9.09.2008

The Mommy Quotient

The ABC News finding that Sarah Palin dramatically upped John McCain's support among white women is one I'm not entirely convinced by, mostly because other polling by the same agency shows Sarah Palin performing worse among women than she does among men. One needs to remember that the margins of error are much higher for subsamples of the data than for the poll as a whole. That's why I generally don't spend a lot of time focusing on the demographics in individual polls. If a poll is breaking out six or eight different demographic groups, and the margins of error on these subsamples are 6 or 8 or 10 or 12 points, then odds are that something is going to be out of alignment merely due to chance alone.

With that said, there is a subheadline in the ABC poll that I find both more interesting and more believable. Sarah Palin polls very well among women with children -- specifically white women with children, who give her an 80 percent favorability rating. In fact, it appears to me that Palin's high favorability ratings among women are entirely owing to her popularity among women with children. Roughly one-third of registered female voters should have children at home, which means that among white women without children, her favorability rating is around 60 percent -- still pretty decent, but barely different from the 58 percent she received in the poll overall.

So -- one is led to ask -- which state has the most moms? The table below ranks the 50 states, based on 2000 census data, by the percentage of residents aged 18 and up who are women with their own children living in the same household (WWC). States that are presently in the top 15 in our tipping point rankings are highlighted in a maternal purple.



This distribution is mostly a function of age: states with young populations like Utah and Texas rank toward the top, and states with older populations (meaning more women are post-menopausal), like Hawaii and Florida, rank toward the bottom. In general, the top of the list consists of red states; whether motherhood begets conservatism or conservatism begets motherhood, we will leave as an exercise for the reader (my guess is the former). Among the battleground states, 11 of 15 rank below average.

But now let's look at an arguably more relevant metric, which is the percentage of white women with children at home (WWWC):



Here, the swing states are distributed a bit more evenly, in part because the swing states tend to be somewhat whiter than the country as a whole. I don't quite buy that Palin is going to help in New Hampshire, which is the fourth most pro-choice state in the country, but some of these other states are worth watching. Conversely, there isn't much of the Palin target demographic in states like Florida and Nevada.

238 comments

Tim R said...

Caribou Barbie is your typical corrupt republican politician. I can't wait until she has try and defend billing the state for staying in her own home to the national press...........

jme0909 said...

@Mort

"Hmmm...Did you see the ABC Democratic debate, aka the Gibson / Stephanopoulos smackdown of Obama, or Gibson's super softball "interview" of McCain recently? I'd say 'ol Charlie is firmly in the the Republican's pocket."


I guess Conservatives can't complain about liberal media bias any more among at least 2 of the Big 3 anchors. I suspect Charlie Gibson and Brian Williams probably vote Republican more often than not. Williams has admitted in interviews he's a big fan of Rush Limbaugh.

Williams sounded like a member of the McCain campaign during his fawning intro to the speech last Thursday. I expect this kind of stuff on cable news (Fox - pro GOP, MSNBC - pro Dem, CNN - pro Clinton and pro controversy). But not a Big 3 network.

dominoid73 said...

NEW POST

I wish someone had told me!

FloridaGOP said...

@FILISTRO
I agree that it is not a winning position to say .. elect Palin because the democrats will control her.

Equally, considering Quantman's, post, it is not a winning position to say .. if you elect Palin, she will overturn Roe V Wade. The only point is that THAT statement doe snot make sense and is easily refuted

Rudy said...

Zack, it's not just this post that I'm critical of, it's the entire tenor over the the last six weeks once the Obama numbers started fading badly. I've been around here for a while because I like the idea of doing superior objective statistical analysis of the data, even though so much is GIGO.

It's OK for him to have a personal bias, but the presentation of every single bit of data lately is spun as to how it might favor Obama, or how it might not favor McCain as it looks. We're all smart enough to know how most of the breakdown stats are necessarily smallish sample sizes, so it's cheap to do so when the data doesn't say what he wants and not otherwise. It's intellectually dishonest to start with a conclusion and then attempt build the supporting data. That's where the credibility dropoff is huge, IMO.

