The Upshot is tracking and analyzing early voting in NC

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/up...te-tracker.html

 

Already, about 812,000 people have voted in North Carolina, out of about 4,425,000 we think will eventually vote. Based on the voting history and demographic characteristics of those people, we think Hillary Clinton leads in North Carolina by about 6 percentage points. We think she has an even larger lead – 22 percentage points – among people who have already voted.

 

Here’s a breakdown of those estimates:

 

IN RAW VOTES AS A PCT.

Clinton Trump Clinton Trump

Already voted 477,000 295,000 58.7% 36.3%

Yet to vote 1,693,000 1,614,000 46.9% 44.7%

Total estimates 2,170,000 1,909,000 49.1% 43.1%

 

 

These aren’t official results. They’re just estimates. If our polling is wrong, then our conclusions could be wrong as well. Our polling has been somewhat stronger for Mrs. Clinton than other surveys of the state have. The last Upshot/Siena poll this week gave Mrs. Clinton a seven-point lead.

 

lots more details at the link.

 

 

and some Texas info

 

Michael McDonald @ElectProject

TX early voting (mail & in-person) in the 15 largest counties as of 10/25: 969,243 people have voted, up 46.2% from say point in 2012

10:35 AM - 26 Oct 2016

Edited October 26, 20169 yr by StrangeSox

There's a larger phenomenon here I think, and people like Moore are just one part of it. The way that everything is all broken up and self-segregated in media, groups of people end up just talking to themselves, and they can't get anyone else to pay attention to them.

 

I read a few things in the past few months where the conservative pundit class is starting to see the drawbacks of their strategy. They've been tremendously successful at creating their own media and pushing the bias angle that they've been able to influence the way the rest of the media covers stories for a while, but it's starting to have its limits. Everyone else sees Fox and other places on the internet like it are SO openly and unapologetically partisan that everyone who's not already a committed Republican basically ignores them. They start to notice that they have stories that instantly go viral and Fox News spends most of the day talking about the latest scandal, but only conservatives talk about it, and every other media outlet ignores it as partisan spin. It doesn't matter if it was a legitimate scandal or not, that's not how people perceive it. It works in reverse too. Other stories don't get into conservative media.

 

I don't watch Fox News, so keep that in mind when I say this, but I do think the "they're just the GOP/Conservative mouthpiece organization" is not really true as much as it was 5-6 years ago. Two people I randomly see through viral videos online, like O'Reilly and Megyn Kelly, are far from the conservative cheerleaders like Hannity. Both have gone after Trump repeatedly (Kelly especially). Beck, though not with the network now, is totally against Trump and the current GOP. Yes, they're all obviously much more conservative than their MSNBC counter-parts, but they're all not the extreme right version of conservatism either (like Hannity).

 

You don't really get exposure to that though when you employ the blowhard extremists like Hannity who say the most outlandish things. So I agree, that's on them for the "monster" they created.

I don't watch Fox News, so keep that in mind when I say this, but I do think the "they're just the GOP/Conservative mouthpiece organization" is not really true as much as it was 5-6 years ago. Two people I randomly see through viral videos online, like O'Reilly and Megyn Kelly, are far from the conservative cheerleaders like Hannity. Both have gone after Trump repeatedly (Kelly especially). Beck, though not with the network now, is totally against Trump and the current GOP. Yes, they're all obviously much more conservative than their MSNBC counter-parts, but they're all not the extreme right version of conservatism either (like Hannity).

 

You don't really get exposure to that though when you employ the blowhard extremists like Hannity who say the most outlandish things. So I agree, that's on them for the "monster" they created.

O'Reilly is probably more independent of a voice than he gets credit for I think. He doesn't walk in lock step with Republicans. Beck was just on Fox to make a s***load of money.

 

I think part of the reason Fox management has been promoting Kelly so much is to fight this perception that they're like the official communications arm of the RNC. It's a little ironic - I was paying attention during the Republican primaries and they have Fox on at work on alternating days. They were actually giving a good faith effort to kneecap Trump because they knew what was happening and didn't want to be forced to be in the position they're in now (weakly making excuses for him between rounds of attacking Clinton). But it backfired and just made primary voters like Trump more.

