tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-39779141837169535582024-03-21T14:27:54.170-07:00Just The Numbers: Behind Sanders-Wiggins 2010Numbers don't lie. Get the latest vote totals, trends, and analysis on Washington's 2010 Supreme Court Election race between Richard Sanders and Charlie Wiggins.Jamiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08202550709521192100noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3977914183716953558.post-22560524452042869482010-11-10T21:29:00.000-08:002010-11-10T21:29:51.510-08:00Support for Wiggins in the late ballots keeps growingIn light of the <u>4,477</u> margin of victory that Wiggins now maintains, it might appear -- at first blush -- that the late increase in support for Wiggins is softening. One might even conclude that Sanders is mounting a late comeback. But a quick look at today's numbers tells a different story:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwfo18ydoqbdFZPb5UxDkANS5qSDIe35dDoWDiGR9DxQioIgofqC5iPtgVOMdt_CeX-yqo3e_Yv2d9BCKt4r1YITx8qoUzpRqbCfDtAW-gJWE9fmbgOl7fXa55wzOVoSjHKjYqOQKEKjNd/s1600/Wed-Results-Highlight.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="460" px="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwfo18ydoqbdFZPb5UxDkANS5qSDIe35dDoWDiGR9DxQioIgofqC5iPtgVOMdt_CeX-yqo3e_Yv2d9BCKt4r1YITx8qoUzpRqbCfDtAW-gJWE9fmbgOl7fXa55wzOVoSjHKjYqOQKEKjNd/s640/Wed-Results-Highlight.JPG" width="640" /></a></div><br />
First off, don't be too fooled by the the fact that Wiggins is leading by about 2,000 more ballots than predicted (and yes, I did update the prediction from earlier after <a href="http://sanderswiggins.blogspot.com/2010/11/king-county-results-lower-than-expected.html">King County tallied so few ballots today</a>). The big reason why is that Spokane also tallied very few new ballots today (3,530 instead of the projected 9,017). That prevented Wiggins from losing 1,322 votes from his margin.<br />
<br />
Another reason - and definitely one of the stories of today - is the evaporation of the slim margin of support that Sanders was still receiving in Snohomish county. Sanders only picked up a net +2 votes from Snohomish (or about 50.02% of the support). To be sure, if Sanders was going to mount a come-from-behind win, he needed Snohomish to start providing him with a bigger margin of victory.<br />
<br />
I added several new calculations to the results tonight, and I think it's actually very informative. In the second-to-last column, you can see what the "Progressive SMOV%" is for each county. If you're not familiar with my previous posts on the subject, this is essentialy my own rolling prediction for Sanders' margin of victory in each particular county. For many of the smaller counties, this number is a holdover from the first few days of results: in the last few days, those counties simply haven't tallied enough votes for me to feel comfortable relying on newer margins of victory. For some of the larger counties (like King), the number does change daily because enough votes are being counted -- although in light of King's reduced tallies today, that will probably stop.<br />
<br />
I've applied a "Progressive SMOV%" prediction to each county, and that forms the basis for the "final results" prediction that you see at the bottom of the chart. Assuming that every county has exactly the number of EBOH that it's claiming, and assuming that the final tally of the ballots are distributed exactly according to the progressive SMOV% for each county, you would see Wiggins win by some-<u>12,700</u> votes.<br />
<br />
The last column is where things get interesting. It shows how today's net new ballots in each county comported with the expected SMOV. (Negative) numbers in blue reflect that the ballots came in with a reduced SMOV - that the ballots were trending more towards Wiggins than we should reasonably expect. Conversely, positive numbers in red reflect an increase in support for Sanders not predicted by the model.<br />
<br />
Here's a real-world example. If County X tallied 100 ballots today (and assuming a VCR of 100%), and I projected a progressive SMOV% of 52%, we would expect to see 52 votes cast for Sanders and 48 counted for Wiggins. But if in fact Sanders only received 51 votes, and Wiggins received 49, that would be a -(1.00%) change in SMOV% in favor of Wiggins.<br />
<br />
Turning to the actual results, several things catch my eye:<br />
<br />
1. Support is still continuing to trend for Wiggins by larger than expected margins. Obviously, this isn't true in every county; however, Pierce and Walla Walla together tallied less than 10% of the total vote today. Together, they also only project only 750 EBOH total. So any real change in the trend is coming too late to make a difference.<br />
<br />
2. The Kitsap trend is a little more of a significant departure towards Sanders. Overall, it raised the SMOV% margin from a projected 44.62% to an actual 46.99%, which still reflects a pretty strong favoring of Wiggins. Obviously, with 6500 EBOH, Kitsap still has some potential to tilt the results slightly -- at least, as much as any county outside King can still tilt the results.<br />
<br />
I dug into the Kitsap SMOV% a little more though to see if I could nail it down. Here's the data and SMOV% trends from Kitsap:<br />
<br />
Thu 11/04: SMOV 47.14% 75,961 ballots (total to date)<br />
Fri 11/05: SMOV 44.62% 12,159 ballots<br />
Sat 11/06: SMOV 47.22% 3,036 ballots<br />
Mon 11/08: SMOV 41.42% 2,720 ballots<br />
Tue 11/09: SMOV 47.82% 2,493 ballots<br />
Wed 11/10: SMOV 46.99% 2,842 ballots<br />
<br />
Other than the dip on Monday -- which seems to be one of those statistical anomalies that Just Happens from time to time, the county has been pretty consistently in the 46-47% neighborhood - at least for 3 out of the last 4 days and in the overall total from Thursday. The <strong>overall</strong> SMOV% for Kitsap so far, on 98,941 ballots, is 46.70%. So what I think this means is that Kitsap really should stay at a projected 46-47% SMOV. The model is keying in on one of the two unusual dips that does not seem to be warranted. I'll give some thought tonight to how to update the model to automatically reflect more stable trends rather than large, more recent anomalies.<br />
<br />
3. Surprising extra padding from Whatcom County tonight as well. Through last Thursday, the SMOV slightly favored Sanders at 51.54%. However, on subsequent days, the county posted results of (47.00%, 51.50%, 47.81%, and 42.22%). At 43.25% today, Whatcom is shifting support to Wiggins at a fairly significant margin.<br />
<br />
<br />
Speaking of the late-shifting support for Wiggins, one final note before I sign off for the night. The Seattle Times endorsement switch and its coverage of Sanders' race-related comments may have gained the most attention as the "October surprise". But I would be -- and I have been -- remiss in not acknowledging other possible sources. Rather than tell you about it, I'll <a href="http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/11/10/how-justice-richard-b-sanders-lost-it">let Eli do it</a>. It's absolutely worth the read.Jamiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08202550709521192100noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3977914183716953558.post-75194264448556510112010-11-10T16:46:00.000-08:002010-11-10T17:48:03.058-08:00King County tabulating slower than expectedKing results just posted, and apparently, someone in the Elections Director's office is determined to keep me in business for the foreseeable future (thanks, but I do have an appellate brief due on Monday).<br />
<br />
King reported counting 18,236 ballots today. To summarize, we've gone from 71,915 counted Monday, to 49,017 counted yesterday, to 18,236 counted today. Even being generous and assuming a 50% rate of decay each day, and assuming no new ballots are added to the EBOH total, we'll be down to counting 1 ballot per day by November 30th, one full week after the deadline to certify this race. And there will still be over 46,000 ballots left to count. Depressing.<br />
<br />
