2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Holy Shit...

If this is true and takes off in the media he might do worse than Cox and the GOP loses 100 seats in the House.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/24/inside-donald-trump-s-one-stop-parties-attendees-recall-cocaine-and-very-young-models.html

This may be the election where pollsters need to give up the idea that Presidential and down-ballot race votes are linearly correlated.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Yeah--early votes in every state I'm familiar with aren't even counted until election day, so there's no release of information by the elections officials (typically Secretary of State office.)

But here in America we have something called a strong freedom of speech, so pollsters are allowed to call and ask "have you already voted" and "if so, who did you vote for?" and then publish the results. I know some countries trend towards Holocausting when they don't restrict their speech more than is necessary here, so I'm sure in Germany such activity isn't legal.

I'm pretty sure the numbers on early voting are being provided by state election officials and not estimated through polling.

Ballots mailed in yes--not breakdown of the way the ballots have voted.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The female Democrat thing has to be exit polling.

Doesn't have to be.  State has that info.  And you would have to jump through a bunch of mathematical hoops to get to "60,000 female Democrats have already voted" through exit polling.

Some do some don't, a lot of states don't even have partisan registrations any longer.

[Zanza]

I find it surprising that statistics on early voting are published.  We have a complete information blackout until 6pm on election day.

Yeah--early votes in every state I'm familiar with aren't even counted until election day, so there's no release of information by the elections officials (typically Secretary of State office.)

But here in America we have something called a strong freedom of speech, so pollsters are allowed to call and ask "have you already voted" and "if so, who did you vote for?" and then publish the results. I know some countries trend towards Holocausting when they don't restrict their speech more than is necessary here, so I'm sure in Germany such activity isn't legal.

I did not consider that in some states in the US the government knows your declared party allegiance and can thus generate that list. The state gathering data on party membership is indeed illegal here, probably due to the Nazi time. So there is a relation, but it is about privacy, not freedom of speech. If you have numbers you are free to report them. It's just that I did not comprehend how these figures were generated in the first place.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Ballots mailed in yes--not breakdown of the way the ballots have voted.

Yeah, as Valmy pointed out there is no party associated with your registration in Texas.  The only time party affiliation is an issue for election officials is when you want to vote in a state-sponsored partisan primary.  Doing so "locks" your registration to that party so you can't vote in the other party's primary, but is totally irrelevant for general elections.  Someone like me who only votes in general elections never needs to declare a party.

[garbon]

Ballots mailed in yes--not breakdown of the way the ballots have voted.

Yeah, as Valmy pointed out there is no party associated with your registration in Texas.  The only time party affiliation is an issue for election officials is when you want to vote in a state-sponsored partisan primary.  Doing so "locks" your registration to that party so you can't vote in the other party's primary, but is totally irrelevant for general elections.  Someone like me who only votes in general elections never needs to declare a party.

I don't think I've lived anywhere were I had to declare a party, it was just an option. Obvious benefit of declaring a party was that I wasn't always where there were open primaries and/or where the rules on how to request ballot for a particular primary were simple enough to understand that it was worth that hassle not to be registered for a particular one.

[Gups]

Reading Fear & Loathing on the Campaign Trail 1972 (Hunter S Thompson) at the moment. So many similarities - Wallace in particular sounds like a proto-Trump, a showman whipping a blue collar male crowd up into a frenzy against those bloodsuckers in DC. But Wallace has no real policy positions and no ground game. Thompson contends that the con men have always been somewhat admired in the south.

[Syt]

https://youtu.be/XvgnOqcCYCM?t=82

[CountDeMoney]

Reading Fear & Loathing on the Campaign Trail 1972 (Hunter S Thompson) at the moment. So many similarities - Wallace in particular sounds like a proto-Trump, a showman whipping a blue collar male crowd up into a frenzy against those bloodsuckers in DC. But Wallace has no real policy positions and no ground game. Thompson contends that the con men have always been somewhat admired in the south.

You want to read a less gonzo, more traditional non-fiction account on the political journalism of that campaign, read Timothy Crouse's The Boy on the Bus.  So many big names in that, even the ones before they were big names.  So much drinking, smoking, poker-playing.  Newspapers that no longer exist, pencils, pay phone calls to desk editors, and typewriters. 
So positively romantic.

[Hamilcar]

https://i.imgur.com/yqUU8IP.gifv

[garbon]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2016/oct/25/us-elections-live-trump-clinton-news?page=with:block-580fabc1e4b0219a00d388a8#block-580fabc1e4b0219a00d388a8

Powell to vote for Clinton

Former secretary of state Colin Powell, a Republican who served under George W Bush, will reportedly vote for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in the upcoming general election.

Speaking at the Long Island Association, a trade group and civic organization based outside of New York City, Powell told the group that "I am voting for Hillary Clinton," according to the New York Times.

Powell, a retired four-star general and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who was once considered a potential presidential candidate himself, reportedly cited Republican nominee Donald Trump's inexperience and negative messaging as contributing to his cross-party endorsement.

The former secretary of state joins other officials from the second Bush administration in indicating their plans to vote for Clinton or their disavowal of Trump, including former homeland security secretary Michael Chertoff, former commerce secretary Carlos Gutierrez, former treasury secretary Henry Paulson and former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, Powell's successor who urged Trump to withdraw from the race earlier this month

[celedhring]

How is Powell viewed in the US nowadays? That WMD speech surely must have destroyed his credibility.

[garbon]

How is Powell viewed in the US nowadays? That WMD speech surely must have destroyed his credibility.

I don't think it did...

[jimmy olsen]

How is Powell viewed in the US nowadays? That WMD speech surely must have destroyed his credibility.

People blame Cheney, Rumsfeld and co for lying to him, they don't blame him.

[Barrister]

How is Powell viewed in the US nowadays? That WMD speech surely must have destroyed his credibility.

I don't think it did...

I think he's still respected.

That being said he endorsed Obama twice so this endorsement isn't going to sway anyone.