As of this morning, Oregon and Washington voters have returned more ballots than they did in the 2016 election.
Turnout among eligible voters is also on track to surpass 2016 in both states. Call me biased, but I think Oregon voter turnout (among VEP) will come out on top…
Ballot returns in Oregon close at 8:00 PM PST today; any ballots received after that are too late to be counted. Drop sites in Washington close at 8:00 as well, and ballots with postmarks by November 3rd will be counted as they arrive at county elections offices across the state over the next few days.
After a surge of ballots returned last week, this week we saw the number of ballots returned daily in Oregon drop to about the same rate as they were returned in previous years. Still ahead of us, however, are the three days when turnout has historically been the highest: Friday, Monday, and Tuesday. In previous years, around a quarter of all ballots have been received by elections offices on Election Day.
Turnout in Multnomah County reached 60% of all registered voters on Thursday, a mark that wasn’t hit until the day before the election in 2016 and 2012. This is especially notable in the context of the implementation of automatic voter registration in 2016. Since the last presidential election, Multnomah County has added 66,000 voters to the rolls, totaling 570,000 registered voters. From 2015 to 2019, the county only gained 20,000 new residents according to the U.S. Census. Statewide, we’ve gained 400,000 new voters (up to nearly 3 million) with a population increase of only 200,000. Voter rolls have expanded faster than population, so high turnout this year among registered voters is doubly impressive in Oregon.
Washington is also running quite far “ahead of schedule” on ballot returns. The state has already received more ballots than had been received by Election Day in 2016.
In all of these cases, it’ll certainly be interesting to see whether the next few days of ballot returns will be as large as they have been in previous cycles. If so, we could see record voter turnout in the Pacific Northwest for 2020.
Paul Manson ’01 and Heather Creek
Election administrators face many headwinds in 2020. The confluence of an international pandemic and a historic presidential election has created numerous challenges for local election officials (LEOs). These administrators have navigated rapidly changing state rules and expectations about early and absentee voting, changes to the availability of traditional polling places and poll workers, and voters eager to participate in the 2020 election but with many questions of how and when to vote safely.
The third annual Local Election Official Survey – a nationally representative survey of 857 chief local election administrators conducted between July and October 2020 – explored these challenges. In the responses from LEOs we heard a pair of themes: election administrators are confident they can tackle these challenges, but key obstacles give them pause. Their confidence and challenges vary based on the size of the jurisdiction and the other demands on the LEO as a local administrator. With this in mind, let’s first meet our 2020 LEOs and understand the unique context of this year’s election and how it has impacted how they conduct their work.
Who are our Stewards of Democracy?
Our reporting on LEOs has referred to these administrators as the “Stewards of Democracy.” These public servants caretake the institutions that make our elections function and undergird our democracy. In the US, over 8,000 local government officials administer our elections (mostly at the county level, but nine states administer elections at the “minor civil division” level, e.g. townships and municipalities). Half of these officials are elected, while the other half are appointed to serve or are civil servants. Whether elected or appointed, LEOs carefully walk a line advocating for the rights of voters, while staying above the political fray.
Most election officials serve in small jurisdictions with less than 25,000 voters. Many of these smaller jurisdiction officials are part-time. Importantly in the COVID-19 environment, offices that serve 100,000 or less voters tend to employ 5 or fewer employees. This means that backup staffing may be a challenge if infections occur or are suspected in employees in these offices.
A LEO from a small jurisdiction in the Mid-Atlantic region said, “Election offices on the local level should have more support. We are expected to give a herculean effort without the proper resources in space, employees, and equipment. We sacrifice our own health in order to make sure everything goes smoothly. Last minute changes such as moving an election, invalidating a law that has been in place too close to the election, and expecting us to be IT experts causes all kinds of chaos and uncertainty.”
For many of these smaller jurisdictions, elections are not the primary source of workload for the official; they are also tasked with a diverse array of responsibilities in addition to elections. They are often local clerks, recorders, or town administrators who may also manage council meetings, record property transactions, or issue a wide range of official licenses.
At the same time, a small subset of election officials serve the majority of voters in the US. While 75 percent of LEOs serve 8 percent of voters, 8 percent of LEOs serve 75 percent of US voters. In these larger jurisdictions, LEOs are generally appointed or civil servants. Only 18 percent of the largest jurisdictions elect their LEOs.