But getting back on track, it looks like the SMOV% in King dropped back down to 38.31% (it was 38.32% on Monday but jumped to 38.51% yesterday). So it's unlikely we'll see much of a change in the remainder of the King ballots.<br />
<br />
Updating the predictive model that I posted just a minute ago, the reduced ballot count from King only provides Wiggins with a 2,902 vote pickup out of that county. That leaves Wiggins only picking up +<u>305</u> net new votes today. Add that to the totals from earlier, and the model projects that Wiggins will end the day with a +<u>2,492</u> vote lead. Really brings King's effect on this race into perspective.<br />
<br />
[<strong>UPDATE (4:57pm):</strong> <em>I assumed, without checking, that King County's VCR% rate would stay the same, as it has, around 68-69%. Today, it jumped to 74.19%, which is about on order with King's original averages last Thursday. This actually produced a net vote gain of <u>3,163</u> for Wiggins out of King today. Figure him around +<u>2,753</u> overall at the end of the day.</em>]<br />
<br />
[<strong>UPDATE #2 (5:45pm):</strong> It turns out there *is* a reason why King County's counting has slowed down - voter <strike>stupidity</strike> mistakes. Check out the <a href="http://horsesass.org/?p=31098">great explanation from Goldy at HA</a>.]Jamiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08202550709521192100noreply@blogger.com46tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3977914183716953558.post-34228941280210825332010-11-10T16:28:00.000-08:002010-11-10T16:28:15.235-08:00Wednesday: Results and PredictionsGiven the late hour, I'm rushing the projection for today's votes (and hopefully this post lands before those results start rolling in).<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkVGqFvU-FLjUcpzb55TXdrKiEW-Wd1ErfimdsYhkHFg8P90-jLN9BO7ScW4RcQVq1EunNBT0IKTEQWX7-f5AqZyXD1SRLQRzy9R3Vnnw6bYfI6-JlgQZ7OTR5VMKeY5tjUPS1nAscw7Mh/s1600/Wednesday.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="318" px="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkVGqFvU-FLjUcpzb55TXdrKiEW-Wd1ErfimdsYhkHFg8P90-jLN9BO7ScW4RcQVq1EunNBT0IKTEQWX7-f5AqZyXD1SRLQRzy9R3Vnnw6bYfI6-JlgQZ7OTR5VMKeY5tjUPS1nAscw7Mh/s640/Wednesday.JPG" width="640" /></a></div><br />
I expect Sanders to continue to perform well in Spokane county - although I honestly think that my SMOV% may favor Sanders a little too heavily. The Monday SMOV% was 53.80, so a 2% drop, assuming the same number of ballots counted, would mean a pickup of only 1,226 votes (instead of 1,897). Assuming King again only counts about 40,000 votes, the net gain of 7,800 votes for Wiggins there should leave him up about <u>7,383</u> votes for the day.Jamiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08202550709521192100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3977914183716953558.post-44138455582231139822010-11-10T15:41:00.000-08:002010-11-10T15:41:40.901-08:00Tuesday's ResultsSorry for the late reaction to last night's numbers. School is a killer right now.<br />
<br />
Here's a quick break down on the results from yesterday. We had a total of 12 counties report results: Yakima didn't report (although they posted new numbers this morning), and Cowlitz, Grays Harbor, and Klickitat updated their numbers unexpectedly:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjiUXZWTA1wQSOA-JV8j2Cu5hLVyQzfATyFbnZjkRagmLPDgLagKlh_hFDy6x9IT8DaCaFgS46wD-NZ8IEA8Aoi5BRhfchlevl4ACkoqD7zTX5-XGb0Su20_z3QgHpv8w15-bP4bnONdy02/s1600/tuesday.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="382" px="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjiUXZWTA1wQSOA-JV8j2Cu5hLVyQzfATyFbnZjkRagmLPDgLagKlh_hFDy6x9IT8DaCaFgS46wD-NZ8IEA8Aoi5BRhfchlevl4ACkoqD7zTX5-XGb0Su20_z3QgHpv8w15-bP4bnONdy02/s640/tuesday.JPG" width="640" /></a></div><br />
Wiggins picked up 2,867 less votes than expected. The quick answer is that Yakima didn't report, and King County reported far fewer ballots yesterday that we were expecting (49,017 instead of 71,915). Of course, this is readily explainable if the ballots now being worked through are the more problematic ones (incorrectly filled out, write-in votes, voter affidavits, etc). <br />
<br />
But it's got me thinking that there's definitely some useful data in here about the speed at which different counties are working their way though the EBOH pile. Some have been very quick, some have started fast and slowed down, and others appear to be pretty uniform. Once the speed of the daily returns slows down, I'll probably take some time to look at that data and see if there are some discernable trends that can be modeled for the 2012 election to predict return data.<br />
<br />
In the last column, I compared the SMOV% from yesterday to the "progressive" SMOV% model that I've been using so far to see how the results different from expected. The 12% number in Klickitat might raise some eyebrows... but we are only talking about 74 votes, so I think we can write that off to statistical insignificance.<br />
<br />
The Pierce number is a little misleading. The progressive model that I've been using still has Pierce's SMOV% at 54.73%, which is based on their total from last Thursday. There haven't been enough ballots counted on each of the successive days (10% of total) to shift that number more towards Wiggins. But over the four following days of returns (Friday, Saturday, Monday, and Tuesday), the SMOV% has stayed pretty consistent, between 52.27% and 53.06%. With 53.03% yesterday, Pierce continues to show the same ~2% shift toward Wiggins that nearly every other county experienced, but that trend has stabilized. Makes me think that the progressive SMOV% model really needs to give more credit to several days of stability, as opposed to an early lump-sum number.<br />
<br />
The shift in King County's SMOV% is interesting, but relatively insignificant. King was at 38.32% on Monday. Yesterday, at 38.51% (+0.19), King has reversed what was otherwise several straight days of declinining numbers. In practical terms, this 0.19% increase moved about 64 votes from Wiggins over to Sanders. It'll be interesting to see where the SMOV% moves in today's results -- which should be posted shortly.Jamiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08202550709521192100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3977914183716953558.post-82855246725044431472010-11-10T11:57:00.000-08:002010-11-10T11:57:59.017-08:00Bad math in Grays HarborI'll post shortly on the results from yesterday, how they lined up with expectations, and what we can expect today in terms of the vote margin. But as I was looking through the numbers, something caught my eye. There's some unexplained discrepancies in yesterday's vote totals from Grays Harbor.<br />
<br />
First off - a disclaimer. I've double and triple-checked these numbers, but it's always possible that I've made a mistake. I don't think I have, but feel free to let me know if you see it differently.<br />
<br />
Looking back to Monday, Grays Harbor reported the following totals:<br />
<strong>Total Ballots Counted</strong>: <u>25,642</u><br />
<strong>Votes Cast in Race</strong> (<em>VCR</em>): <u>19,702</u> (<em>76.83%</em>)<br />
<strong>Votes Cast for Sanders</strong> (<em>SMOV%</em>): <u>9,922</u> (<em>50.44%</em>)<br />
<strong>Votes Cast for Wiggins</strong>: <u>9,780</u><br />
<br />
Yesterday, Grays Harbor reported new totals:<br />
<strong>Total Ballots Counted</strong>: <u>25,884</u><br />
<strong>Votes Cast in Race</strong> (<em>VCR</em>): <u>20,054</u> (<em>77.48%</em>)<br />
<strong>Votes Cast for Sanders</strong> (<em>SMOV%</em>): <u>10,105</u> (<em>50.44%</em>)<br />
<strong>Votes Cast for Wiggins</strong>: <u>9,949</u><br />
<br />
Some quick math reveals that Grays Harbor (which is not located next to Chicago, incidentally) counted 242 ballots yesterday, and reported 352 new votes in the Sanders-Wiggins race. <br />
<br />
So where did those 110 extra ballots come from?<br />
<br />
The 352 new votes yesterday reflected an SMOV of 51.99% This is slightly above the overall 50.36% average that Grays Harbor had been reporting until yesterday, and reflects an definite upward tick: Friday's SMOV% was 49.02% and Monday's was 50.44%.<br />
<br />