It started when the state polls showed flips to McCain in some of the key battleground states, and his critics on the left got on him for using Rasmussen polls, despite it being the freshest data available and among the most accurate. So he manipulated the model to discount that Rasmussen data. So, instead of having a model that forecast the McCain surge in July, he ended up with a blah model that missed the boat.

Then, he did some fine work on convention bounce forecasting, but backed off of it in the model when it (correctly) interpreted a mediocre bounce from the Dem convention, instead treating the raw data as if it were real, and sending Obama's projected lead to ridiculous heights.

Now, he's been reluctant to use the SAME methodology to move the map back to McCain, and still shows an incredible lead for Obama that's far outside any tracking poll results, and he's manufacturing justification for it with stuff like this women with chlidren analysis, which doesn't show what he'd hoped it would.

But, to deal specifically with your points and questions, the only reason to do (and publish) that analysis is to find justification for preconceived notion that McCain's only preaching to the choir with the Palin selection. To do the racial stratification can only be for the same objective. It was meant to be inferred that non-white women wouldn't go along with white women.

The right analysis of the objective data is that nothing of statistical significance can be derived from looking at those numbers, that there is insufficient data to conclude anything about either white or non-white mothers. But he presented them in such a way that people glancing at them would conclude that the battleground states populations weren't helpful in that demographic. The chart isn't neutral because the graphic distorted the differences between most states, which are really tiny and immaterial.

For Nate to say that 11 of the 15 states are below average in the proportion of mothers with children is just plain misleading. The number 5 state has 16.5% of voters being women with children, and the number 45 state is 14.7%. Barely rounding error. The implication of that analysis is that Palin isn't a significant factor in battleground states, even though it is obviously so to even the most casual observer.

I get very frustrated with him because his work has so much potential utility, but if readers must constantly having to be on guard for partisan spin, this is gonig to end up being just an Kos-like echo chamber, with everyone patting each other on the back for being so much smarter than everyone else. Pretty stupid, if you ask me.

filistro said...

FL GOP... another interesting development is how Palin endangers moderate Reps down-ticket, like Chris Shays.

De Lauro is challenging him to say whether he supports the presidntial ticket, which puts him in a real box with voters.

I think this phenomenon will result in Reps losing some close races in moderate states taht would otherwise have been safe.

FloridaGOP said...

Mort,
I did see most but not all of the ABC Democratic debate (I must be a nutcase - a repub watching democrats debate)
I saw both "Gibson / Stephanopoulos smackdown of Obama, and Gibson's super softball "interview" of McCain recently?"

I made a proposal. The democrats can choose whoever they want to create the questions for Republicans and moderate the debates. The Republicans can do the same to the democrats. Do you like that idea or not. There would be no softball questions and the debates would be far more vicious on both side. I do not want that --

What we have is the best -- Outside the debates , the campaigns decide who does the interviews. In the debates, the campaigns negotiate -- sort of a least common denominator. Not good but better than alternatives

Brett said...

Since FL has been mentioned as being in play, I wonder what would happen if a hurricane hit FL and the state run Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund became insolvent.

DaWolf said...

@Rudy

Then, he did some fine work on convention bounce forecasting, but backed off of it in the model when it (correctly) interpreted a mediocre bounce from the Dem convention, instead treating the raw data as if it were real, and sending Obama's projected lead to ridiculous heights.

Now, he's been reluctant to use the SAME methodology to move the map back to McCain, and still shows an incredible lead for Obama that's far outside any tracking poll results



WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG

If that same convention methodology was in place right now Obama's win percentage would be HIGHER than it is now.

Seriously, you've been correct on this multiple times. Why lie?

DaWolf said...

correct = corrected

Rudy said...

This Alaska expense report stuff has no utility. It pales in comparison to what is on record for ANY US Senator. One of the candidates has cost taxpayers BILLIONS of excessive Amtrak subsidies just so he could commute home to Delaware every night.

DaWolf said...

basically, Nate CORECTLY doesn't let his model just be moved by the last poll. All this whining about it just gets tiresome.

Rudy said...