This creates a dynamic where the experience of LEOs is at once very similar in the challenges they face, but very unique between the many small jurisdictions and the few very large jurisdictions. It is also the case that, in this year, thousands of LEOs in the smaller jurisdictions are also in two key battleground states – Michigan and Wisconsin. This raises one note of caution: while a large majority of LEOs are confident in their ability to overcome the challenges of election administration in 2020, problems that impact only a few jurisdictions could cause concerns at a national level if they occur in large jurisdictions with many voters or in states with a close race.
How do LEOs respond to the challenges of 2020?
COVID-19 has resulted in 88 percent of respondents needing to adjust their plans for the 2020 General Election to account for public safety and accommodate changing preferences for voting in-person or by mail. One hundred percent of LEOs from the largest jurisdictions reported adjusting their plans in light of the pandemic. Despite these changes, LEOs report finding helpful support from their state association of local election officials, state election boards or leaders, as well as information from local and state health officials.
Many officials feel quite confident in their ability to manage during this challenging situation. Ninety-four percent of LEOs indicated they were confident or very confident that they will be prepared to administer a safe, secure, and accessible election in November. In response to a question asking what change they wish they could make to improve elections, an official from a small jurisdiction in an Intermountain West state noted that they do not need any changes, saying, “I believe our state has the processes down to a science. Our elections are incredibly fair, secure, and accurate.”
Though officials are generally confident in their abilities to manage the election, the survey captured how election officials are responding to specific challenges of implementing in-person voting and mail voting during the pandemic.
Overall, LEOs report that they will have sufficient access to polling places, although respondents from the larger jurisdictions with over 250,000 registered voters are less confident than officials in smaller jurisdictions. LEOs from the larger jurisdictions are 60 percent confident or very confident that they will have sufficient polling places compared to 90 percent among the smaller jurisdictions (with fewer than 25,000 voters). Most of this concern is due to COVID-19 potentially impacting traditional locations for polling places. LEOs are confident they will have enough access to personal protective equipment (PPE).
The primary obstacle for my county is the lack of secure, ADA accessible, facilities that can be used for early voting and election day. Ideally, we would use schools but they are unavailable. Worse, our civic center is under construction and unavailable. In the Primary, I was so desperate I used the football stadium. Even that is unavailable this fall. I want people to vote by mail so that our limited in-person capability does not get overwhelmed.
– LEO from a large jurisdiction in the Southeast
Poll worker concerns are similarly different between the largest and smallest jurisdictions. Eleven percent of LEOs from the largest jurisdictions are not at all confident they can recruit a sufficient number of poll workers. Notably, for jurisdictions with more than 25,000 but less than 100,000 voters, 21 percent of LEOs reported not being confident at all they can recruit sufficient poll workers. However, this situation has improved nationwide, as organizations mobilized a new workforce of poll workers. Some jurisdictions report that so many people have volunteered to be poll workers that they have a reserve workforce in case replacements are needed.
Still, constraints on polling locations and polling place workers in 2020 mean that voters in some jurisdictions will experiences changes. These findings suggest voters should be prepared to vote in different locations than they have in prior elections, as well as experiencing longer lines and wait times to vote.
All indications are that voting by mail/absentee balloting will increase substantially in this election. Mail voting challenges from COVID-19 stem from concerns about timelines to manage and process a higher volume of mail ballots as well as voter awareness of USPS delivery times.
A Midwestern LEO from a mid-size jurisdiction said, “[My state] needed to adjust the deadline for requesting an absentee ballot by mail from the Saturday before the Election to a week before the Election. The State should not be setting unrealistic goals that the post office cannot comply with.”
A LEO from a mid-size jurisdiction in a Western state focused on the voter education needed this year, saying that one change that would improve the election would be to “develop an effective Voter Education campaign that builds understanding of the Vote-by-Mail timelines and processes in place. To help voters understand that they can help the process to be its best by returning their ballot in a timely fashion by mail and then knowing when it is time to use a ballot drop box rather than the USPS to return their completed ballot.”
In general, LEOs are confident they have the time and staff to manage higher levels of mail ballot application and the resources to print and process mail ballots and envelopes. Where there is less confidence, it centers around voter knowledge of the process and timeline for voting by mail. Overall 16 percent shared they are not at all confident that there is sufficient time for voters to request, receive and return ballots. Related to this, 23 percent are not at all confident that voters are aware of USPS delivery times in their community.