Evil, election-throwing scheme? :-) Minor tabulation error from Monday or last week that someone finally noticed and corrected? What do you think?Jamiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08202550709521192100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3977914183716953558.post-89524142069814284642010-11-09T15:10:00.000-08:002010-11-09T15:10:14.439-08:00The late trend towards WigginsWe've still got a few hours before the results roll in this afternoon, so I wanted to take a minute to try and figure out just how much the late swing towards Wiggins impacted the end result of this election. With apologies to Yakima and the 30 other counties, I'll mostly focus on the Big Eight given their large impact on statewide vote totals.<br />
<br />
To start with, here's a quick look at the SMOV % trend between last Thursday and Monday:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhs3vgS6F0gsgfeEyIna3-Yw70gqP7cE056pFUvUcEuGdzBqyzaMbfaaHzMAqBdSTAZ75jnW3Db9fLTBxn_VLiacdX_jUUdi4t8Fp03IL04pYnxYGLj9fcam6k-4h0sTn7i6FNRLTQBhLjL/s1600/SMOVlines.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" px="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhs3vgS6F0gsgfeEyIna3-Yw70gqP7cE056pFUvUcEuGdzBqyzaMbfaaHzMAqBdSTAZ75jnW3Db9fLTBxn_VLiacdX_jUUdi4t8Fp03IL04pYnxYGLj9fcam6k-4h0sTn7i6FNRLTQBhLjL/s1600/SMOVlines.JPG" /></a></div><br />
All eight counties showed a drop in SMOV between the total results on Thursday and each of the successive days' results, through Monday.<br />
<br />
I've already done some casual speculating on why the later ballots may have shifted towards Wiggins, and if you're reading this, I'm sure you might make the same speculations. Incidentally, this post may be the closest we'll ever come, statistically, to measuring the late impact the Seattle Times had on this election.<br />
<br />
====<br />
<br />
So let's re-allocate all ballots counted on Friday, Saturday, and Monday, using Thursday's SMOV%. To control for error, I'll use the actual VCR% from each day. To complete the totals, I'll project out the latest EBOH numbers that we have, using Thursday's SMOV% and the VCR% from my standard "progressive" model. We'll compare the "What If" totals to the actual totals, and see just how much this late swing helped Wiggins:<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTuJlb2FEAKkdYneknIcwk3FYTvb9RGXg3-Cl0zfgQEcBiBDgyEmOnL3e75MZPzL9Eld7l5Ss7ItyHvkmUZZ9GtFwoHFdqEzEirXHVda7zvHo5iWOafPl3ZDv_RxvVqiwfveUrK_DZYFX3/s1600/WhatIf.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" px="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTuJlb2FEAKkdYneknIcwk3FYTvb9RGXg3-Cl0zfgQEcBiBDgyEmOnL3e75MZPzL9Eld7l5Ss7ItyHvkmUZZ9GtFwoHFdqEzEirXHVda7zvHo5iWOafPl3ZDv_RxvVqiwfveUrK_DZYFX3/s1600/WhatIf.jpg" /></a></div><br />
That's a net swing of <u>21,282</u> votes from Wiggins to Sanders. No model (that I'm aware of) is currently predicting a win by Wiggins that will nearly equate to that.<br />
<br />
As the results come in, the media and various political figures may laud or criticize King County as the source of Wiggins's victory. But the true story here is the SMOV % shift. As I noted in a previous post, Wiggins saw a 2-4% increase in his vote margins nearly across the board between Thursday and Friday, a trend that continued throughout the weekend and in to Monday. That margin is what will eventually propel Wiggins to (projected) victory.Jamiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08202550709521192100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3977914183716953558.post-64447326576609629752010-11-09T13:45:00.000-08:002010-11-09T13:45:26.437-08:00A quick note about recountsSeveral folks have asked about the possibility of a recount in this race. I'm sure 2004 is still in the back of everyone's minds, so let's do a quick review of Washington recount law.<br />
<br />
An automatic machine recount will only be triggered if the difference between Sanders and Wiggins is less than one-half of one percent (0.5%) of the total votes cast in the race AND if the total margin of victory is less than 2,000 votes. The former seems all but certain to happen; as for the latter, my projections currently put this race well outside the recount margin. But for those keeping score, in a statewide election like this one, a difference of less than 1,000 votes and one-quarter of one percent (0.25%) automatically requires a <em>manual</em> recount.<br />
<br />
Either candidate could ask for a recount, but the request must be made within three business days after the county canvassing board or secretary of state has certified the election (which is expected to happen on Nov. 23rd). The requesting candidate must pay for the privilege, and the cost isn't cheap. To conduct a machine recount, the requesting candidate must deposit 15 cents per ballot to be recounted. With about 2.6 million ballots expected to be cast in this election, that's about $390,000. A manual recount is even more expensive: 25 cents per ballot, or about $650,000. However, if the outcome is reversed, the cost of the recount is reimbursed back to the requesting candidate. <br />
<br />
For the legally inclined, full details can be found in Washington's recount statute, <a href="http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=29A.64">RCW 29A.64</a>. <br />
<br />
The Secretary of State's website also has a great FAQ on this topic: <a href="http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/CandidateInfo/Documents/Recounts%20FAQ.pdf">http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/osos/en/CandidateInfo/Documents/Recounts%20FAQ.pdf</a>Jamiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08202550709521192100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3977914183716953558.post-45995810061585853382010-11-09T10:03:00.000-08:002010-11-09T10:03:35.171-08:00I'm calling the race for...... Justice-elect Charlie Wiggins.<br />
<br />
I've run three different statistical models to project the final outcome in the race, and the outcome is unmistakable. In each of the three models, Wiggins wins by well outside the recount margin.<br />
<br />
Here's the breakdown:<br />
<br />
<br />
Model 1 uses the "average" VCR/SMOV% totals. These averages are calculated independently for each county based on all data returned so far. Because the vote totals from election day are treated equally with the ballots being counted today, this model excludes most of the effects of the late shift in vote totals towards Wiggins. This is the most conservative (not politically -- statistically) of the three models. Although there are certainly theoretical models that could show a narrower gap, I probably wouldn't find them credible.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtciGKwXyWKkb3O3gYiABw1DcsKh3BVUwh995MFT48dGyMTRYocdSyic0Lt_Jxf-cQh-rCC2h_xPBzePLvoJL1IaMc6BQiQqjuhQb1h5GFI9TzZuvrnzKeowa2d9PGiwQYetwiNa-No0GB/s1600/Model+1-AVG.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" px="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtciGKwXyWKkb3O3gYiABw1DcsKh3BVUwh995MFT48dGyMTRYocdSyic0Lt_Jxf-cQh-rCC2h_xPBzePLvoJL1IaMc6BQiQqjuhQb1h5GFI9TzZuvrnzKeowa2d9PGiwQYetwiNa-No0GB/s1600/Model+1-AVG.jpg" /></a></div><br />
Model 2 swings towards the other end of the spectrum of acceptable modeling techniques. This model uses the "latest" VCR/SMOV% totals. These numbers come from the most recent day in which the county reported new votes, and are based only on that day's votes. Accordingly, it picks up all of the late trends towards Wiggins, but in many counties, those numbers are based on a very small, unreliable sample size. But having said that, this race has continued to trend further towards Wiggins each day that results have been counted. It would not be unrealistic to see that trend continue; in that case, even this model would undercalculate the potential Wiggins gain.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCPASO_B954GY9P2yj3q_SzJnRRTX3AVxjoSs2FzParuFlmbQhnRYAZhGwuGFrJavYGQI1enBc4M7UFbelTsI5M8PbMAs2ZG0KSTVJRpru3GutK-46L9nmcp2tCB2XkNBdMxeOao7IL8Y9/s1600/Model+2-LATEST.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" px="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCPASO_B954GY9P2yj3q_SzJnRRTX3AVxjoSs2FzParuFlmbQhnRYAZhGwuGFrJavYGQI1enBc4M7UFbelTsI5M8PbMAs2ZG0KSTVJRpru3GutK-46L9nmcp2tCB2XkNBdMxeOao7IL8Y9/s1600/Model+2-LATEST.jpg" /></a></div><br />
