Sunday, May 11, 2008

Black, Youth and Latino Turnout, and Obama's Electoral Map

This analysis is prepared in conjunction with Progress Illinois, which has posted a separate article on the findings. The Progress Illinois blog is relatively new to the scene -- just as mine is. But it's extremely well designed and extremely well written, and I hope that you'll get in the habit of checking it regularly. Thanks to Josh and the rest of the gang for their assistance.

As the Democratic primaries come to their slow, if increasingly certain conclusion, the media narrative has tended to focus on the alleged inadequacies of each candidate: Hillary Clinton's lack of support among black voters, or Barack Obama's supposed inability to resonate with certain types of white voters. What has been lost, however, is a story that could turn out to have far more relevance for the general election campaign in the fall: the emergence of a "big tent" Democratic electorate that has increasingly begun to reflect the full diversity of America.

What follows is a table comparing the composition of the Democratic primary electorate in 21 states in which exit polling data is available in both 2004 and 2008. We focus on three particular groups: black voters, Latino voters, and young voters. As a fraction of the Democratic electorate, African-American turnout has increased from 19.8 percent to 21.5 percent -- a 7.8 percent increase. Latino turnout has increased from 5.3 percent to 7.5 percent -- a 41.9 percent increase. And turnout among voters aged 18-29 has increased from 9.0 percent to 13.7 percent -- a 52.4 percent increase.



Today, we will examine the effects that increased turnout among these groups might have on Barack Obama's general election prospects against John McCain.

African-American Turnout

It is something of a myth that African-American voters do not turn out to vote. In 2004, 87.4 percent of registered African-Americans cast a ballot in the Presidential election, according to statistics compiled by the US Census Bureau. This compares with 89.4 percent turnout among registered, non-Hispanic whites. However, voter registration rates lag somewhat behind in the African-American community. As of 2004, 68.7 percent of African-American citizens aged 18+ were registered to vote, as compared with 75.1 percent of non-Hispanic whites. Thus, Barack Obama's 50-state voter registration drive, when coupled with the historical nature of his candidacy, could produce big dividends within this group.

What would be the electoral impact of an increase in African-American participation of 10 percent, 20 percent, or more? Fortunately, we have the perfect tool to examine such scenarios in the form of the FiveThirtyEight.com polling averages and simulation engine. Suppose that we start with a baseline assumption wherein total turnout in each state is equal to what it was in 2004, and that this turnout is divided between John McCain and Barack Obama according to their present standing in the FiveThirtyEight.com polling averages. This is probably fairly close to what most pollsters are assuming, as they lean heavily on statistics from the previous elections in establishing their turnout models.

We can infer the number of African-American voters in each state based on Census Bureau Data. For example, in North Carolina in 2004, there were approximately 3.5 million votes cast in the general election, and the Census Bureau estimates that 21.5 percent of these were from African-Americans. This equals about 750,000 votes. So, a 10 percent increase in African-American turnout would represent 75,000 additional African-American votes, a 20 percent increase 150,000 votes, and so forth. We distribute 94 percent of these new votes to Barack Obama and 6 percent to John McCain, in accord with Obama's present advantage over McCain among black voters in recent polling. We then re-run our simulations with the new votes added in. Obama's results at various levels of turnout improvement are below.



For each 10 percent increase in African-American turnout, Obama gains approximately 13 electoral votes, and 1 percent in his popular vote margin against John McCain. Even a 10 percent increase is enough to take him from a slight underdog against McCain to a slight favorite, while at higher levels of turnout improvement, Obama becomes the strong favorite. Meanwhile, Obama's electoral map changes as follows:



Generally speaking, there are two regions where Obama stands to benefit from higher African-American turnout. The first is in the Rust Belt states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and perhaps Indiana. Although there are not enormous numbers of African-Americans in these states, there are certainly some, and given how closely these states have tended to poll, even fractional improvements in Obama's numbers could produce large dividends. The other area where Obama can gain is along the southern Atlantic coast. North Carolina and Virginia would potentially be extremely competitive with higher black turnout, and to a lesser extent so would South Carolina, Florida, and perhaps Georgia. Louisiana might also become viable, although states like Mississippi and Alabama are unlikely to be.