I don't watch Fox News, so keep that in mind when I say this, but I do think the "they're just the GOP/Conservative mouthpiece organization" is not really true as much as it was 5-6 years ago. Two people I randomly see through viral videos online, like O'Reilly and Megyn Kelly, are far from the conservative cheerleaders like Hannity. Both have gone after Trump repeatedly (Kelly especially). Beck, though not with the network now, is totally against Trump and the current GOP. Yes, they're all obviously much more conservative than their MSNBC counter-parts, but they're all not the extreme right version of conservatism either (like Hannity).

 

You don't really get exposure to that though when you employ the blowhard extremists like Hannity who say the most outlandish things. So I agree, that's on them for the "monster" they created.

 

Also Shephard Smith.

It'll be interesting to see what happens with FNC now that Ailes is out and Rupert Murdoch is aging. One of his two sons supposedly hates the heavy pro-GOP way the network's been run for years and would like to restore some credibility.

 

And if Trump actually does launch Trump TV (campaign FB stream seemed to be testing the waters earlier this week), will FNC try to position themselves as the more moderate Republican voice against the likes of Breitbart etc?

 

I don't watch Fox News, so keep that in mind when I say this, but I do think the "they're just the GOP/Conservative mouthpiece organization" is not really true as much as it was 5-6 years ago. Two people I randomly see through viral videos online, like O'Reilly and Megyn Kelly, are far from the conservative cheerleaders like Hannity. Both have gone after Trump repeatedly (Kelly especially). Beck, though not with the network now, is totally against Trump and the current GOP. Yes, they're all obviously much more conservative than their MSNBC counter-parts, but they're all not the extreme right version of conservatism either (like Hannity).

 

You don't really get exposure to that though when you employ the blowhard extremists like Hannity who say the most outlandish things. So I agree, that's on them for the "monster" they created.

 

Kelly just last night was asking Newt about Trump being a sexual predator. I sure don't even remember the reverse of something like that.

Kelly just last night was asking Newt about Trump being a sexual predator. I sure don't even remember the reverse of something like that.

I dunno what you're getting at here. You mean another network going after Clinton?

 

There's really not a Democratic equivalent of Fox News, but since most people think it's MSNBC I'll use them - Andrea Mitchell hates the Clintons and s***s on them fairly regularly.

 

Gingrich embarrassed himself SO bad in that interview. If I didn't hate him so much it would've been painful to watch.

Edited October 26, 20169 yr by Ezio Auditore

I dunno what you're getting at here. You mean another network going after Clinton?

 

There's really not a Democratic equivalent of Fox News, but since most people think it's MSNBC I'll use them - Andrea Mitchell hates the Clintons and s***s on them fairly regularly.

 

Gingrich embarrassed himself SO bad in that interview. If I didn't hate him so much it would've been painful to watch.

 

I don't remember an instance of a key Clinton supporter being put in the spot to being asked a very direct question and explicit question like that on a supporting network.

Pot calling the kettle black.

 

Yes, that was the point I was making. Moore's audience is the mirror image of D'Souza's.

Great post!

 

If you're going to cry to me via PM to not respond to your posts because you can't handle it, don't respond to mine and attack me with some extremely dumb attempt.

I don't remember an instance of a key Clinton supporter being put in the spot to being asked a very direct question and explicit question like that on a supporting network.

 

I saw Chris Cuomo ask a Clinton surrogate about hacked email material not too long ago. She kept deflecting about how unethical hacking is and refused to address the content of the emails, and he pressed again. When she still wouldn't address it, he called her out directly as avoidant and then basically called her a hypocrite saying that if Trump emails got hacked, she'd be loving it.

 

Edit: it was Chris Cuomo, not Jake Tapper

Edited October 26, 20169 yr by CrimsonWeltall

You strike me as the type of guy that would wait in line at a Barnes & Noble to meet Michael Moore.

Oh come on now dude, this was ad hominem and nothing else. Also SS was in agreement about the nutjobs on both extremes.

 

Michael Moore did "Where To Invade Next" recently....I defy any conservative to identify at least half the ideas posed by that movie as anything but bipartisan and reasonable.

 

His approach here is the same...finding common ground, things everyone can agree with, talking about how he never has voted for Bill or Hillary in primaries or general and all of the things he disagrees with her about. He solicited complaints and the usual ones were dealt with quite effectively. He even said three nice things about GW Bush.