Model 3 uses a"progressive" methodology (again, that's statistically, not politically) for the VCR/SMOV% totals. This is the same model I've been applying to the vote projections I posted on Monday and Tuesday. In general, it uses the "average" number from each county, but it will use the specific averages from Monday, Saturday, or Friday (in order of preference) if the net new ballot data supplied that day is statistically significant. For our purposes, statistically significant means that the county reported counting at least 500 new ballots, and further, it requires that the number of ballots counted on that day amount to at least 10% of the overall ballots counted from that county so far.<br />
<br />
All things being equal, I would normally expect this model to be a fairly accurate predictor of the final results. However, all things are not equal. In light of the shifting Wiggins trends across the board, I would probably lean more towards somewhere in between Model 2 and 3.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpizUznx_3Lzz2jG6BtMQ-pToS76xVdqO3x86HDkLXOFaMyNTr7sT4dlg9U71KB7_i_w_4MPj4xem1UnChJ24LKuM6KaweeS4sxLMJ59lysZlY7xq7ls1CfgFgF8US37BI-ZZtH70GGNhJ/s1600/Model+3-PROG.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" px="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpizUznx_3Lzz2jG6BtMQ-pToS76xVdqO3x86HDkLXOFaMyNTr7sT4dlg9U71KB7_i_w_4MPj4xem1UnChJ24LKuM6KaweeS4sxLMJ59lysZlY7xq7ls1CfgFgF8US37BI-ZZtH70GGNhJ/s1600/Model+3-PROG.jpg" /></a></div><br />
So there it is. Even the most conservative model has Wiggins winning by over 5,000 votes. I'm always hesitant to call a race with so many ballots outstanding and such a small margin of victory -- particularly when I'm calling it for the candidate not currently leading -- but looking at this data, I'm convinced that Wiggins has the upper hand and will coast to victory.<br />
<br />
Expect the vote count to switch around 4:30 today when King County posts updated results. Wiggins should take the lead then, and I don't see a model where he relinquishes it.Jamiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08202550709521192100noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3977914183716953558.post-27183588008671088032010-11-09T08:46:00.000-08:002010-11-09T08:46:09.945-08:00Tuesday ProjectionFirst off, an apology. My excel sheet locked up and refused to save last night, and I was forced to recreate it from Friday's saved data. Thankfully, I still had raw numbers for the weekend and for Monday, so no loss in data. But putting everything back together has been quite time-consuming. <br />
Moving on to today's projection.<br />
<br />
Only 10 counties will be reporting data today. Of the Big Eight [see <em>Terminology</em> in the side bar], only 5 will report numbers today: Thurston, Snohomish, and Spokane won't report again until tomorrow. We'll be using the same basic assumptions as yesterday:<br />
<br />
1. Counties will count the same number of ballots today as they did yesterday UNLESS that count would put them near or over their total EBOH. In that case, I am assuming they will count about 80% of EBOH. Although there was some variation yesterday, this turned out to be a fairly solid guess across the board.<br />
<br />
2. The overall SMOV and VCR for each county will be used UNLESS the county reported data on Friday, Saturday, or Monday AND the county reported counting at least 500 new ballots AND at least 10% of their total ballots counted. For transparency, I have included a column in the chart below "()" that indicates the source of the VCR and SMOV numbers. (Ttl) indicates that the county total to date is being used; (F) indicates Friday, (S) indicates Saturday, and (M) indicates Monday.<br />
<br />
Here's the projection:<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgX5lyE8yu1P_in2_kQv_5afhmzVBUGxI29USV12F8aqkdDq8Q7bIhnn-mvmUtojg2e5N1yK9LnlJDN7m50jKphFEjAu3dXmqFUpuGO8M0XUwSjOa5b6sUhbUyiZ9IP-ZHExCKAHhcegeoF/s1600/SandWigg-Tues.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" px="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgX5lyE8yu1P_in2_kQv_5afhmzVBUGxI29USV12F8aqkdDq8Q7bIhnn-mvmUtojg2e5N1yK9LnlJDN7m50jKphFEjAu3dXmqFUpuGO8M0XUwSjOa5b6sUhbUyiZ9IP-ZHExCKAHhcegeoF/s640/SandWigg-Tues.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I'm on the verge of calling this race for Wiggins, but with the spreadsheet problems, I haven't had time to fully project out all EBOH remaining in these 10 counties as well as the other 29. But it's getting very difficult to see a path to victory for the Sanders team. I'll post shortly with a projected final result.Jamiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08202550709521192100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3977914183716953558.post-88084795403728397552010-11-08T19:03:00.000-08:002010-11-08T20:04:44.440-08:00Whatcom (& further updates) delayed until 7:30Whatcom won't be posting results until 7:30pm, so I'll wait until later tonight to post updated projections and thoughts on the day.<br />
<br />
As things currently stand, Sanders' margin has narrowed to 4,064. I anticipate that Whatcom will probably add +<u>373</u> net votes to <strike>Sanders</strike> <u>Wiggins</u> column (assuming 8,580 of the remaining 12,000 ballots are counted today). [<em><strong>EDIT</strong>: Is it just me, or are red and blue starting to look like the same color?</em>]<br />
I've picked up on an interesting trend that I think may deserve a follow up post. Obviously, EBOH numbers are estimates (hence the "E"). And I would expect the daily updates to include revisions of those numbers beyond just the ballots counted (ballots tossed for invalidity, ballots verified with affidavit and added back in, late military ballots, etc.) At this point in the process, I would expect to see very few ballots showing up in the EBOH projections.<br />
<br />
That's why I was surprised to see that SIX counties reported a double-digit percentage increase in EBOH, notwithstanding ballots counted today. But let me back up a second and explain the math...<br />
<br />
Let's use a fictional county ("X"), that yesterday reported 10,000 EBOH. Now if they count 6,000 ballots today, all things being equal, we would expect to see the EBOH drop to 4,000. If ballots are invalidated, that number might drop. And if more ballots arrive (delayed but still postmarked correctly), that number would go up. Let's assume this scenaro: County X reports 6,000 ballots counted today, but updates their EBOH to 4,500 (thus reflecting 500 "newly-discovered" ballots to be counted). So if we take that 500 increase and divide it by the original 10,000 EBOH, we get an EBOH increase of 5% (based on the starting EBOH tally at the beginning of the day). Let's call that "Increased EBOH %". All well and good.<br />
<br />
The reason why we should look at Increased EBOH % (as opposed to a raw number) is because some counties are vastly larger than others. To give you an example, King County saw a net increase of 1,915 EBOH today. But given that King had 195,000 EBOH to start the day, that's a statistically-insignificant increase of just 0.98%.<br />
<br />
Of the 18 counties (really 17 - Cowlitz is done) that have reported so far, the Increased EBOH % ranges from -2.4% (Snohomish) to +4.7% (Pierce) for all but six of the counties:<br />
<br />
<strong>Chelan</strong>: +15.6%<br />
<strong>Benton</strong>: +20.5%<br />
<strong>Grant:</strong> +26.3%<br />
<strong>Franklin:</strong> +38.9%<br />
<strong>Yakima:</strong> +52.4%<br />
<strong>Whitman:</strong> +122.4% (???)<br />
<br />
Now, granted, some of those counties started with relatively small EBOH. Franklin started with 800 (counting 961 and reporting 150 more on hand). Grant started with 1,500 (counting 494 and reporting 1,400 more on hand). And Chelan started with 2,000 (counting 2,262 and reporting 50 more on hand).<br />
<br />
Whitman is a little surprising though. They started with an EBOH of 1,000, counted 1,724, and reported 500 more on hand. I don't mean to criticize the estimation powers of the county elections office in Whitman, but a stack of 1000 ballots and a stack of 2,224 ballots look pretty different.<br />