Dawolf, that correction is just not correct. Before the spurrious adjustment, Nate showed the race virtually tied. Now he shows Obama meaningfully ahead despite an indubitable polling shift to McCain nationally. State info is light, but to infer that it's ill-distributed is a leap of logic, not fact-based.

Dan said...

I think the Bradley Effect is happening now with poll numbers. This is a good thing. If Obama sheds the dead wieght (those who were not going to vote for him but would not admit it) then his path to 270 is less clouded. Those voters have a reason/excuse to to not vote for him (Palin). Shed the wieght now.... work on increasing the DEM base (ground game) and focus on the issues. This is the path to victory!

filistro said...

Rudy, the "expense account stuff" has legs because of Palin's stump schtick. ALL SHE TALKS ABOUT is Obama's wasteful spending and ear marks, and her own fiscal discipline in Alaska.

Youy can do almost anything in American politics and still win. What you cannot get away with is being perceived as a hypocrite.

Mort said...

@ FloridaGOP

I hear you, and I mostly agree. My point was that when you have supposedly neutral moderators asking questions regarding William Ayers, flag pins, degrees of patriotism, etc, it's hardly plausible to see them as nonpartisan. The same goes for Charlie Gibson letting McCain run off at the mouth unchallenged about Obama's "tiny" comment, Alaska's proximity to Russia and the expertise that somehow conveys, Palin's bridge to nowhere, etc. I don't have high hopes for Gibson's Palin extravaganza.

DaWolf said...

@Rudy

Obama was ahead about the same as now. At the time he was being handicapped by 6 points.
Right now, McCain would be being handicapped by 2.

You seem to misunderstand the entire point of this site. It's not about just looking at the last poll, but including the evidence from the many, many previous polls as well.

State polls are generally good for Obama over the last day, with him very likely to win 270 EV's, Rasmussen has it tied, only Gallup is showing McCain well ahead. In that scenario Obama IS favourite no matter what you say.

Alex Wise said...

I think that the Obama campaign is handling Palin correctly in general. If they go after her too hard, the media won't pounce on her you know the way they will after her first inevitable gaffe.

I saw this on the blog of Craig’s List founder, Craig Newmark, yesterday and thought it was a great idea and worth passing on:

"Hey, this is a good example of genuine grassroots democracy:

ObamaTravel.org is a platform that connects volunteers who want to travel to a swing state with financial sponsors and swing state host families. It’s sort of a political hybrid of craigslist and Team-in-Training - volunteers post profiles and solicit sponsorship from their family and friends. Sponsors can see their donations in action by following the activities of their volunteers.

... and let's remember that "community organizing" is pure grassroots democracy."

Geoff said...

Alex, aren't you leaving out the fact that Obama was hired and worked for a leftist organization when he was a community organizer?

That is "grassroots democracy" only if you have a leftist point of view, correct?

Geoff said...

Gallup daily:

McCain still up 5, race stabilizing on day to day numbers. Nate, update your daily spread re the below.

McCain led Obama by five percentage points in Monday's report on the strength of a six-point increase in the percentage of voters choosing him on the presidential trial heat following the Republican National Convention. McCain's 49% support in today's three-day rolling average, based on Sept. 6-8 interviewing, is unchanged from Monday's report and matches McCain's high mark in Gallup tracking to date.

Gallup polling in recent days has been quite stable, showing McCain ahead of Obama by similar margins in each of the last four individual days of nightly tracking. McCain also had a 4-point lead over Obama among registered voters in the separate USA Today/Gallup Poll conducted this past weekend.

The GOP convention has clearly altered the structure of the race for now, which had shown Obama consistently ahead in the Gallup Poll Daily tracking updates for all but a few days from the time he clinched the nomination in early June until the end of last week. (To view the complete trend since March 7, 2008, click here.)

FloridaGOP said...