Youth Turnout

We can run through the same analysis for youth turnout. Specifically, we will be focusing on voters aged 18-24. Turnout in this group has tended to lag badly behind that of older voters. In 2004, for instance, 46.7 percent of citizens aged 18-24 turned out to vote, as compared with 63.8 percent of the electorate as a whole. But these voters have become very engaged by the 2008 campaign, and it is not difficult to imagine a turnout increase of 25 or even 50 percent.

Most polling has shown Obama with a 3:2 or 2:1 advantage over John McCain among voters in the 18-29 age range. We will assume that Obama's advantage is slightly larger toward the younger end of this range (18-24) and assign him 70 percent of the new votes, with the balance going to John McCain. The resulting scenarios are below:



Unlike the African-American vote, which tends to be concentrated in certain regions, there is not that much difference in the number of young voters from state to state. However, some areas do warrant a mention. There is a strong tradition of youth turnout in the Upper Midwest, which could help Obama to ensure victories in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa. Alaska is an extremely young state and could become a swing state with higher youth turnout. Texas and Georgia are also quite young and could become competitive with a strong youth turnout coupled with an improvement in Hispanic and black turnout, respectively.


Latino Turnout

Because Hillary Clinton has tended to do better with Latinos in the primaries, there is a perception that this group is not a strength of Barack Obama's. In fact, however, Obama held leads over John McCain by margins of 57-33 and 51-41 among Hispanic voters in recent sets of Gallup polling. Increasing the share of the electorate that is Latino would definitely be to Obama's benefit -- albeit not quite to the same extent of the other two groups. We will assume that Obama gets 60 percent of any new Latino votes, and John McCain the other 40 percent. As just 44.1 percent of adult Latino citizens turned out to vote in 2004, improvement within this group could be comparatively easy to achieve.



Obama's popular vote share increases only fractionally as a result of new Latino votes. However, these votes tend to be concentrated in electorally significant states. In particular, an increase in Latino turnout could all but assure an Obama victory in New Mexico, while also improving his chances in Colorado and Nevada.

Because they have polled so closely, this group of three states is among the most important in the country. Assume that Obama starts with the states that John Kerry won in 2004, plus Iowa where he is currently favored, but minus New Hampshire where he is currently the underdog. This gets him to 254 electoral votes, whereas he needs 270 to win. Winning those three states would get him to 273 electoral votes, just getting him over that threshold. In other words, if Obama wins these states, he would probably not need to carry Ohio or Florida to win the election.



Putting it Together

Finally, we can run a couple of scenarios that combine the effects of turnout improvements among these different groups. The first scenario is what I call the "40/20 Plan": increasing youth (18-24) turnout by 40 percent, and African-American turnout by 20 percent, but not focusing specifically on Latinos. The second is the "40/30/20 Plan": aiming for a 40 percent increase in youth turnout, a 30 percent increase in Latino turnout, and a 20 percent increase in African-American turnout. The last is what I'm simply calling the "Best Case Scenario". This would be a 50 percent increase in youth turnout, a 50 percent increase in Latino turnout, and a 40 percent increase in African-American turnout. Although this latter scenario is unlikely to develop, it should help to provide some context for where a strong ground game could make the most difference for Obama.



As you can see, these effects are quite powerful when combined. The 40/20 Plan would gain Obama about 48 electoral votes, and improve his win percentage to 68.3 percent. Adding Latinos to this plan would improve his win percentage further to 71.7 percent. And under his best case turnout scenario, Obama becomes a prohibitive favorite to win the election, as states like Texas and Georgia could turn blue.



The ability to bring new voters to the polls remains Barack Obama's most significant electoral advantage, both relative to Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Indeed, current polling may already be underestimating Obama's strength against McCain if it does not account for improved turnout among Democratic-leaning groups like young voters and African-Americans, who have participated in record numbers in this year's primaries. If Obama can parlay that advantage with a strong ground game, he very much could redraw the electoral map.