Again, confidence varies by the size of the jurisdiction. Medium and large jurisdictions have less confidence than small jurisdictions that their voters are sufficiently informed about the USPS delivery times. They are also somewhat less confident that their state’s timeline for requesting, sending, and returning mail ballots will not be sufficient to accommodate expanded demand in 2020.
Note that questions about LEO confidence in their ability to handle vote-by-mail were only asked of officials in states that did not already offer mail ballots to all of their voters. Officials in Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah, and Washington did not receive these questions.
For more information about the 2020 LEO survey methodology and the full survey questionnaire, visit the survey project page at EVIC.
Key Findings:
COVID-19 has required almost all Local Election Officials (LEOs) to adjust their plans for the 2020 General Election. In spite of these challenges, 94 percent of LEOs indicated they were confident or very confident that they will be prepared to administer a safe, secure, and accessible election in November.
Access to polling places is somewhat of a concern, and varies by jurisdiction size. Overall, 87 percent of respondents are confident or very confident they can access sufficient polling places. However, among the largest jurisdictions, confidence drops to 60 percent.
Voters may need to be prepared to locate new polling places. While 63 percent of LEOs report they are very confident that they will be able to use their usual and traditional polling places, 15 percent are only somewhat confident or not at all confident. Late breaking polling place consolidation and closures can be a significant problem if voters are not aware of the new locations.
Over half of local election officials feel confident they can obtain poll workers. Overall, 65 percent of LEOs report being confident or very confident they can recruit sufficient poll workers. This confidence is consistent across all jurisdictions, though the smallest are more likely to be very confident. This situation has improved nationwide as organizations outside of government – including corporations, nonprofits, and faith groups – mobilize a younger workforce of poll workers during a year in which a traditionally older population of poll workers does not feel safe working at the polls.
In states with absentee or mail voting options, there are concerns about the timeline for processing ballots and the level of voter awareness on USPS delivery times for ballots. Sixteen percent of LEOs were not at all confident that the timeline for requesting, sending, and returning mail ballots is sufficient to accommodate expanded demand. 23 percent of LEOs indicated they are not at all confident that voters are sufficiently informed on the USPS standard delivery times.
Oregonians are eager to vote in the upcoming November 3 election. As of the morning of October 21, nearly 2 weeks before Election Day, almost 500,000 of the 3 million registered voters in the state have already returned their ballot. This is 24% of the 2 million ballots cast in the 2016 general election.
Note here that the data updates in the morning each day, so a full day of ballot collection has not yet been logged for today (13 days before Election Day).
17% of registered voters have already cast their ballots, compared to 8% at this point in 2016 and 6% in 2012.
Oregon’s first-in-the-nation automatic voter registration has registered more eligible voters over time than would have ordinarily registered since its implementation in 2016, and some of these new registrants are unlikely to vote. When political scientists measure voter turnout, they tend to use more stable denominators such as the voting-age population (VAP) or voting-eligible population (VEP), the latter of which discounts residents who are ineligible because they are in prison or are not citizens. Dr. Michael McDonald, of the University of Florida, publishes estimates of the VAP and VEP in the lead-up to each election. Since voter registration in Oregon has increased in a way that is incomparable to other states and previous elections, we also calculate voter turnout as a percentage of VEP.
In 2012 and 2016, we saw about 80% of registered voters cast ballots in the November general elections. What remains unseen this year is whether this increase is a sign that more Oregonians will turn out to vote, or if turnout will be similar but more voters are returning their ballots early on. In previous years, almost a quarter of all ballots cast arrived at election offices across the state on Election Day.
The contest for position 4 in Portland City Council is highly competitive, and recent polling shows the challenger, Mingus Mapps with a nine point lead over Commissioner Chloe Eudaly, but with 40% of the electorate reporting that they are undecided, this race will go all the way to the wire.
In our last post, “Visualizing the Position 4 City Council Race,” we conducted a geo-spatial analysis of the May 2020 primary to try to understand the candidate dynamics in a competitive primary. The data we examined showed that Mapps has some advantages in the November run. Precincts that showed comparatively higher levels of support for Sam Adams were more similar to precincts that showed higher level of support for Mapps than those which were centers of strength for Eudaly.
From those results, we hypothesized that most of the voters who supported Adams would cast a ballot for Mapps. At first blush, this would seem to make this Mapps’s race to lose.
