This is not newsworthy, but I think it's good to have the numbers along with our vague impressions of how young/old people and more/less educated people are voting.
These are based on raw Pew data, reweighted to adjust for voter turnout by state, income, and ethnicity. No modeling of vote on age, education, and ethnicity. I think our future estimates based on the 9-way model will be better, but these are basically OK, I think. All but six of the dots in the graph are based on sample sizes greater than 30.
34 comments
First?
What exactly does this mean? Republicans sell half-truths, which only works on people who half know what they're listening to?
I'd be happier with error bars than these circles. They are very counter-intuitive, since I'd expect that the most well-sampled groups would have the least error in their voting patterns.
what's most telling about this graph? i think it's that for young people, minorities voted more with mccain as their education improved. i.e., when an educated young person is not racked with white guilt, or supporting obama because it's hip, or because he or she is afraid of racism, he or she voted more with mccain than his or her peers.
p.s. Nate, when are you going to post something about Rasmussen's tremendous negative movement in obama's ratings? as someone gleefully following the public's surprisingly sensible reaction to a president instituting a series of bad policies, i've been waiting to hear your usual spin on why his -8 index is actually bad news for republicans
p.p.s. also, i'm well aware that rasmussen's numbers are well below most of the other agencies, but the movement is there, and as nate always reminded us, movement is more important than an absolute number...unless you think rasmussen is putting his finger on the scale (and now i'm not being snarky, i've actually wanted to see nate's analysis on this issue, i do respect him a lot for his best in class forecasting both of the election and of my fantasy baseball team. go ben zobrist.)
Jordan, I also noticed that. But if you look closer, you will notice that this is meaningless because black high school graduates (between 18-29) voted for Obama in greater percentage than black college graduates of the same age. Same thing with Hispanics (although very slightly).
@Jordan
1. You can't interpret polls.
2. You're a troll.
Bob X and Jordan,
You're reading a lot into the data - that's way too much spin for me.
Self-employed and fixed-income people should have been pulled towards McCain - with perhaps an increased impact on the latter with increased education. But, I don't see how to locate people like that on these graphs (are whites more likely to be self-employed than hispanics, for example?)
i think error bars are essential - some of them circles are miniscule.
My reading of these graphs is PK is neither a complete dumb ass nor is he as intelligent as he thinks.
Wait a minute. So Obama isn't going to have a 65% approval rating forever? Clearly his presidency is a failure, just like Reagan, who dropped below 55% in August 1980, and Clinton, who dropped below 55% almost immediately. If only Obama were performing more like Bush 41, who stayed above 55% for almost two years and then got his ass handed to him in 1992.
Jordan…
Judging by your disinclination to use the “Caps” key on your computer, and a seemingly pre-set dislike of the president, can we guess you’re a fortyish white man with some college, but no degree, and that your guy in 2008 was John McCain? (Oops—sorry, I mean john mccain…)
Jordan has a read on me, I voted for Obama to assuage the guilt I personally feel over slavery. I know Obama isn't even the the descendant of a slave, as his Dad was a native Kenyan, but I just feel so much better now! Slavery is atoned for, and my guilt-ridden conscious has been set free! Now that America has gotten that out of our system, I'm glad we're free to all start voting Republican again! Romney '12!
STepper said...
@Jordan
1. You can't interpret polls.
2. You're a troll.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lol but, but, but, Jordan's been waiting to hear Nate's usual spin sooo we can assume Jordan can't function unless he/she hears the official word from Nate! re: politics and sports ie Jordan is addicted to Nate's blog :)
Hey, Nate's spot-on prediction re: the presidential election has fascinated many republican trolls and left most of them spellbound w/reverence ;)
take care, blessings
p.s. Sadly Nate was eliminated from the WSOP tournament yesterday, so hopefully he can answer all of Jordan's inquisitive concerns soon ... or not.
ciao
"for young people, minorities voted more with mccain as their education improved."
We can read the data ourselves, you know. I assume you're using as evidence for that the *extremely* small data point of 18-29 year old blacks with postgraduate degrees (looks like 50 people or so). If you're a regular reader of this site, I would hope you'd know not to extrapolate too much from such a small data set. As for Hispanics, those in every set above high school had a lower McCain voting rate than the high school set, and for whites and "other" McCain voting goes down steadily with every increase in education. Not to mention, your rationale for your supposed theory is, to say the least, highly unscientific and really somewhat offensive.
"i've been waiting to hear your usual spin on why his -8 index is actually bad news for republicans"
I notice you conveniently use the index as your one data point. The index, of course, that compares strongly approve with strongly disapprove, which is a very odd choice for Rasmussen to have in the first place.
If you'd like the "spin", however, I'll point out that a great deal of Republicans will obviously strongly disapprove of Obama no matter what, while many Democrats only strongly approve of Obama if he acts in a certain manner. As Obama takes less liberal positions like waffling on the public option, delaying action on DADT, etc, he's obviously going to lose the "strong approval" of Democrats while maintaining his overall approval. It's why Rasmussen's index is such a pointless number: it shows only degree of intensity of feeling instead of what percentage of people would actually vote to re-elect him. And if there's one thing Republicans have in droves right now, it's a high intensity of opinion.