25 comments

Anonymous said...

wow...

you put this stuff in such a simple context that it is easy for me, a 15 year old, to understand with ease and realize the implications.

i fully think that this registration drive was targeted at AA communities and college students.

I think that the youth vote part will definitely become true and i hope that the AA community will increase by that much.

However, I am not sure about latinos. I guess once Obama is the nominee he will be able to start a massive outreach towards them.

P.S. Love the site...been using it since it was born :)

Sensible Person said...

*lol* Pablano... I wish it were... but I think you may be overestimating Obama's superpowers some.

To put it bluntly, even Obama doesn't have infinite fundraising powers, and while the voter registration thing is mostly volunteers, they need SOME paid staff to run the operation, not to mention pay office rent.

This means two things. First, his operation will not be as successful in Rural areas as Urban ones, because you can achieve a greater destiny in cities. (that's by in large okay, though... his methods work better in cities anyways, if the stories I've heard are by and large representative. But it will still regionalize his ability to register new voters some.)

The second thing this means is that Obama will have to pick his battles. I just don't see Obama winning Georgia, for example. Texas is a maybe, but as you've said before, if he invests in Texas, he has to do it BIG. The interior west, upper (techie) south coast), and maybe Alaska and Indiana as well, represent his best hope with this thing.

One positive thing I think your model here doesn't account for, though, is another great power of Obama to get people to campaign across state lines. For that reason, I'm not sure he'll have too much trouble in New Hampshire, (Vermont and Maine are two of his strongest states, He's doing better here in MA than he was back in February), and ND will be in reach for the same reason (Minnesota is another one of his strong states) The other fun option for Obama, of course, is to go after Nebraska's second congressional district (Omaha). SUSA polled him ahead there and in one other distric back in February, so it's doable.

Overall, though, nice work, as always.

Anonymous said...

Interesting analysis. But I am curious why you use census estimates of turnout (which are self-reports) instead of exit poll estimates of turnout (which vary substantially across states). Might not matter much.

The main problems I see with your analysis that should be considered is (1) white/Anglo counter-mobilization; and (2) diminishing returns. While the Republicans are unpopular now, the election will not occur in a vacuum, and there likely will be some countermobilization among whites and Anglos (everyone is energized now, and you are assuming the black + latino voters increase but not that white/Anglo turnout is higher). I could see this mattering in a state like Texas, which has a history of white countermobilization to increasing black registration.

Second, what you describe is likely to have bigger impacts in some states. If there aren't young voters aged 22-29 registered in states like Ohio--which were massive battlegrounds in 2004--I'd be surprised (though the 18-21 year old do need to be registered). I think since states like Ohio already had high youth turnout, any potential increase is much less likely. States that were not swing states in 2004, though, like Colorado and Nevada, will se a youth registration effect though. 2004 swing states face diminshing returns. Finally, certain states (like Texas) have very harsh felon disfranchisement laws, and these law disparately impact African-Americans and Latinos due to the racial and ethnic inequities in the harshness of sentencing due to race/ethnicity, thus also limiting the amount of registration(relative to potential white/Anglo countermobilization). Could you do the analysis, but downgrade registration levels where there is a large % of felon and ex-felon disfranchisement?

Anonymous said...

You're awesome Poblano.

Anonymous said...

Wow - another amazing analysis.

One question: comparing the AA-baseline to the AA+10, there's a 3 electoral vote difference, but I can't see where it occurs in the maps which look identical

Anonymous said...

You are assuming that your baseline (current polls) has 2004 level turnout for blacks/youth/Hispanics in their models. Since most are polling RV's this seems unlikely.

mfs said...

Very cool analysis. There is such a variation in the changes of state-by-state turnout b/t the years that it makes me wonder if there are some demographic changes w/in states that are making it difficult to what's going on at the local level.

A couple quick Q's:
-Are there any newer estimates of population by race & ethnicity (w/ a voter screen) than 2004 CPS that would be helpful to estimate 08 turnout rates?
-What accounts for black turnout decreasing in NY, MS, FL, CA, & OK between '04 and '08? Is it just population change?
-What are the actual turnout rates by state as opposed to the vote shares?

Anonymous said...

