Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Where Obama is winning and losing (Excellent statistical analysis of Obama's support)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-12-08 10:16 AM
Original message
Where Obama is winning and losing (Excellent statistical analysis of Obama's support)
Edited on Tue Feb-12-08 10:17 AM by jefferson_dem
Courtesy of Brendan Nyhan --

Where Obama is winning and losing

There's been some debate among pundits about where Barack Obama has been successful and why. To try to make some sense of what's going on, I decided to actually look at the data. (My pundit card will soon be revoked.)

One issue is how to compare across states given the change in the number of candidates running over time. The method I used is to focus on how well Obama did relative to Hillary Clinton by looking at the proportion of their total vote that Obama received, which (a) attempts to adjust for the departure of John Edwards and (b) contains much more information than simple win/loss tallies. (I also excluded the home states of Illinois, New York, and Arkansas and the largely uncontested states of Florida and Michigan from the analyses below.)

When you focus on Obama's proportion of the two-candidate vote, it's striking how he's run up huge margins in so many of his wins but his losses have almost all been relatively narrow:



Obama has won nine states with more than 60 percent of the two-candidate vote and three states with more than 70 percent, but he's only received less than 40 percent of the two-candidate vote once.

The first question is whether Obama is doing as well in caucuses as it appears. The answer is yes:



Weighting states equally, he's received an average of 66 percent of the two-candidate vote in caucuses and only 51 percent in primaries. Why? Kevin Drum's readers suggest the following explanations, which seem plausible, though the data can't really arbitrate between them:

Caucuses require organization and Obama was better organized. They require enthusiasm and he has more enthusiastic supporters. They require time, and his demographic has more free time. They're mostly in small states, and Obama targeted small states. They're dominated by activists, and activists tend to support Obama.

<SNIP>

http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2008/02/who-supports-ob.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC