But I think there was a key "missed opportunity" here that Democrats could have spent far more effort on -- and at far less cost than the barrage of ads and fundraising commissions (!) gobbled up.
Look at the paltry percent of even Democrats who voted with a mailed out ballot in District 1: just 13,000 Ds voted this way out.
As we know that most voters who bother to request a mail ballot -- or sign up for a "semi permanent status for an election cycle -- are pretty motivated, I'm going to guess that this represented roughly a 60-65% return rate of those who received these ballots.
So I'll estimate that 20,000 registered Ds requested such a ballot -- of 118,000 total registered Dss.
Yes, this is about 17% of registered Ds -- and applying the same assumptions to the Rs and the NPAs, it's roughly TRIPLE their rates.
But that also means that among the remaining 100,000 Ds, 65% were no-shows, either for early voting (EIPV) or Election Day Polling Place (EDPP voting).
And even though your analysis shows that in this election NPAs clearly broke for the Ds in both races, their no-show rate (using the same 60% assumption for mail ballot requesters) was closer to 85%.
And here's where the missed opportunity comes in.
Before DeSantis' and the Rs passed the terrible bill to force voters who were on the "permanent absentee ballot" list to sign up again every two years -- the last cycle started over on January 1, 2025 -- probably 35-40% of all voters in these 2 districts would have received mailed out ballots.
It's well known what a huge drop in sign ups has happened in FL, and far more among Rs than Ds who know full well how poorly Trump things about mail ballots.
But that's EXACTLY why the Ds had such a remarkable opportunity here. Specifically, what if they'd seriously tried to get 20 to 30,000 MORE of their voters to apply for mailed out ballot -- and btw, such an application would keep such ballots coming in the mail through November 2026 under the new law.
And if they'd targeted mid to lower propensity registered D and D-leaning NPA voters -- e.g regular presidential or midterm votes who normally might be at risk of "skipping" a special -- wouldn't the odds of those voters actually casting a ballot be 2x or even higher than the odds compared to their having to schlep to a polling place?
Would 60% of 20-30K D ballots -- at a 60% return rate, translating into 12 to 18,000 more votes for Valimont and Weil -- have flipped these seats? No, as both lost by about 25,000 votes. Had the goal been 40-50K more targeted voters to sign up for such ballots -- literally, that would still mean only half of all D votes even without D-leaning NPAs -- and now we'd be in striking range.
There was a genuine opportunity here to have "field tested" a strategy that, had it been well focused and planned -- with a combination of skilled field staff and volunteers to convince voters to "return" to their old ways of voting, and then to follow up to make sure ballots were received and counted -- arguably would have been far more cost-effective than a lot of what was spent in these two races.
Of course, hindsight is always 20/20, and kudos to both candidates, especially Valimont who spectacularly over performed in a 37+ Trump district. I'm observing from a great distance, and I don't want to detract in any way from the amazing hard work of so many volunteers and staff that made both of these races far more competitive than many expected.
But I really do think these races could have been even closer -- and perhaps presents a potential lesson for other special election contests down the road.
And to paraphrase the late Robert F Kennedy SENIOR "Some look at things and ask Why? I look at things that could have been, and say "Why not?"
Matt, as always, I appreciate your analyses. We worked hard here in St Johns and helped out a bit in Northern Flagler. I'm super interested in the Precinct analysis when it's available. Curious, are you considering a futures prediction at all based on Voter Registration trends? And perhaps some educated thoughts on how to address them? Thanks, Geoff
Matt -- Terrific analysis, as always.
But I think there was a key "missed opportunity" here that Democrats could have spent far more effort on -- and at far less cost than the barrage of ads and fundraising commissions (!) gobbled up.
Look at the paltry percent of even Democrats who voted with a mailed out ballot in District 1: just 13,000 Ds voted this way out.
As we know that most voters who bother to request a mail ballot -- or sign up for a "semi permanent status for an election cycle -- are pretty motivated, I'm going to guess that this represented roughly a 60-65% return rate of those who received these ballots.
So I'll estimate that 20,000 registered Ds requested such a ballot -- of 118,000 total registered Dss.
Yes, this is about 17% of registered Ds -- and applying the same assumptions to the Rs and the NPAs, it's roughly TRIPLE their rates.
But that also means that among the remaining 100,000 Ds, 65% were no-shows, either for early voting (EIPV) or Election Day Polling Place (EDPP voting).
And even though your analysis shows that in this election NPAs clearly broke for the Ds in both races, their no-show rate (using the same 60% assumption for mail ballot requesters) was closer to 85%.
And here's where the missed opportunity comes in.
Before DeSantis' and the Rs passed the terrible bill to force voters who were on the "permanent absentee ballot" list to sign up again every two years -- the last cycle started over on January 1, 2025 -- probably 35-40% of all voters in these 2 districts would have received mailed out ballots.
It's well known what a huge drop in sign ups has happened in FL, and far more among Rs than Ds who know full well how poorly Trump things about mail ballots.
But that's EXACTLY why the Ds had such a remarkable opportunity here. Specifically, what if they'd seriously tried to get 20 to 30,000 MORE of their voters to apply for mailed out ballot -- and btw, such an application would keep such ballots coming in the mail through November 2026 under the new law.
And if they'd targeted mid to lower propensity registered D and D-leaning NPA voters -- e.g regular presidential or midterm votes who normally might be at risk of "skipping" a special -- wouldn't the odds of those voters actually casting a ballot be 2x or even higher than the odds compared to their having to schlep to a polling place?
Would 60% of 20-30K D ballots -- at a 60% return rate, translating into 12 to 18,000 more votes for Valimont and Weil -- have flipped these seats? No, as both lost by about 25,000 votes. Had the goal been 40-50K more targeted voters to sign up for such ballots -- literally, that would still mean only half of all D votes even without D-leaning NPAs -- and now we'd be in striking range.
There was a genuine opportunity here to have "field tested" a strategy that, had it been well focused and planned -- with a combination of skilled field staff and volunteers to convince voters to "return" to their old ways of voting, and then to follow up to make sure ballots were received and counted -- arguably would have been far more cost-effective than a lot of what was spent in these two races.
Of course, hindsight is always 20/20, and kudos to both candidates, especially Valimont who spectacularly over performed in a 37+ Trump district. I'm observing from a great distance, and I don't want to detract in any way from the amazing hard work of so many volunteers and staff that made both of these races far more competitive than many expected.
But I really do think these races could have been even closer -- and perhaps presents a potential lesson for other special election contests down the road.
And to paraphrase the late Robert F Kennedy SENIOR "Some look at things and ask Why? I look at things that could have been, and say "Why not?"
Matt, as always, I appreciate your analyses. We worked hard here in St Johns and helped out a bit in Northern Flagler. I'm super interested in the Precinct analysis when it's available. Curious, are you considering a futures prediction at all based on Voter Registration trends? And perhaps some educated thoughts on how to address them? Thanks, Geoff