 

The D'Souza...anti-Obama and Clinton docs make no pretense of doing anything but painting both as anti Christs and demons walking earth, signs of the apocalypse, etc.

 

To say the two are mirror images of each other is like saying Lou Dobbs has some fairly flexible views about border control and immigration reform.

Edited October 26, 20169 yr by caulfield12

I said we should just ignore each other but you weren't willing to accept. So I won't take all your garbage while you respond to every post as the left's condescending version of greg.

 

I did tell you I will respond as I want, but I don't think I've actually responded to your posts since then.

 

More to the point, the conversation you jumped into to insult me had nothing to do with you. I wasn't giving you anything, garbage or otherwise. It was an on-topic response to Jenks who, despite having strong disagreements with many times over the years, doesn't seem to have any animosity towards me nor I him. The worst part is that your insult didn't even make sense! I was comparing Moore watchers to D'Souza watchers--if I struck you as some huge Moore fan for some reason, why do you think I would make that comparison? It doesn't even make sense!

Michael Moore did "Where To Invade Next" recently....I defy any conservative to identify at least half the ideas posed by that movie as anything but bipartisan and reasonable.

 

His approach here is the same...finding common ground, things everyone can agree with, talking about how he never has voted for Bill or Hillary in primaries or general and all of the things he disagrees with her about. He solicited complaints and the usual ones were dealt with quite effectively. He even said three nice things about GW Bush.

 

The D'Souza...anti-Obama and Clinton docs make no pretense of doing anything but painting both as anti Christs and demons walking earth, signs of the apocalypse, etc.

 

To say the two are mirror images of each other is like saying Lou Dobbs has some fairly flexible views about border control and immigration reform.

D'Souza is a stupid person's idea of an intellectual.

"I can't believe these are the best two candidates we have."

Carlin's got my response to that.

Edited October 27, 20169 yr by Ezio Auditore

Six of the seven most populated counties in Texas have seen record numbers of voters. Still sure how much is regular voters just wanting the election to be over or inspired new voters.

 

https://twitter.com/MatthewReynaTX/status/7...src=twsrc%5Etfw

"I can't believe these are the best two candidates we have."

Carlin's got my response to that.

 

 

God I wish he were still alive to talk about the current state of the country and this election.

God I wish he were still alive to talk about the current state of the country and this election.

Between Trump/Trump supporters and Kaepernick/the response to him he'd already have over an hour of material.

How gerrymandering can swing elections

 

 

I've read a little bit about some gerrymandering cases working their way up to the Supreme Court right now. Ideally it'd be nice to have national non-partisan districting.

I would be in 3 wildly different districts by those 3 maps.

Michael Moore did "Where To Invade Next" recently....I defy any conservative to identify at least half the ideas posed by that movie as anything but bipartisan and reasonable.

 

I think it's Moore's best since "Bowling For Columbine". Obviously his findings lean towards Bernie without saying directly but it's an interesting watch for any side of the aisle.

 

I don't really think the prison system here can be fixed to be like the country he goes to. Too damaged, but maybe I'm wrong.

"I can't believe these are the best two candidates we have."

Carlin's got my response to that.

He's a genius. Great take, Mr. Carlin. I saw him in concert in Vegas and he was amazing. He had all the women in the audience so pissed at him. He did a cool segment on modern names of children compared to good names like Mike, Joe, Bill, and he rattled off so many modern names of kids that he said were awful. Half the women in the audience probably had kids with those names.

He's a genius. Great take, Mr. Carlin. I saw him in concert in Vegas and he was amazing. He had all the women in the audience so pissed at him. He did a cool segment on modern names of children compared to good names like Mike, Joe, Bill, and he rattled off so many modern names of kids that he said were awful. Half the women in the audience probably had kids with those names.

 

As much as I love Carlin, citing "pissing off women about what they named their kids" isn't exactly giving Carlin his due for genius. Instead it's low-hanging fruit that really should have been beneath him.

Eh, Carlin traded in a lot of low hanging fruit. His good was better than most's great, but then you'd be like "s*** did I just listen to 30 minutes of a guy ranting about incorrect syntax?"