@filistro
I agree with your post and it is sad -- Chris Shays is the last of the moderate republicans, and he is probably going down in Connecticut because those voters are unhappy with the top of the ticket. We lost Warner, Hagel, Lincoln Chafee in 2006 and previously a host of moderate democrats like Tom Daschle who would reach across the aisle.
The rabid elements of each party attack the moderates or anyone who does not toe the party line. I have always liked Lieberman, but now he is one of the hated ones. It seems like anyone who demonstrates a profile in courage -- go against your own kind for the good of all should be respected. In general they are voted out of office.

Jackson said...

The huge number that spiked McCain from -2 to +3 on Sunday drops out tomorrow. We'll see if McCain stays 5% ahead without it.

My guess is no.

Pat Andriola said...

Gibson: Governor, may I call you Governor?

Palin: Oh sure.

Gibson: Thank you. Your honoress, Governor Palin, what, exactly, is it like, to raise 4 kids?

Palin: Oh my goodness. Well, that's a tough question.

Gibson: Indeed it is, your holyness. But please do your best.

Palin: Let's see...well...I know it's much harder than being a community orga-whatchamacallit (giggles).

Gibson: (laughing) Genius.

Geoff said...

See below evidence of McCain surge in Pennsylvania.

September 09, 2008
Categories: Pennsylvania

Pittsburgh Has 44% Hart

Former Pennsylvania Rep. Melissa Hart lost her 2006 race to Democrat Jason Altmire by four points, a margin close enough for Hart to give the race a second shot. A new poll conducted for the Republican's campaign shows the rematch will be just as close.

The survey, conducted 8/17-18 by Public Opinion Strategies for Hart's campaign and the National Republican Congressional Committee, surveyed 400 likely voters for a margin of error of +/- 4.9%. Altmire and Hart were tester.

General Election Matchup
Altmire.........49
Hart............44

Generic Dem.....40
Generic GOPer...37

McCain..........52
Obama...........39

Pennsylvania turned out to be one of the better states for Democratic pickups in 2006, but Republicans think they have serious opportunities in the Keystone State this year. And she'll have a tailwind provided by John McCain, who leads Barack Obama by a wider margin than the nine points by which President Bush won the district in 2004.

With Altmire so close to 50%, though, and in a significantly better financial position than he was in last cycle, when Hart outspent him more than two-to-one, Altmire's suburban Pittsburgh district will likely prove one of the GOP's tougher challenges.

Jackson said...

Presumably those McCain-Obama numbers are just in that Pittsburgh-area congressional district.

filistro said...

FL GOP... I see what you mean and mostly agree, but in this case I think you've got it backward.

Shays is not endangered becase a rabid wing of voters will oppose a moderate. He is endangered because lots of moderate voters will oppose an extremist ticket.

Opposition to abortion in all circumstances, plus a publicly stated belief that God guides foreign policy... those are enough to spook masses of moderate voters.

If Reps had really wanted to protect their moderates they should have given more thought to how this ticket might be perceived.

But they were much more concerned with firing up the base than protecting their own moderates. I think it will turn out to be an ill-advised choice and reult in an even more polarized ongreess. But then... we all knew that, right?

Geoff said...

Jackson, correct. It does show an improvement, statistically significant, for McCain over Bush 2004.

Jackson said...

It's also a large margin of error. It could be anywhere from 57-34 to 47-44.

It indicates a clear lead for McCain but not a whole lot else.

Jackson said...

Also, it's ancient now...pre-conventions, pre-VP choices, it might as well be a lifetime ago.

Rudy said...

No, dawolf, you misremember. At the time of the methodology switch, the win probability was 52/48. Yes, Obama should be favored, but the current 61/39 number is silly wrong. So many are on the cust, either way.

The previous polls have a built-in time decay, and there isn't much recent state data, So, the national trackers are mostly it right now. To ignore them in favor of stale data is bad methodology, if that's what you're suggesting.

I'm advocating eliminating bias, not shifting it my direction.

Geoff said...

I also think it is pretty odd for McCain to have a 3 point lead in RCP and generally good state numbers coming out (Ohio plus 7, PA -2, MI -1 come to mind) and still the tracker shows 62%-38% for Obama? Strange.

Zack said...