<br />
All six counties have been favoring Sanders in the returns (although the net new ballots today from Whitman leaned toward Sanders). Factoring in these new ballots, and allocating based on this morning's estimated VCR and SMOV percentages gives the following result:<br />
<br />
<strong>Benton</strong>: 1,438 net new votes, VCR 78.0%, SMOV 57.7% = <strong>+172 SAND</strong><br />
<strong>Chelan</strong>: 312 net new votes, VCR 73.2%, SMOV 53.5% = <strong>+16 SAND</strong><br />
<strong>Franklin</strong>: 311 net new votes, VCR 81.0%, SMOV 63.2% = <strong>+66 SAND</strong><br />
<strong>Grant</strong>: 394 net new votes, VCR 76.6%, SMOV 65.3% = <strong>+92 SAND</strong><br />
<strong>Whitman</strong>: 1,224 net new votes, VCR 73.7%, SMOV 51.6% = <strong>+29 SAND</strong><br />
<strong>Yakima:</strong> 5,236 net new votes, VCR 81.4%, SMOV 60.1% = <strong>+862 SAND</strong><br />
<br />
For those keeping score, that's an extra 1,238 votes for Sanders that no one saw coming. Now granted, King's 1,915 new EBOH hands 284 votes back to Wiggins. But this is certainly an object lesson to keep an eye on EBOH numbers, especially when they start wiggling (no pun intended).<br />
<br />
And if anyone has an idea what happened in Whitman or Yakima county today with several thousand new ballots showing, please share.Jamiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08202550709521192100noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3977914183716953558.post-51307445812383246002010-11-08T18:12:00.000-08:002010-11-08T18:12:36.256-08:00Wiggins picking up votes from strange places...Kitsap and Island county just posted. Kitsap counted under 25% of the ballots that I was expecting them to count today (2,720 instead of 11,200), so that obviously adjusts the math somewhat.<br />
<br />
But Wiggins actually gained net votes out of Island county. Island had been going for Sanders, barely (SMOV of 50.9%). Today, Wiggins netted <u>12</u> new votes, and the SMOV fell to 29.74%. <br />
<br />
If that were an isolated occurrence, I'd be prepared to write it off. But the SMOV unexpectedly swung to favor Wiggins in several other counties:<br />
<br />
<u>Clark:</u> <br />
<strong>Expected</strong>: SMOV of 52.4%, expected to produce <strong>50 +SAND </strong>on 1400 new votes.<br />
<strong>Actual:</strong> SMOV of 46.22% (-6.2%!), produced <strong>44 +WIGG</strong> on 813 new votes.<br />
<br />
<u>Klickitat</u><br />
<strong>Expected</strong>: SMOV of 57.6%, expected to produce <strong>45 +SAND </strong>on 408 new votes.<br />
<strong>Actual:</strong> SMOV of 49.72% (-8.4%!!), produced <strong>2 +WIGG</strong> on 523 new votes.<br />
<br />
<u>Pend Oreille</u><br />
<strong>Expected</strong>: SMOV of 55.3%, expected to produce <strong>14 +SAND </strong>on 192 new votes.<br />
<strong>Actual:</strong> SMOV of 45.74% (-9.6%!!!), produced <strong>11 +WIGG</strong> on 173 new votes.<br />
<br />
<u>Whitman</u><br />
<strong>Expected</strong>: SMOV of 51.6%, expected to produce <strong>18 +SAND </strong>on 800 new votes.<br />
<strong>Actual:</strong> SMOV of 48.56% (-3.0%), produced <strong>36 +WIGG</strong> on 1724 new votes.<br />
<br />
Obviously, we're dealing with a pretty small number of votes. So I would expect to see major swings on these smaller sample sizes. But it's hard to ignore that Wiggins seems to be gaining late ground in many counties that were solidly in the Sanders column.Jamiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08202550709521192100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3977914183716953558.post-22581788878588085262010-11-08T17:55:00.000-08:002010-11-08T18:02:15.278-08:00Early thoughts on MondayI'm still frantically writing Excel formulas and typing results (and trying not to transpose digits as I do it). But I thought I'd pause and share some early thoughts on the Monday numbers so far.<br />
<br />
As I type this, 13 of 19 counties have reported for the day (including Grant - welcome back!). We're still waiting on Cowlitz, Franklin, Island, Kitsap, Skagit, and Whatcom. Kitsap will certainly help Wiggins, but the rest are Sanders counties, some by fairly substantial percentages. So I wouldn't expect the lead to shift by more than a couple hundred votes for the rest of the night.<br />
<br />
Here's some first thoughts, without much analysis:<br />
<br />
1. King reported counting slightly fewer ballots than I expected, but they also added about 10,000 to their EBOH. The VCR fell to 68.1% (-0.9%) -- not good for Wiggins -- but the SMOV fell by the same margin (39.2% to 38.3%). I expected <strike>Sanders</strike> <u>Wiggins</u> [<em>that's what happens when you try to type and think at the same time</em>] to pick up about 11,025 votes today from King, and he picked up <u>11,448</u>.<br />
<br />
2. Pierce reported counting slightly fewer ballots than I expected as well (8,129 instead of 10,800), but Snohomish was WAY lower (8,285 instead of 24,000). Both counties saw a drop in SMOV, which helps Wiggins, and both produced a smaller net gain (+388 on the reduced ballot count, compared to +915 projected) for Sanders than he was probably anticipating.<br />
<br />
3. Spokane counted a little less than half as many ballots as we should have expected (5,274 against the expected 11,111). SMOV remained fairly steady at 53.8%, but VCR climbed 2.5% (from 71.4% to 73.9%). If the numbers had remained constant, the reduced vote count should have produced 285 net new votes, but instead, Sanders received <u>297</u>.<br />
<br />
4. Yakima underperformed for Sanders. He needed the county to pull through, and it didn't do as well as he could have hoped. There were drops in both VCR (81.4% to 79.2%, or 2.2%), and in SMOV (60.1% to 58.9%, or 1.2%). Yakima counted about 145% of the ballots we were expecting today (9,236 compared to a projected 6,370), but Sanders only saw a 124% gain in his net margin (<u>+1305</u> net new votes instead of +1049). However, Yakima is reporting another 6,000 EBOH -- these new 5,200 ballots will absolutely impact the projections.<br />
<br />
More soon. Stay tuned.Jamiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08202550709521192100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3977914183716953558.post-53724439216678849662010-11-08T12:00:00.000-08:002010-11-08T12:19:00.502-08:00Monday: Projected Vote TotalsNineteen counties will report updated vote totals, with the bulk of the new numbers coming betwee 4:00-5:00pm (Whatcom reports at 5:30, Spokane at 6:00). And yes, I'm including Grant County.<br />
<br />
Before we get to projecting new totals for today, let's start with some basic assumptions:<br />
<br />
1. Most of the nineteen counties will report the same number of net new ballots today as they did on Friday. However, when that would put a county near or over the amount of EBOH -- or if the county did not report on Friday -- we will assume that the county will only count 80% of it's remaining ballots on hand. Yes, this is a guess, but it's based on the concept that there will always be a pile of ballots that require hand counting, visual inspection, re-completion (if voter intent is discernable), or some other manual handling. Also, there will undoubtedly be ballots that will be shelved for signature mis-matches, voter cast two ballots (duplication), or a host of other reasons. Because these ballots are set aside -- but are possibly still factored into the EBOH count, depending on each county's policies -- this count dwindles downward very slowly while the ready-to-count ballots are quickly zero'd out. Think of it as a curve approaching zero but taking a really long time to get there.<br />
<br />
2. The overall county average thus far for SMOV and VCR will be used for each county UNLESS the county reported data on Friday or Saturday AND the Friday/Saturday totals contained at least 500 ballots and at least 10% of the total ballots cast in the race. These qualifiers are added to ensure we are using numbers of a statististically significant sample size. [Note: When I use overall SMOV/VCR percentages, I will indicate it with a (T); when I use Friday or Saturday SMOV/VCR data, I will indicate it with a (F) or (S)]<br />
