for Biden.
I believe it's the city of Green Bay, specifically, that's unreported. I think both election day vote *and* absentees in Green Bay are uncounted, and that the rest of the country is in. Green Bay went narrowly to Clinton in 2016.
So I don't think there's much upside for Trump in Brown County. If it's *all* Green Bay, those ballots should be slightly blue. If it's only Green Bay absentees, they should be quite blue. (I think it's all of Green Bay, not just the absentees.)
The reason I'm using terms like "believe" and "think" is because I'm trying to infer from this rather confusing note on the Brown Co. website, plus one very brief conversation I had.
I believe they don't have the Kenosha absentees counted, either, which netted like 10k for Biden.
Did DDHQ get its hands on the Milwaukee absentees? Or is this something different? All night long there hasn't been a whole lot of clarity on exactly how many uncounted votes there have been in Milwaukee County, so I really don't know.