4.09.2008

African-American turnout in the primaries

In my previous post, I suggested the African-American proportion of the electorate in the Democratic primaries has been equal to about 175% of the percentage of African-Americans in that state. This off-the-cuff estimate was slightly too high; the actual ratio so far has been 153%.



That's a chart of all 31 Democratic primaries and caucuses so far in which exit polls have been taken. As you can see, African-American turnout is relatively easy to predict. On the other hand, it should be easy to predict, so I'm interested in whether there's anything systematic about those states that tend to fall above or below the regression line.

Below are the turnout statistics for all states so far in which African-Americans make up at least 5 percent of the overall population. I've also included a couple of additional statistics: Bush's share of the white vote in 2004 (per CNN exit polls), and the number of days that Obama spent campaigning in that state, out of the last 30 days before the election (per the Washington Post; I have excluded debates from the analysis but included all other types of events).



We see that the turnout ratio is generally highest in the South, where Bush won a larger share of the white vote (did you know that Bush won 85% of whites in Mississippi in 2004? Wow). This, also, is entirely predictable. If most whites in the state are Republican, that means a relatively greater share of the Democratic primary electorate will be black.

The interesting question is whether Obama can improve black turnout by campaigning actively in a state. There appears to be some evidence of this: black turnout was conspicuously low in some states like New York, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Florida, in which Obama mounted a limited or dispirited campaign. If we regress the turnout ratio on "whitebush" and "obamadays", the Obama variable does show up as statistically significant at the 85% level (though, not at the 90% or 95% level). Specifically, the regression model specifies the following equation

ratio = whitebush * .013 + obamadays * .032 + .547

If we like, we can try and use this equation to predict the African-American turnout in some of the upcoming primaries. Of course, we don't know exactly how much time Obama is going to spend in each state, but let's say that he winds up spending portions of 15 of the final 30 days before the election in Pennsylvania, 7 in North Carolina, and 5 in Indiana. We can then extrapolate African-American turnout in these states:



So, the regression would estimate 17-18% African-American turnout in Pennsylvania (Survey USA's guess was 14%), 35% in North Carolina (Survey USA's guess was 32%), and 14% in Indiana (Survey USA's guess was 11%). So Survey USA's estimates in Pennsylvania and elsewhere might be low -- if Obama continues to campaign actively in these states and energizes black voters. Or they might be not, as this is a rather speculative exercise. The more conservative assumption is that black turnout in Pennsylvania will resemble the ratio established in Ohio -- about 150% of the state's African-American population share -- which would point toward a number of 15% or 16%.

7 comments

ikl said...

Does it matter whether the primary is open or closed?

538/poblano said...

Ikl,

I looked at that too and it did not turn out to be statistically significant. If anything, open primaries seem to be slightly more conducive to African-American turnout, perhaps because open primary states tend to have more liberal registration rules in general, and so it may be easier to register new black voters.

ikl said...

Very interesting. Not what I would have expected.

What is your view on how reliable the demographics from exit polls are? Some of the states at the end of the list are a bit hard to believe - could African-Americans really be underrepresented in Democratic primaries? I can believe New York because Obama didn't have much of a ground game and there are lots of white Democrats there, but CT and OK look very low to me.

Great blog by the way.

538/poblano said...

In theory, exit polls should be pretty reliable, especially as they often have fairly large samples. In practice, I just don't know, because the actual mechanics of exit polls are something of a black box.

Edison Media Research has this disclaimer:

The margin of error for a 95% confidence interval is about +/- 3% for a typical characteristic from the national Exit Poll and +/-4% for a typical state Exit Poll. Characteristics that are more concentrated in a few polling places, such as race, have larger sampling errors. Other non sampling factors may increase the total error.

信次 said...

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,

平平 said...

^^ nice blog!! thanks a lot! ^^

徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,

徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,

平平 said...

^^ nice blog!! ^@^

徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇

徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,