<br />
On to the numbers.<br />
<br />
Rather than try and type this all out, I took a screenshot of my projections for today and I'm attaching it to this post. That way, you all can see the numbers I used (and challenge any assumptions I made accordingly). <br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVSoZrbDZyOQdZGaSkTd3lbiPGirVYOGJHHR_Oj0Zaz3Y2bPWdPKlgFUbOdt6lU_u51xRYMSIJ2OJiivN1r-V4TfRtiReIC4BUy05R6EumiDs-HpnTLplbvFfovM_XzqeN41NvkJpfRl2E/s1600/SandWigg-Monday.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="540" px="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVSoZrbDZyOQdZGaSkTd3lbiPGirVYOGJHHR_Oj0Zaz3Y2bPWdPKlgFUbOdt6lU_u51xRYMSIJ2OJiivN1r-V4TfRtiReIC4BUy05R6EumiDs-HpnTLplbvFfovM_XzqeN41NvkJpfRl2E/s640/SandWigg-Monday.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br />
[<strong>EDIT:</strong> <em>I accidentally left Clallam county off the original chart above (sorry Clallam!) I've updated the graph and changed the numbers in the below paragraph to reflect the +191 net votes that Clallam is expected to provide to Wiggins today</em>.]<br />
It's very hard to predict how many ballots will actually be counted today, but using the estimates above, I'm predicting that we'll see another 175,052 ballots counted and 128,316 votes cast in the race. I expect Wiggins to pick up a net of 8,470 votes, reducing Sanders's lead to 4,781 votes total.<br />
<br />
Stay tuned. I'll be posting frequently as individual counties start releasing updates at 4pm.Jamiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08202550709521192100noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3977914183716953558.post-71796021848504297892010-11-08T10:08:00.000-08:002010-11-08T10:08:38.638-08:00Monday Watch ListI hope to have some time this afternoon to take a deeper look at the VCR trend [see <em>Terminology</em> post] that I've alluded to in a couple of previous posts, because it's certainly played a role in Wiggins's resurgence; but if the downward trend continues, it may also prove to end the resurgence prematurely.<br />
<br />
Today is obviously a big day. By early evening, the picture should be a whole lot clearer, and we may even be able to project a winner. With that in mind, here are some "keys to the game" for each campaign:<br />
<br />
<u>Wiggins</u><br />
1. King, King, King. It goes without saying that King will provide Wiggins with the single biggest source of votes and what may end up being the margin of victory. The key here is to stop the bleeding with the VCR rate. VCR fell by nearly 6% between the Thursday totals and the Friday net new votes last week. Wiggins can't see any further erosion in those numbers or the math becomes a lot more difficult.<br />
<br />
2. Looking at the rest of KPSS, Snohomish and Spokane each hold about 30,000 votes; the race in Pierce is effectively over (only 13,500 votes remaining). For both Friday and Saturday, Spokane had SMOVs of 53.86% and 53.80% respectively -- about 2 points off the average thorugh Thursday. And Snohomish's SMOV has continued to fall, registering at 50.84% on Saturday. Assuming the latest SMOV numbers hold, Sanders will only pick up 1,735 votes in Spokane and 391 in Snohomish. But I think Wiggins really needs that total to drop below 2,000, so he should be looking for further declines in either SMOV or VCR in both counties.<br />
<br />
<u>Sanders</u><br />
1. As one might expect, reverse Wiggins's keys to the game. Sanders needs King's VCR to drop substantially. I don't think he can realistically expect to see SMOV turn around -- the late Times stories and un-endorsement will undoubtedly be seen more in those ballots than in the election-night returns. And any backlash to the story will probably be seen in the rural, non-Peninsula counties where Sanders already had the edge.<br />
<br />
2. If I were the Sanders campaign, I'd be putting people down in Yakima right now. With 10,000 EBOH, an 81.37% VCR (!!!), and a 60.12% SMOV, Yakima is the best place for Sanders to pick up key votes. Based on current projections, he will pick up <u>1,647</u> votes out of Yakima; that's nearly as many as Spokane, with only one-third as many EBOH.<br />
<br />
I'll be back in a bit with projections for today's vote totals.Jamiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08202550709521192100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3977914183716953558.post-51997066943108699952010-11-07T20:45:00.000-08:002010-11-07T20:55:39.211-08:00Why this race isn't over yet...Following up on the last post, it occurred to me that this race REALLY isn't over yet. Based on the new SMOVs and VCRs [see <em>Terminology</em> post] from the five counties that reported yesterday, here's how we can expect their EBOH to be allocated:<br />
<br />
<u>Kitsap</u><br />
14,000 EBOH * Nov. 6 VCR (79.87%) = 11,182 votes<br />
11,182 votes * Nov. 6 SMOV (47.22%) = <strong>5,280 +SAND</strong> &<strong> 5,902 +WIGG</strong><br />
= net <u>622</u> new votes for Wiggins<br />
<br />
<u>Pierce</u><br />
13,500 EBOH * Nov. 6 VCR (78.45%) = 10,591 votes<br />
10,591 votes * Nov. 6 SMOV (53.06%) = <strong>5,620 +SAND</strong> &<strong> 4,971 +WIGG</strong><br />
= net <u>649</u> new votes for Sanders<br />
<br />
<u>Snohomish</u><br />
30,000 EBOH * Nov. 6 VCR (77.36%) = 23,208 votes<br />
23,208 votes * Nov. 6 SMOV (50.84%) = <strong>11,799 +SAND</strong> &<strong> 11,409 +WIGG</strong><br />
= net <u>390</u> new votes for Sanders<br />
<br />
<u>Spokane</u><br />
32,000 EBOH * Nov. 6 VCR (71.43%) = 22,858 votes<br />
22,858 votes * Nov. 6 SMOV (53.80%) = <strong>12,297 +SAND</strong> &<strong> 10,560 +WIGG</strong><br />
= net <u>1737</u> new votes for Sanders<br />
<br />
<u>Whatcom</u><br />
12,000 EBOH * Nov. 6 VCR (73.05%) = 8,766 votes<br />
8,766 votes * Nov. 6 SMOV (51.50%) = <strong>4,514 +SAND</strong> &<strong> 4,252 +WIGG</strong><br />
= net <u>262</u> new votes for Sanders<br />
<br />
Given Sanders's current lead of 13,251 (as of 8pm Sunday night), the projected EBOH allocations from these five counties would extend his lead to 15,667. <br />
<br />
Just for kicks, let's add in the remaining three members of the Big Eight [see <em>Terminology</em> post]:<br />
<ul><li><strong>Clark</strong>: 1,750 EBOH * 77.10% VCR = 1,349 votes * 54.13% (SMOV Nov. 5) = net <u>111</u> votes for Sanders.</li>
<li><strong>Thurston</strong>: 6,000 EBOH * 76.88% VCR = 4,613 votes * 48.35% (SMOV Nov. 4 total) = net <u>153</u> votes for Wiggins.</li>
<li><strong>King:</strong> See previous post. We'll assume the low end of what Wiggins should expect, namely <u>19,773</u> votes. (just to make this analysis interesting).</li>
</ul>That gets us to a <u>4,148</u> net vote lead for Wiggins. Now, let's factor in EBOH allocations from the five other counties that may be able to significantly impact the numbers: (all using VCR & SMOV totals from Nov. 4)<br />
<ul><li><strong>Benton:</strong> 7,000 EBOH * 78.68% (VCR) = 5,508 votes * 57.96% (SMOV) = <u>877</u> net votes for Sanders</li>
<li><strong>Grant: </strong>1,500 EBOH * 76.59% (VCR) = 1,149 votes * 65.34% (SMOV) = <u>353</u> net votes for Sanders</li>
<li><strong>Okanogan:</strong> 4,000 EBOH * 74.10% (VCR) = 2,964 votes * 59.00% (SMOV) = <u>534</u> net votes for Sanders</li>
<li><strong>Stevens:</strong> 6,000 EBOH * 74.62% (VCR) = 4,477 votes * 58.32% (SMOV) = <u>745</u> net votes for Sanders</li>
<li><strong>Yakima</strong>: 10,000 EBOH * 82.75% (VCR) = 8,275 votes * 59.78% (SMOV) = <u>1,618</u> net votes for Sanders</li>
</ul>Drum roll please.... that's a <u>21</u> vote victory margin for Wiggins. And none of the remaining counties can realistically swing the vote by more than 200 votes each.<br />
<br />
So what does this mean?<br />
<br />
1. Anyone who says that this race is over is C-R-A-Z-Y.<br />
2. Wiggins cannot win this race unless King performs better than the "low end" of the VCR and SMOV scale. In effect, King now has to offset not only Sanders's current margin but the SMOV gains he will accrue throughout the state.<br />
3. Given the (somewhat) neutral performance of the other Big Eight counties besides King, it looks like Yakima and some of the rural non-Peninsula counties may hold the key for Sanders.<br />
