As political pundits wait on tenterhooks for tonight’s midterm election results, we have a slight indication of how things will go via early voting numbers. The latest early voting numbers provided by The Washington Post don’t show a “blue wave” materializing if you judge by the increase in new voters.
The so-called “blue wave” is breaking
Some background: For months, we’ve heard nothing but talk about a “blue wave” and Democrat enthusiasm from liberal pundits. But as election day neared, polls tightened. (RELATED: Last Politico/Morning Consult Poll Before Midterm Elections Gives Democrats Only Slight Lead.) In fact, the last Rasmussen poll released on the eve of election day showed Republicans actually in the lead when it comes to the generic ballot. (RELATED: Republicans Take Last-Minute Lead in Midterm Rasmussen Poll.)
If a “blue wave” were indeed rushing down the Potomac and approaching the Washington, D.C., shores, we’d expect to see a large increase in early voting among both new voters and those who rarely vote. And while we are seeing an increase in some Democratic strongholds, that isn’t true across the board, namely in battleground states.
Philip Bump of the Post reports: “Compared to 2014, new and infrequent voters make up slightly more of the early voting electorate, while ‘super voters’ make up slightly less.”
Here’s where things get tricky.
New and infrequent voters increased in only a handful of states
Now, you’d expect to see a surge in early voting among new voter and infrequent voters in battleground states if a Democratic wave is imminent. But that’s not exactly happening. Here is how the below chart is coded according to Bump:
In the states in light gray below, new or infrequent voters made up about the same amount of the early-voting electorate as in 2014 or slightly less of it. States in dark gray saw increases in the density of infrequent voters relative to 2014. States indicated in red had growth of 50 percent or more in the density of infrequent voters.
The results are a mixed bag. In Texas and in Georgia, where two high-profile races are taking place, there seems to be a voting surge in favor of Democrats. The same goes for Pennsylvania, which has a competitive governor and senator race. But otherwise, the surge is limited to only 10 states, some of which are not competitive at all.
[totalpoll id=”151431″]
This year’s numbers not terribly different from 2016
Bump then makes a crucial admission: “In no state did the density of infrequent voters this year top the density of infrequent voters seen in 2016 early voting.”
That’s not the news Democrats want to hear. The Party is hoping to get more voters out this cycle than the last one.
Early voting was up — often significantly — in most states. But surges among infrequent voters, which might presumably herald a massive electoral wave, was a bit more scattershot. https://t.co/GnQgyZDrTD
— Philip Bump (@pbump) November 6, 2018
The story here is that if there was a “blue wave” happening, we’d expect to see a much bigger surge in early voting among new voters and infrequent voters. But that’s not what’s happening. Democrats still hold an advantage, but it’s not the hyped-up advantage they’ve had in the media in recent months.