Great analysis Poblano,

Do these estimates account for cases in which the young voter might also be african-american or latino? In other words is there some double counting going on in the 40/20 plan (etc..) I'm not sure how you would be able to separate that data out, but if anyone can you can.

Cheers!

ikl said...

2004 was a very high turnout election by recent standards. I'll not sure how much higher it is realistic to be able to expect to push turnout. One thing to consider is whether McCain will be able to turn out Republicans like Bush did. If the Dems keep turnout high but it falls off for the Republicans, that could be the difference.

Anonymous said...

One thing poblano - your analysis is getting to be way way too biased and losing its usefulness - you have to realize that it is very difficult for a democrat to get more than 50% of the vote, it has not happened since 1976 - Obama may be the dime store savior, but i doubt it - he suffers the same lack of southern strategy that every loser democrat has had - dukakis, gore (it counts as a loss), kerry.

How does he get more than 50%? - you can only draw from the AA well so far - and by the way, their turnout figures are being ridiculous due to the coverage of the race, which is unprecedented - Mccain will be much smarter - he will not bother to campaign for that vote.

Bottom line, obama has to get 50% to win as the electoral college is stacked in mccain's favor. he canot get there.

Anonymous said...

On different ways to calculate electoral turnout in the U.S. you should take a look at this website. The different methods affect not only overall rates and trends in turnout but also differentials by race and ethnicity.

http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm

homunq said...

1. It is clearly easier to go from 10% to 15% turnout than from 40% to 60%, even though both are 50% increases in turnout. Instead of talking about increases in turnout, you may want to consider equivalent decreases in non-turnout.

2. If this could be real, it has huge implications for Obama's strategy. Should he tack right or tack left for the general?

If turnout is fixed, he should not tack left. Say he takes an (even) more confrontational stance on the war, FISA, healthcare, etc. Even though the large majority of the country now agrees with the Democrats on these issues, the Republican branding is so much more successful that the issues themselves could get buried in the too-liberal aura they give him.

But if turnout is in play, and has the power you argue, then he can actually win by playing to his base with popular issues like these ones.

Anonymous said...

The math is actually weaker than usual, which might be hurting your brand (and suggest the wrong campaign).

It is prudent (though, I suspect, an underestimate) to compare not to 2004 but to the highest overall turnout in recent history. The Primaries certainly suggest that. Indeed, best compare to the highest above age 24 non-Hispanic Whites in recent history (there is a growing participation of minorities, so that past elections with high turnouts were actually elections with even higher white turnout).

The double-counting is very serious. Among age 18-24, the percentage of minorities is large to begin with and must be quite larger among those who did not vote in 2004 - just guessing, 40%? More? We think of the young non-voter as a nice apathetic white kid, but he may well be an inner city high-school dropout.

All in all, in turnout, one would have to run very fast just to stay in place. One *should* of course run very fast, and one *would* gain some ground this way, probably, but it is prudent to assume this would be considerably less than your best estimate.

KAP said...

Very interesting, as usual, P.

I agree that the double- or triple- counting is serious and should be addressed. Nevertheless, this analysis is so valuable that you should go ahead and make that effort. I also think you should model the change (if any?) in older non-Hispanic whites as well. And finally, the "ideal" model isn't really 40-30-20 but 52-42-8-x, as current statistics actually show for youth, Latino, AA, and older whites.

Make all those minor(!!) corrections, and you're really on to something!

Anonymous said...

One way of making the analysis more realistic is pursuing it in terms of absolute numbers. This is also relevant for the cost/benefit calculation required for such a registration effort.

Steven R said...

I participated in the voter registration drive in Houston Texas, and while it's encouraging to see that if in the best case scenario, Obama could carry Texas, it's simply not going to happen at the speed presently occurring. To put it mildly, they need some professional experience behind these voter registration drives. The group which showed up was rip ready to go, and we were sent to a parade that had in attendance a hip, liberal, middle aged, 95% white crowd, and among the 25 of us at the parade, we'd be lucky to have registered 50 in 2.5 hours work. It's sad, but the entire effort was thrown together as a quasi-press/media event + experiement, and if anything, it gives super supporters like me doubts about the current thinking inside the campaign.