4. Aside from King, the single best thing happening for Wiggins right now is the decline in SMOV in Snohomish and Spokane. If those trends continue -- and if Pierce doesn't completely reverse its SMOV decline since Nov. 4 -- that will help Wiggins substantially.<br />
5. Once again, anyone who says this race is over is crazy. We'll know more tomorrow, but don't get too comfortable.Jamiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08202550709521192100noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3977914183716953558.post-28699627560275060432010-11-07T19:14:00.000-08:002010-11-07T20:56:36.648-08:00A lazy weekend...With only five counties reporting yesterday (Pierce, Snohomish, Spokane, Kitsap, & Whatcom) -- and none reporting today -- this is a good opportunity to catch up on the totals from yesterday and look at some of the other interesting trends in the race.<br />
<br />
The SMOV [see <em>Terminology</em> post] continues to tell the tale. Here's a look at all 5 counties:<br />
<br />
<u>Pierce</u><br />
Nov. 4 SMOV: 54.73% (on 188,274 total votes)<br />
Nov. 5 SMOV: 52.41% (on 10,193 net new votes)<br />
Nov. 6 SMOV: 53.06% (+0.65%) (on 5,194 net new votes)<br />
<br />
<u>Snohomish</u><br />
Nov. 4 SMOV: 52.27% (on 144,798 total votes)<br />
Nov. 5 SMOV: 51.17% (on 22,768 net new votes)<br />
Nov. 6 SMOV: 50.84% (-0.33%) (on 23,332 net new votes)<br />
<br />
<u>Spokane</u><br />
Nov. 4 SMOV: 55.88% (on 92,523 total votes)<br />
Nov. 5 SMOV: 53.86% (on 7,971 net new votes)<br />
Nov. 6 SMOV: 53.80% (-0.06%) (on 15,882 net new votes)<br />
<br />
<u>Kitsap</u><br />
Nov. 4 SMOV: 47.14% (on 61,580 total votes)<br />
Nov. 5 SMOV: 44.62% (on 9,291 net new votes)<br />
Nov. 6 SMOV: 47.22% (+2.60%) (on 2,425 net new votes)<br />
<br />
<u>Whatcom</u><br />
Nov. 4 SMOV: 51.54% (on 49,797 total votes)<br />
Nov. 5 SMOV: 47.00% (on 6,209 net new votes)<br />
Nov. 6 SMOV: 51.50% (+4.50%) (on 2,637 net new votes)<br />
<br />
The good news for the Sanders fans is the sharp uptick in Kitsap and particularly in Whatcom. Whatcom had been leaning (marginally) for Sanders until Friday, so this result conforms a little better with what we had been seeing so far. Of course, the bad news is that Whatcom only has 12,000 ballots remaining. Even assuming that the new SMOV of 51.50% holds, Sanders would only pick up a net gain of 260 to 262 votes (using the VCRs of 72.37% from Friday and 73.05% from Saturday).<br />
<br />
The good news for the Wiggins folks is that SMOV continues to decline in Spokane and Snohomish. Although Sanders still maintains a 53.8% SMOV in Spokane, the 50.84 SMOV in Snohomish effectively neutralizes it as a source for net Sanders votes to counteract the bump that Wiggins will get from King.Jamiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08202550709521192100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3977914183716953558.post-9742436695022811562010-11-06T22:16:00.000-07:002010-11-07T20:57:06.031-08:00Big swing in King County's VCRSince King won't release updated numbers until Monday afternoon, it's worth taking a look to see what's happened over the last couple of days and where things may end up, under several scenarios:<br />
<br />
As of Friday, King had reported 195,000 votes on hand; nevertheless, VCR and SMOV rates [see <em>Terminology</em> post] have both been changing, which could dramatically affect the outcome. Take a look:<br />
<br />
Through Nov. 4, King had a VCR of 74.92% and a SMOV of 42.65%, based on total ballots cast/votes counted. Combining those numbers with the remaining 195,000 ballots, we get:<br />
<br />
195,000 ballots * VCR (74.92%) = 146,094 votes.<br />
146,094 votes * SMOV (42.65%) = <strong>62,309 +SAND</strong> & <strong>83,784 +WIGG</strong><br />
= a net gain of <u>21, 475</u> votes for Wiggins.<br />
<br />
BUT...<br />
<br />
On Nov. 5, King's SMOV dropped to 39.24% (good for Wiggins); however, the VCR also dropped to 68.96% (bad for Wiggins). Using these numbers with the remaining 195,000 ballots, we get:<br />
<br />
195,000 ballots * VCR (68.98%) = 134,511 votes.<br />
134,511 votes * SMOV (39.24%) = <strong>52,782 +SAND</strong> & <strong>81,729 +WIGG</strong><br />
= net gain of <u>28,946</u> votes for Wiggins.<br />
<br />
Obviously, the second scenario, using the latest VCR and SMOV numbers from King, is far preferable for Wiggins. But it certainly seems unlikely that future results will exactly mirror what we saw Friday. So let's look at best-case and worst-case scenarios for Wiggins:<br />
<br />
<u>Best Case</u> (SMOV stays at low Nov. 5 level, VCR returns to Nov. 2-4 avg.)<br />
195,000 ballots * VCR (74.92%) = 146,094 votes.<br />
146,094 votes * SMOV (39.24%) = <strong>57,327 +SAND</strong> &<strong> 88,766 +WIGG</strong><br />
<strong>= </strong>net gain of <u>31,439</u> votes for Wiggins.<br />
<br />
<u>Worst Case</u> (SMOV returns to Nov. 2-4 avg, VCR stays at low Nov. 5 level)<br />
195,000 ballots * VCR (68.98%) = 134,511 votes.<br />
134,511 votes * SMOV (42.65%) = <strong>57,369 +SAND</strong> &<strong> 77,142 +WIGG</strong><br />
<strong>= </strong>net gain of <u>19,773</u> votes for Wiggins.<br />
<br />
Granted, the best & worst case aren't too far off the projections that would have been made solely based on the Nov. 4 totals or the Nov. 5 net new votes. But a difference of nearly 12,000 votes (between best and worst) is well outside the current margin of victory for Sanders, AND it's outside the commonly-projected 7,000-10,000 vote margin of victory that's being projected for Wiggins. <br />
<br />
A difference of 12,000 votes could make all the difference.Jamiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08202550709521192100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3977914183716953558.post-78069396828429473792010-11-06T13:48:00.000-07:002010-11-07T18:53:46.594-08:00Has anyone seen Grant (County)?The way things are going, 1,500 votes could define this race. So to that end - has anyone heard from Grant County or their 1,500 EBOH? They were scheduled to transmit updated vote totals by 4:30pm yesterday, and so far, nothing.<br />
<br />
Grant County has proved to be one of the more solid counties for Sanders. Their VCR of 76.59% is just marginally below the average (76.97%), and they've been supporting the incumbent at a nearly two-to-one clip (SMOV of 65.3%).Jamiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08202550709521192100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3977914183716953558.post-85846368833433242872010-11-05T20:43:00.000-07:002010-11-07T18:48:02.674-08:00Friday: Moving Day for Wiggins?Friday was a big day for Charlie Wiggins. The day began with a Sanders lead of 18,333 votes, and by the close of business, Wiggins had closed the gap to 11,389.<br />
<br />
The biggest gain, unsurprisingly, came from King County, which added a net gain of 11,025 votes for Wiggins. What was surprising was the 648 vote gain that came out of Jefferson County (1,623 +WIGG, 975 +SAND). Jefferson has been the most supportive county -- in percentages, if not in vote totals -- for Wiggins so far: through Thursday, he had accumulated 6,490 of the 10,867 total votes cast (or just under 60%).<br />
<br />
But the real story of Friday was the shift in SMOV ["Sanders Margin of Victory" -- see <em>Terminology</em> post]. In total, there were 11 counties that did not report updated vote totals on Friday; of the 28 that did, 23 showed a decline in SMOV. In other words, although Sanders may have still received more votes than Wiggins in many counties, he was doing so by a much smaller margin than he was previously. <br />
<br />
Let's look at KPSS [see <em>Terminology</em> post] and see how the numbers changed between the Thursday running totals and the Friday net-new votes:<br />
<br />
<u>King County</u><br />
Nov. 4: SMOV was 42.65% on 371,192 total votes.<br />
Nov. 5: SMOV was 39.24% (-3.41%) on 51,229 net new votes.<br />
<br />
<u>Pierce County</u><br />
Nov. 4: SMOV was 54.73% on 188,274 total votes.<br />
Nov. 5: SMOV was 52.41% (-2.32%) on 10,193 net new votes.<br />
<br />
<u>Snohomish County</u><br />