However, the primary is a different animal than the general. Primary turnout was just over 40%, while the November turnout is projected to be over 80% (if not higher) in Oregon. This historic level of turnout and interest in the 2020 election means that projecting the November electorate is a critical part of projecting the November outcome.
In this post we will explore the 2016 race that launched Chloe Eudaly’s political career. The patterns in that race hold some good news for Chloe Eudaly’s reelection effort in 2020.
Looking Back to the November 2016 Surprise
In the May 2016 primary, there were just under 169,000 votes cast in the primary, which for this position featured sitting commissioner Steve Novick.
Novick almost ran the table in the May primary, winning a plurality or outright majority in all but two of the 81 precincts. He came very close to a majority, but didn’t get over the threshold, triggering a run-off against the (distant) second place finisher: Chloe Eudaly.
Looking at these facts, it would seem that Novick’s victory in the general would be nearly a sure thing. As we all know, that’s not what transpired.
In November, over 260,000 votes were cast in the contest – an increase of nearly 100,000 54% higher turnout). When the votes were tallied, Eudaly had won a convincing victory with 54.4% of the vote. What happened?
There is little doubt that many factors combined to give Eudaly the win. Novick at times did not appear to take the Eudaly candidacy seriously, and the 2016 election was also a bad time for establishment figures across the country. By any measure, however, this was what the Portland Mercury described it, a “very rare win.”
One thing we do know for certain: the turnout increase between the 2016 primary and the 2016 general favored Eudaly. Precincts that saw the largest increases in turnout between the two contests were (on average) also the precincts that Eudaly performed best in during the primary. In short, Eudaly’s campaign was able to generate more enthusiasm and more turnout precisely in those areas where here support was strongest.
Beyond the precinct level effect, we have good reason to suspect that individually, the mix of voters who turn out in the general were better suited to Eudaly’s campaign than were primary voters.
For instance, Eudaly’s platform placed strong emphasis on expanding tenants’ rights – an issue that disproportionately affects younger people. When we compare the increase in turnout (from primary to general) across age groups, we find that the gap is largest among those in their 30s and 40s and smallest among older voters. This younger group is also more left-leaning than their senior counterparts, and this tendency also likely played a role in Eudaly’s upset.
Looking Forward to November 2020
For our purposes, there are three groups of voters that are relevant to the November election. The first is the group of voters that voted in the primary for either of the candidates who made it to the run-off (“Primary Mapps/Eudaly Voters”). In 2016, this was 58% of primary voters, and in 2020, the figure was similar – 60%. Since primary voters tend to be more politically involved and informed, we expect that these voters will overwhelmingly stick with their primary choices come November, giving a kind of baseline support for each.
The second group is those voters who voted in the primary for a candidate other than the candidate in the run-off (“Primary other voters”). Since virtually all primary voters vote in the general (97% of the 2016 primary voters according to the voter history file) we can safely assume that nearly everyone in this group will be casting a ballot in the November election. Most of these voters supported Sam Adams in the primary. That, along with the demographic trends we noted in the previous post, suggests that this group will be, on the whole, favorable to Mapps.
The final group is made up of the voters who did not vote in May but will vote in November (“General only voters.”). As discussed above, we feel that a number of factors make this group likely to split for Eudaly. We can also make a reasonably confident guess about the size of this group. In 2016, the primary to general turnout increase was about 100,000 voters. We think the turnout increase in 2020 will be similar but slightly larger (in keeping with national polling suggesting a modest increase in voter turnout compared to 2016).
Although we can make some educated guesses about how these two groups will vote, without more detailed data it is extremely difficult to create any precise estimates. Instead, we created an interactive visualization that allows the user to input guesses for the ‘swing’ among these two groups and see how this will change how the race plays out. So, a “General only Eudaly Swing” of +15 points means that in each precinct, Eudaly will perform 15 points better among the “General only” group than she did in that precinct’s primary election.
If you move the sliders, you can simulate different turnout scenarios. The simulation shows that the swing toward Mapps among “Primary other” voters needs to be much larger than the swing toward Eudaly among “General only” voters for Mapps to win.
This is a combination of two effects. One, the “General only” group is expected to be substantially larger than the “Primary other” group (110,000 voters compared to 71,000). Second, the precincts which are expected to see the largest increase in turnout tend to be very favorable to Eudaly. This means that November swings will benefit Eudaly more than Mapps since her baseline performance is much higher in the precincts where most of the turnout increase is expected to happen.