Too much emphasis was made upon getting registration drives in all 50 states. I'll be blunt, we don't need to worry about this in Arkansas, Utah, or New York. We can totally ignore Alaska, Hawaii, and Arizona too... California is probably smart to do this in, at the grass roots level, because McCain will try for a late play there, but Profession resources should be deployed for weekly voter registration mobilizations in the following states:

Missouri
Ohio
Florida
S. Carolina
Virginia
North Carolina
Indiana
Wisconsin
Texas
New Mexico
Colorado
Virginia

The rest of the country can work out just great, on a symbolic, shoe string Grass Roots kinda effort. However, the Known Battle Grounds and Potential Poacher States MUST be professionally Organized.

That Means No More Limited Resources, No More Free Offices (the Main HQ office in Houston doubled as a Clothing Store) and many more professional, seasoned Campaign Staff who can Scope Sites for Registration Demographics, Read the Registration Databases to see what demographics are even available, and turn out volunteers to man the clip boards.

Anything less than that, and this is all show and mirrors and the stuff of Fluff... and none of it will have any impact. If you take a detailed look at what and where registrations efforts were being held Saturday, Listed Here, You'll see that infact, there was little to no effort actually provided in Essential States you list, like North Carolina, Colorado (No event In Denver?) and Virginia. Meanwhile, California and New York were brimming with people, while competitive places like Ohio didn't even have events in Cleveland (the heart of the Black Community).

It was all an experiment, and if we're to Win in November, lessons will need to be quickly learned.

MetaData said...

Poblano's single-counting is pretty sound. It is basically like differential calculus: observing how Obama's electoral votes change due to a small change in each of the dependent variables. Poblano did choose some variable for which we have a strong hunch that Obama can have an impact. As he notes, Hispanic and African American vary dramatically from region to region.

I don't understand all of Poblano's methods, but it sounds like he uses a random method to compute his regressions. This helps with multi-dimensional regressions, especially in cases with noisy data and variables that might not be independent.

Double counting is a pretty good casual description for the statistical problem of covariance, or lack of independence between the variables. There are ways to change or rotate your dimensions to increase independence. For example, you could create separate variables for young-blacks and young-hispanics. With census data this is a reasonable approach because you have lots of data. But, with opinion or exit polling you don't have enough data unless you make a specific attempt to interview enough people in the sub-group you want. If not, then you go too deep into the sub-demographics (the "cross-tabs") you end up below the sampling noise, and the covariance really kills you, i.e. your regression model blows up.

This is done a lot with elections, marketing, and marketing approaches to elections. Remember the soccer moms? That is partitioning your electorate very specifically, and then tailoring a message to target them. What Poblano is doing doesn't have to be so fine-tuned, as Race is a particularly strong and Independent variable when it comes to elections. He is making the case that youth is also a strong variable this time around. This last paragraph should be noted by those who think Poblano has been drinking too much Obama koolaid; that is, the variables of race and youth make sense given how Obama has been polling.

Additional Variables

Region is a strong variable, which Poblano take into account by using a state-by-state analysis.

Religion is another strong variable, but only when it is combined with a secondary variable like Region, or more significantly Wealth: Wealthy Church-goers vote much more Republican than moderate or poor Church goers. To bring this into Poblano's analysis probably requires some wisdom about whether religious voters are more or less likely to vote in 2008. My intuition doesn't tell me much about how Religion plays this year compared with 2004 or 2006. That uncertainty helps us understand why he chose Race and Youth.

What about Party Identification? The increase in Democratic Party ID, and the polling on Independent voters are very significant trends this year. Poblano could easily plug this into his model. If we're trying to identify some McCain weaknesses, I'd choose Independent Voters rather than Religion. I think Poblano can test for which variables are most significant. Understanding Independent voters is critical to understanding high-tech states like Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, and possibly New Hampshire.

Oppo Research on McCain

I have a feeling that with the Republican Brand in the toilet, and with George Bush's popularity at an all-time low, we may get some Republican Demographics failing to show up to vote. Also, we have the Party ID shift, and the question of who wins the Independent vote. Let's I'd like to know what states Obama wins if we combine a McCain -10/-10 plan with Obama's 40/30/20 plan.

