The "how I will be watching the election results" thread

[vimothy]

You probably have to check out his site. It's highly recommended.

Rich voters vote Republican. Poor voters vote Democrat. That's the trend. However, in rich states, socio-economic status no longer predicts partisan alignment to the same degree.

He crunched U.S. survey and election data as far back as 1952 ... and discovered that the economic status of individuals and the economic conditions of each state as a whole lead to two different conclusions: on the one hand, the less wealthy a voter is, the more likely the voter is to cast a ballot for a Democrat; the better-off the voter, the more likely he or she is to vote Republican. Yet states with a higher average income are more likely to support a Democratic presidential candidate...
​

EDIT: Also this and this.

 

[matt b]

ok, i'll look at the gelman stuff tomorrow, but:
"
Obama, like other Democrats, continued to have difficulty winning the support of less affluent whites. Among whites with incomes of $50,000 or less, Obama lost by a slight margin, 48-50. Among whites without college degrees, Obama lost decisively to McCain, 41-58. Whites with college degrees were split, 49-50"

from the latter link above- interesting?

 

[crackerjack]

ok, i'll look at the gelman stuff tomorrow, but:
"
Obama, like other Democrats, continued to have difficulty winning the support of less affluent whites. Among whites with incomes of $50,000 or less, Obama lost by a slight margin, 48-50. Among whites without college degrees, Obama lost decisively to McCain, 41-58. Whites with college degrees were split, 49-50"

from the latter link above- interesting?

So the most likely to vote republican is a white earning more than $50,000 without a college degree. That rules out Sam-Joe the unlicensed Plumber-Singer.

 

[vimothy]

(I guess this graph is 2004?)

 

[scottdisco]

can i just raise a glass to Rahm Emanuel

i've been following the florid pugilist for some time and he always has excellent neck-ties, plus those that know me know of my unqualified Windy City boosterism/outright love..

is it true Palin has dropped some of the folksy stuff (vocally speaking) in post-election interviews?

i wonder if Joe is crying into his High Life, or being philosophical?

 

[scottdisco]

good digging on those '04 map/charts Vimothy, cool

Indiana Indiana what's the matter

etc.

 

[vimothy]

ok, i'll look at the gelman stuff tomorrow, but:
"
Obama, like other Democrats, continued to have difficulty winning the support of less affluent whites. Among whites with incomes of $50,000 or less, Obama lost by a slight margin, 48-50. Among whites without college degrees, Obama lost decisively to McCain, 41-58. Whites with college degrees were split, 49-50"

And did he do better than Kerry? I bet yes.

Also wonder where abouts $50,000 a year is on Gelman's graphs. Lower middle income? Middle income?

 

[crackerjack]

Vim
very interesting charts - so among poor voters, the dems carried the deep south even with that french-speaking baseball-girly-throwing, swift-boated Kerry?

 

[vimothy]

The dems carried nearly all states among poor voters, 2004.

 

[crackerjack]

The dems carried nearly all states among poor voters, 2004.

Sure, it's just it's only in the DS that that surprises me.

 

[vimothy]

I agree it's pretty crazy.

 

[vimothy]

This post's really good for charts -- Election 2008: What Really Happened

Summed up as:

1. The election was pretty close.

2. As with previous Republican candidates, McCain did better among the rich than the poor. But the pattern has changed among the highest-income categories.

3. The gap between young and old has increased-a lot. But there was no massive turnout among young voters.

4. Obama gained the most among ethnic minorities.

5. The red/blue map was not redrawn; it was more of a national partisan swing.

6. The pre-election polls did well, both for the national vote and for the states.​

 

[vimothy]

Matt Yglesias -- the white vote doesn't seem to have moved much:

Razib has a more detailed breakdown.

 

[Mr. Tea]

This post's really good for charts -- Election 2008: What Really Happened

Summed up as:

1. The election was pretty close.

​

Yeah, it was a landslide in terms of Congressional seats, but I think the actual popular vote was something like 52% to 46% - how big is that margin, by historical US general election standards? That's not rhetorical, I actually have no idea.

 

[vimothy]

Can't find good data. Some here.

 

[vimothy]

It's not a landslide. But on the other hand, 56% of the popular vote is the tenth highest amount in US history, according to TexasLiberal.

 

[staypuft]

this is linked to the Palin article crackerjack posted:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/167581/page/2

Newsweek is gradually releasing 'inside info' from the campaign trail picked up by its reporters. some of it I wouldn't believe, but ya never know...

 

[staypuft]

pictures of reactions around the world

this is from London.. ok which one of you is it?

 

[luka]

i think dizzee is right.
he wouldn't have done it without hip-hop. couldnt have done without it. yes we can. where do you think he got that from?

how come no one said that? blatant.
do you beleive in political parties?
yeah, they exist!

 

[crackerjack]

Best new rumour (according to Fox!)

Palin thought Africa is just one country.