Although this aspect is good news for Eudaly, the major takeaway should be that this race is very much in contention. Case in point: the first public polling on the race was released recently found Mapps with a big 41% to 25% lead. That leaves nearly 35% undecided–these are the voters that both candidates will be running at over the next two weeks.
Special thanks to Brad Schmidt and John Horvick who reacted to the original posting and provided insights to Canyon Foot ’20, EVIC Election Science Fellow for the 2020-2021 year.
Nice history and overview of the system, by Jen Kirby:
Oregon already votes by mail. Here’s what it can teach us in 2020.
“It’s possible but unlikely that states such as Arizona, which already have a large percentage of voters on a list to automatically receive a ballot, could expand the practice, said Paul Gronke, a political science professor at Reed College and director of the Early Voting Information Center.”
By Phil Keisling, who served as Oregon Secretary of State from 1991-99. The opinions and observations are solely his own views, and he takes full personal responsibility for any errors of fact, not to mention any predictions that prove wildly inaccurate!
During much of 2020, I’ve been promoting efforts to expand voter access to mailed out ballots, and to encourage states to adopt the “Vote at Home” model pioneered by Oregon, Colorado, and Washington, where 100% of active registered voters are automatically mailed their ballots.
Largely due to the Covid-19 pandemic, 92 million voters this year received mailed out ballots — compared to just 42 million in 2016.
Some of you have asked what all this might mean for tonight’s election. How — and even whether — will these votes will be counted? How might the vote tallies tonight (and even later this week) change as votes are processed, counted and announced in key states’ widely varying election systems? So I thought I might share a few brief thoughts, which I’ve distilled into three categories:
I. The Three Things I’m guardedly Optimistic About
1) Record shattering turnout. Through Monday, more than 100 million votes had already been cast in the 50 states. If only 53 million additional voters show up at today’s polling places, the turnout of eligible citizens will be 64%. While this would still mean over 80 million non-voters, it would be far higher than the 139 million (60% of eligibles) who voted in 2016 – and make this the highest turnout election since the “only men eligible” contest of 1908.
I think the data suggests turnout could go even higher, perhaps closer to 160 million. And it’s not irrelevant that there will be sunny skies and mid-50s and higher temperatures in almost every key battleground state today.
2) Notable shifts among key demographic groups. There are four large cohorts whose views I’ve followed closely in the pre-election polling. In each case, the changes (viz CNN’s 2016 exit polls) bode well for Democratic prospects tonight:
Of course, what ultimately matters in the presidential contest is how these and other key groups end up voting in key Electoral College states.
3) (Relatively) Empty polling places. So many voters have already cast their votes, either with mailed out ballots or through EIPV voting, that even with 60 million Election Day voters, most polling places will have far less foot traffic than is typical. This should translate into generally shorter lines – assuming no major voting equipment failures!
This has two potential implications. While Election Day voters will clearly break in Trump’s favor –as his supporters largely bought into his anti-mail voting tirades – in some key states there may simply be too few Election Day voters to overcome the large leads Democrats have already racked up in the pre-Election Day votes. (Millions of mailed out ballots will also be returned on Election Day, deposited at Election Offices, in drop boxes, and even (where allowed) at polling places).
Second, the Republicans’ “Get out the Vote” (GOTV) efforts on Election Day will need to focus far more on simply ensuring that their “base” voters actually get to the polls today. This year, Democrats have the relative “luxuries” of being able to target far fewer of their base voters – and focus more on “lower propensity” voters that otherwise might not have voted at all.
II. What I Don’t Worry (Much) About
1) The “Red Mirage” problem. In 3 key battleground states — Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan — Republican state legislators ignored the pleas of local election officials and refused to allow the tallying of most mail ballots until Election Day. This has led to high anxiety that as the Election Day polling place votes are announced on Election Night, Trump’s dominance among these voters will give him a clear, but artificially large, lead – that he’ll then use as a pretext to declare himself the winner based on a partial count of the legally cast votes.
While not implausible, such scenarios should be seen as relatively low probability once one understands the actual mechanics of how mailed out (and received) ballots are handled in these (and all other) states. It’s the processing of received mailed-out ballots — validating them for such things as signatures on the return envelope; taking the actual ballots out of the envelopes, etc — that’s the potential bottleneck here. The actual counting of the ballots goes very quickly, as they’re typically run through relatively inexpensive, high-speed ballot counting machines.