Nov. 4: SMOV was 52.27% on 144,798 total votes.<br />
Nov. 5: SMOV was 51.17% (-1.10%) on 22,768 net new votes.<br />
<br />
<u>Spokane County</u><br />
Nov. 4: SMOV was 55.88% on 92,523 total votes.<br />
Nov. 5: SMOV was 53.86% (-2.02%) on 7,971 net new votes.<br />
<br />
Needless to say, that's a pretty significant drop in support. And we're not talking about a small sample size either. The net new votes represented anywhere from 5-15% of the total votes counted up until that point. So why the sudden drop?<br />
<br />
I won't start speculating as to the reason (too much, anyway). It's not uncommon in <em>any</em> election to see the late absentee/mail-in ballots trending towards one party or another. The party that benefits from that late surge seems to change from election to election (although in recent memory, I've seen that trend favor Democrats/liberals more often than Republicans/conservatives). There are other factors that may have affected the late ballots as well: the reported comments by Sanders that made the front page of the Seattle Times website, and the resulting shift in the Times's endorsement may be two such factors. But regardless of the cause, the trend seems to be present.<br />
<br />
Looking at the rest of the Big Eight:<br />
<ul><li>Clark County bucked the trend. On Nov. 4, SMOV was 52.28% on 106,077 total votes; on Nov. 5, SMOV rose to 54.13% (+1.85%) on 6,654 net new votes.</li>
<li>Thurston County: On Nov. 4 SMOV was 48.35% on 74,428 total votes; on Nov. 5, SMOV fell to 43.71% (-4.64%) on 977 net new votes. At just over 1.3% of the total votes cast thus far, however, 977 is not a statistically significant number.</li>
<li>Kitsap County: On Nov. 4, SMOV was 47.14% on 61,580 total votes; on Nov. 5, SMOV fell to 44.62% (-2.52%) on 9,291 net new votes.</li>
<li>Whatcom County: On Nov. 4, SMOV was 51.54% on 49, 797 total votes; on Nov. 5, SMOV fell to 47.0% (-4.54%) on 6,209 net new votes.</li>
</ul>Further, in looking at the 5 counties that did buck the trend (including Clark county), two of those counties -- Ferry and Wahkiakum -- did so with under 250 net new votes. Further, both counties combined currently account for 3,730 votes in the race.<br />
<br />
Certainly the shifting SMOV may be the focus for the weekend and Monday. If Wiggins continues to benefit from a 2-4% shift in support toward him across the board, Sanders may have serious difficulty holding onto this lead through Monday's returns.Jamiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08202550709521192100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3977914183716953558.post-26181955190463716372010-11-05T17:41:00.000-07:002010-11-07T18:47:31.296-08:00TerminologyBefore I get started, I think it would be helpful if we can all agree on some common abbreviations and terminology. To that end:<br />
<br />
<strong><u>SMOV</u></strong>: Sanders Margin of Victory (%). Within a defined universe of ballots (say, one particular county's ballots on one particular day), it refers to the percentage of ballots cast for Sanders. [Ed. Note: I'm not expressing an ideological preference: as of this posting, Justice Sanders is leading the race; and using the leading candidate makes the math easier.] Accordingly, a SMOV of 51% means that if 100 ballots were cast, Sanders received 51 and Wiggins received 49.<br />
<br />
<strong><u>VCR</u></strong>: Votes Cast in Race (# or %). Not every ballot contains a vote for Sanders or Wiggins. Indeed, on average so far, just under 77% of all ballots cast have contained a vote for either candidate. Some voters may have chosen to write in a candidate -- it's even possible that they may have chosen to write in Sanders or Wiggins, which creates some interesting possibilities (which may be explored in a later blog post). But largely, it's because people chose not to vote in this particular race. They may have been single-issue voters (i.e. the U.S. Senate race), or they may have only cared about the initiatives; I have several friends who only cared about I-1100 and I-1105. Or they may have just stopped at the first page and decided to go do something else. Either way, the VCR% plays a big role in our analysis.<br />
<br />
<strong><u>EBOH</u></strong>: Estimated Ballots on Hand. This refers to the number of ballots that each county is estimating still remains to be counted. EBOH x VCR% would yield the total number of <em>votes</em> that still remain to be allocated between the two candidates. Note that EBOH is not a static number. Each day in which votes are counted should result in a net decreate in the EBOH total, as votes from that category are counted and allocated to the candidates. However, some ballots may be disqualified for any number of reasons; further, disqualified ballots may be later added back to the EBOH pile if they are later verified by affidavit. Furthermore, ballots may still be arriving, which would increase the EBOH total. Although most of these ballots will be disqualified for being postmarked after election day, some may be from overseas military voters or may be correctly postmarked and will be counted.<br />
<br />
<strong><u>SAND</u></strong> or <strong><u>WIGG</u></strong>: I sometimes refer to the candidates as SAND or WIGG for short. I intend no disrespect.<br />
<br />
<strong><u>KPS</u></strong>: A reference to King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties, the three largest counties in Washington in terms of registered voters. There are 3,601,152 registered voters (as of Election Day 2010) in Washington; King has 1,069,791 (29.71%), Pierce has 410,081 (11.39%); and Snohomish has 377,739 (10.49%), for a total of <strong>51.58% </strong>of all registered voters in Washington.<br />
<br />
<strong><u>KPSS</u></strong>: Same as KPS, but add Spokane county; it has 261, 250 (7.25%). KPSS together has <strong>58.84%</strong> of the total registered voters in Washington.<br />
<br />
<strong><u>KPSSCTKW</u></strong>, or <strong><u>THE BIG EIGHT</u></strong>: Yes, this probably seems a little ridiculous, but stay with me. Same as KPSS, but now add the counties of Clark (219,616, 6.10%), Thurston (149,024, 4.14%), Kitsap (143,796, 3.99%), and Whatcom (116,576, 3.24%). The Big Eight are the counties with over 100,000 registered voters each, and together, they comprise <strong>76.31%</strong> of the total registered voters in Washington. [Ed. Note: Yakima is very close to joining this club at 99,568; sorry Yakimanians, I had to draw the line somewhere. Go sign up 432 more voters, and you're in! (next time)]Jamiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08202550709521192100noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3977914183716953558.post-29645722282596133502010-11-05T15:20:00.000-07:002010-11-07T20:46:30.749-08:00Welcome & About Me...Welcome to this hastily-created blog! If you're reading this, you probably know that the sixth position on the Washington State Supreme Court is the prize at stake in the heavyweight election contest between Justice Richard Sanders (incumbent) and appellate attorney Charlie Wiggins (challenger).<br />
<br />
The election was held five nights ago, and we still do not have a winner. As the vote totals continue to see-saw between both candidates, those of us who are interested in this race are beginning to see fascinating trends. I hope to bring you up-to-the-minute information on these trends and some educated predictions as new results are posted from each county. I hope you'll continue reading this blog. I will certainly continue posting to it.<br />
<br />
As for me, I'm a second-year law student (2L) at Seattle University with a healthy interest in elections and an unhealthy interest in statistics. I could never claim to have the gravitas of Nate Silver (<a href="http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/">http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/</a>) or any other true political statistician, but I hope you'll derive some value from my bumbling amateurism. Incidentally, if you happen to be a statistics person and would like to become a contributor on the blog, please e-mail me!Jamiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08202550709521192100noreply@blogger.com0