Rudy,

Thanks for your response. I understand that your criticism is a product of what you see as a trend towards rigging the numbers for Obama, but I still think that you're looking pretty hard to find an Obama bias in this particular post.

While you say that "the only reason to do" such an analysis (i.e. breaking down mothers by race) is to benefit Obama, that's not what the actual numbers showed. Instead, what happened with the numbers that Nate actually posted, was that the numbers got MORE favorable for McCain. Instead of looking at that, though, you seem to be hung up on what inferences might possibly be drawn from the information that Nate DIDN'T show. Seems like a stretch, especially given that Obama pretty convincingly does better among nonwhites than whites.

Regarding the trend adjustment, I don't see that as proof of Nate's bias either, since Nate took it out just before it would have started penalizing McCain. The way I see it, he had two choices (1) admit that his numbers were going to be wacky until the convention dust settled or (2) try to fix the problem with an adjustment that just might cause more harm than good. I think your complaint may be slightly more valid on this issue than on the issue of the current post, but I'm also glad that Nate's not currently adjusting McCain's numbers downward to fit an imperfect convention correction.

michael said...

"fred said...

I am shocked that Nate and Sean and the media are spending so much time analyzing data from the bounce. This is not steady state, relax, wait a week.
September 9, 2008 7:15 AM"

Amen, Fred. If you bracket out the outlier USA Today/Gallup McCain is averaging +2 nationally, which is exactly where Nate thought he would be right now.

The daily drip of scandal from Palintologists continues...latest from WaPo, she took per diem for 312 days when she and her family were in their home. There is so much smoke there, we could smoke some nice wild alaska salmon...tick, tick, tick

Rudy said...

Zack, of course there's not "proof" of bias. But the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. Just try reading some of the past posts again, and you'll readily see the mentality to try to find data supporting the Obama case.

We'll just disagree on the current post. Those bar charts are hugely misleading, and while he didn't come up with a big conclusion, there certainly are inferrences to be drawn from his mode of presentation, intended or unintended.

Granted, there's no perfect way to do this stuff, and it's largely experimental. I just think Nate would be better off if it wasn't so transparent that he's approaching the numbers and reacting to criticisms in a rooting fashion.

FreeThinker said...

How do you think Sarah Palin as president will do with this?

On Sunday, Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev in effect ran up the Jolly Roger. Whatever the United States thought it was dealing with in Russia, Medvedev made the Russian position very clear. He stated Russian foreign policy in five succinct points, which we can think of as the Medvedev Doctrine (and which we see fit to quote here):

First, Russia recognizes the primacy of the fundamental principles of international law, which define the relations between civilized peoples. We will build our relations with other countries within the framework of these principles and this concept of international law.
Second, the world should be multipolar. A single-pole world is unacceptable. Domination is something we cannot allow. We cannot accept a world order in which one country makes all the decisions, even as serious and influential a country as the United States of America. Such a world is unstable and threatened by conflict.
Third, Russia does not want confrontation with any other country. Russia has no intention of isolating itself. We will develop friendly relations with Europe, the United States, and other countries, as much as is possible.
Fourth, protecting the lives and dignity of our citizens, wherever they may be, is an unquestionable priority for our country. Our foreign policy decisions will be based on this need. We will also protect the interests of our business community abroad. It should be clear to all that we will respond to any aggressive acts committed against us.
Finally, fifth, as is the case of other countries, there are regions in which Russia has privileged interests. These regions are home to countries with which we share special historical relations and are bound together as friends and good neighbors. We will pay particular attention to our work in these regions and build friendly ties with these countries, our close neighbors.
Medvedev concluded, “These are the principles I will follow in carrying out our foreign policy. As for the future, it depends not only on us but also on our friends and partners in the international community. They have a choice.”

here's the link:
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/medvedev_doctrine_and_american_strategy

We'll soon be teaching our kids and grandkids to duck and cover if Putin and Cheney have their way.

Michael said...

A request: Please use more contrasting tones when you highlight infoformation as you did in today's post. I am colorblind and the highlighting is nearly impossible for me to see. Thanks!

Rhonda said...

Not this woman with a child. Count me out.

egapre 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,