Election officials in these three key states learned some important lessons from their “slow count” experiences in their earlier primary contests. Especially in the larger, predominantly Democratic counties, they’ve worked to implement better processes, and hired and trained hundreds of workers to start processing ballots beginning early today. (In Michigan, the bigger counties were given an extra 24 hours, so they could start yesterday).
Some of these counties also installed high speed processing equipment to greatly speed their processing tasks. And in closely-fought Pennsylvania, election officials need only verify the existence of a voter’s signature, rather than take the time to match it against voter registration records.
The bottom line: even in these 3 states, many – and perhaps even more than half — of mailed ballots will be counted in time (by poll closing) to be reflected in the initial results announced in these three battleground states. While an announced tally that includes 90% or more of received mail ballots may not be possible by noon on Wednesday – though it might happen in Wisconsin — it’s likely to be the case within 24-48 hours of the polls closing tonight.
Only if a contest is exceedingly close — e.g., 50.4% to 49.6% — might Election Night stretch well into “Election Week” to resolve who seems to have won. And since an even closer, razor-thin contest –and one which could determine the Presidency and/or control of the U.S. Senate — would likely lead to a recount, that would likely take until December to officially resolve. And that could happen, even in a normal year, in a state where virtually no mail ballots were involved.
A second reason I’m less concerned about the “Red mirage” problem: “Blue mirages” may be even more common in the initial returns tonight.
Far more key battleground states – among them FL, NC, IA, MN, TX, GA, OH, AZ, SC — allow much earlier processing of mail ballots. (Some of them, including GA, FL, NC, and TX, also have seen large amounts of early in person voting).
In these states, the initial tranche of announced results will disproportionately include these already cast ballots. That will likely give Biden and other Democrats an artificially large lead in some states. (Pay close attention to Iowa, North Carolina, and Texas, in this regard). Those leads will then shrink as Election Day polling place votes come in – and perhaps disappear altogether.
They key in all these states is to temper both hopes and fears until it’s generally clear how many total votes were actually cast in a key state — i.e, early votes plus Election Day ballots – so that any predictions or projections can be judged accordingly. “Just how many cast ballots aren’t reflected in current totals? What types of ballots – and from where – are they?” are two of the key questions we should all be asking as we follow the returns.
2). “The “Halt the Election” scenario. I’m admittedly not an attorney, but speaking as a former state election official, I think the legal theory that would back up any Trump demand to “stop the count” on Election Night is utterly laughable. No responsible jurist should give it the time of day.
Candidate victory declarations and concessions — not to mention journalists’ pronouncements — are utterly irrelevant as to when an election is “decided.” All 50 states have laws that provide for official certification of final results, typically 15-30 days after November 3rd, to ensure all ballots properly voted are counted. (Many of these late-arriving ballots come from overseas military personnel, incidentally).
Serious journalists could do all of us a favor by simply ignoring the reckless utterings by Trump and others of such nonsense.
III. My One (Lingering) Worry
Even with a remarkable advantage in 2020, I do worry that my fellow Democrats (yet again) will fall far short in today’s key “Get Out the Vote” GOTV efforts, allowing today’s Election Day voters to prove even more skewed towards the Republican side than expected. Trump is expected to carry many counties by 2:1 or even 4:1 margins among Election Day voters. What might the cumulative effect be if turnout in these precincts isn’t a record-high 80% of registered voters, but more like 90% or higher?
As noted earlier, Democrats before have convinced far more of their base voters to cast ballots prior to Election Day. Their remaining “universe” of base voters to turn out is thus far smaller than the Republicans’. On Election Day, this should allow Democrats in key battleground states to concentrate far more on “lower propensity” voters likely to break their way– a group that’s disproportionately composed of younger, minority, and non-affiliated voters than the general electorate.
Will the D’s GOTV ground game – certainly made more complicated with Covid-19 – manage to motivate not just the bulk of their remaining, identified supporters, but reach deep into the ranks of those voters who might simply vote out of a “Biden sucks less than Trump” worldview? Over the decades, I’ve too often seen Democrats (more than Republicans) put too little time and effort into voters if they’re not sufficiently sure they’re true supporters.
When all the election dust finally settles, an “anti-Trump” vote can be just as good as an enthusiastic Biden vote. And even if millions of voters end up leaving a blank spot on the presidential line, each of those ballots cast is still a “net gain” for record voter turnout – and American democracy.