Kim said...

Excellent analysis. It gives credence to Obama's campaign claim to change the general election map.

I've been impressed by the campaign's track record on predicting primary elections several months ago (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Obamas_projections.html). I know they developed strategies to deliver on the predictions, but I assume they also based it on demographics, similar to your recent state predictions? Have you ever analyzed how they managed to come up with such accurate predictions?

MetaData said...

Someone asked about updated demographics. I think Poblano uses a lot of election exit polling, which is pretty recent. The census is now almost 10 years behind, and certain regions and demographics might have changed significantly:

- Youth: we've had a lot of the WWII generation pass on, and a whole new generation, the baby boomer's kids, are arriving at voting age.

- Growth states: Significantly (wrt Obama vs McCain), a lot of the Eastern seaboard and South FL, VA, NC, GA, TX.

- Hispanic: Young Cubans aren't nearly as Conservative as their parents. Mexican and Central American immigration continues in the Southwest, and its happening in surprising places like FL, GA, LA, KS, IL, OH. Of course recent immigrants might not have citizenship, which is certainly one reason the hispanic voting percentage is far lower than their population. But, the children of immigrants do vote, which in 2008 means the generation born before 1990.

- A significant reason why youth, minorities and the poor don't vote in high numbers is a feeling of disenfranchisement, i.e. "they're not talking to me", "they're all the same". This suggests that a populist appeal, or a message of hope could lead to greater voting rates.

Anonymous said...

Thanks poblano.

I've been thinking 280+42=322 for a minimum and maybe a ceiling around 449.

I don't think NH stays in McCains column in the GE. We'll see.

Also, for those that don't know, there were almost 11 million AA who sat out the 2004 GE and more than twice than many Latinos.

Additionally, I'm very excited about the youth vote this cycle. These are awesome and engaged kids.

Of course, egg-heads like poblano can do their share as well. Looking at the same data source in the analysis shows there are several million of them who did not vote in 2004. With the assault on science and basic knowledge from the right, I'm thinking they may be more motivated to get involved.

Finally, it's important to keep in mind that over 4 million new voters registered in the first three months of 2008 and the total margin of victory for Bush over Kerry in all the Red states combined in 2004 was only a little over 8 million votes.

Again, thanks poblano.

Sean said...

Poblano, great analysis as usual. I am wondering what effect would an increase in women voters have on your model. I think that Sen CLinton's candidacy has brought a lot of new women voters into the fold. Some will not vote in November but a lot will. Also what happens if Obama picks someone like Gov Sebelius as his running mate. What happens if we see even a 10% increase in women voters or a 20% increase?

Beatles Rock said...

Incredible analysis. I'm very excited about this as an Obama supporter. I'm very hopeful that this fall's election will not turn out to be too close at all. If voter turnout is as high as it seems like it will be, that would be a massive thing.

Also the +40% among Hispanic voters is very interesting data. I wonder if that would have any influence on Obama's VP choice (Richardson?)

Anonymous said...

very interesting analysis. what effect on the models would an increase in turnout of 18-29 year olds have compared to your models which are based on 18-24 year olds. With obama doing better with younger voters any increase in voting of 25-29s is also going to run up significant margins. Also what does obama stand to gain if he increases asian american turnout.

Anonymous said...

Forgive me for being thick, but doesn't your baseline scenario of Obama winning IA, NV, NM and CO and losing NH give Obama a good electoral victory?

Is there a point in applying regression to the electoral college?

Further, for all this great work you have put in this page shouldn't your scenarios of an increased youth, black and latino turnout be applied to target states specifically?

Do we really think that the the Obama folks will mount an equal registration drive in NM and OK?

Western states and PA are enough for Obama. We need a 13-state strategy not a 50-state strategy here...

Being the best prognosticator doesn't mean that you can't get better :) Thanks a lot!

Andrew said...

Isn't a 40% increase in turnout in any one demographic from one election cycle to the next extraordinarily unlikely?