I find it interesting that the TROLLs almost universally jump on a post that even remotely appears to 'prove their point', but fail to read:
1. Who authored the post; and
2. What the details and analysis say.
Says a tremendous amount about the ability of the TROLLs to be cognizant of what is actually happening in the world, understand and digest that information BEFORE they comment, doesn't it?
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
@Jordan,
don't worry about Rasmusson.
It's assumed that He is biased a lot.
He cooked numbers favouring McCain during 2008 campaign.
He just recovered the last week but too late...His reputation was already "gone in the wind" as Zogby's.
Jordan-
Gallup has a much better and longer record of presidential polling, and Gallup does not use the now questioned robo-call method of Rasmussen. Additionally Ras has a well established Republican bias in ALL his polls except for the one that matters, his last pres. poll before an election.
Glad to see the wonks back!
I think this is reasonably well known political psephological theory. The poorest, and the best educated tend to vote for a 'progressive' political movement, the middle ground tend to vote more conservative. Its nice to see it shown in graphical form mind.
Here is my theory as to why its true. The poorest need the most help so are more attuned to a pro-government message. The best educated are not necesarily motivated by money, and tend to be more pro-education, and therefore vote for the more progressive, more pro education movement. In the middle ground, voters are more likely to either be very rich, or likely to be living at a level around tax rates, so the typically low tax, low spending message, that conservatives have, is more attractive. (in short education- liberal, money- conservative)
It's also worth noting that that last group--the post-graduate degree earners, self-select as a usually liberal group. These are your trial lawyers and liberal arts majors. Many college graduates (in my estimation, the conservative ones) go to work directly out of college and never see a school again. It doesn't make them any less smart, it just means their chosen careers don't require more education than that.
Two conservative groups who are exceptions that prove the rule are MBAs and doctors.
Rasmussen polls undercut Obama`s support by 5 points. The same way they inflated bush by 5. he also only polls likely voters since Obama got in when Bush was there it was registered voters.
Ras is on the fox news payroll and frames everything as pro republican as possible.
In the last election his state polling was overly pro republican although he called most states right, It is true the last week before the election he polls on the level and hits the number.
TIPP was even worse, they had the election a dead heat until 2 days before it was held and all of the sudden Obama moved ahead 7 ponts in 2 days, they are a total fraud.
If the economy improves in the next year Obama will go back to 60% approval.
The conclusion seems to best apply to Whites. Its hard to find that nice curvilinear relationship in the other groupings (though that could be due to smaller sample sizes).
"It's also worth noting that that last group--the post-graduate degree earners, self-select as a usually liberal group. These are your trial lawyers and liberal arts majors."
Most lawyers are not trial lawyers but are just as educated as the few that are.
It's no surprise that the least educated reject the Republicans, because the Republicans incorporate disdain for the least advantaged into their platform.
Indeed, almost any demographic that can be said to experience or have recently experienced discrimination tends to be majority Democraphic. Women, gays, visible minorities (including prosperous Asian groups), religious minorities, etc. The only exception I can think of is Mormons, and that's probably because they are concentrated in or near an area they dominate locally.
It's no surprise that them most educated reject Republicans, because Republican policies are corrupt and unsustainable upon serious analysis.
Beyond their obvious appeal to socially isolated holders of inherited wealth (although not to insightful holders of inherited wealth), the Republicans offer up a pandering agenda of economically worthless "tax cuts" and ego-stroking for insecure, struggling, "middle class" white people, especially men, who feel threatened by modern society.
This message isn't going over very well with anyone, but it's hardly surprising that it does the best among those who are neither targeted for derision and discrimination by the Republicans, nor sophisticated enough to see through them.
It is worth point out that this is not Republicans and Democrats broadly speaking, but rather votes in one historical election. Hardly seems representative.
Other survey data suggests that those with less income and less education are more likely to be conservative (broadly speaking) than their higher income and high education counterparts. The status quo (that is, what is generally--but not always--represented by conservative policies) is psychologically beneficial. People with less education and income face a variety of economic and psychological threats (via stigma etc) and plenty of social psych data suggests that conservatism/the status quo can assuage some of these threats.
PS. Thinking about it a bit more, I would like to soften my argument for the degree of conservatism found among income and education brackets. There seems to be something there, but not to the degree i had original remembered.
Adam,
good points on Rasmussen. Their method to figure popularity also struck me as weird, but you eviscerated it more eloquently than I could have.
I recall when The Decider dropped to 40% that Wingnuttia decided that 40% was "good enough". There were two wars going on, after all. And the economy was not good (Clinton's Fault!). And The Liberal Media was not parroting Bush's upbeat assessments of Iraq as they properly should. Still, we were assured, "Real America" still loved Bush.
I also recall the devolution of the wingnut opinion on polling that unfolded on this very site during the election campaign.
When McCain was up, pollsters were wise and wonderful. As McCain dropped, only certain pollsters were to be trusted. Further along, only RCP had the "real" numbers. Finally, we reached the "wingularity", and it was thus pronounced that "the only poll that matters is the one on Election Day".
Likewise, the pull of the "Bradley Effect" increased to whatever figure McCain would need to win: 4% to 15% or more in the course of a few weeks. And few of those who advocated for adjusting polling for the Bradley Effect even understood what it was. It was a magical principle that always meant good things for John McCain, and that 'proved' pollsters were stupid.
Oddly, wingnuts have once again discovered polls to be useful and insightful. Even though PPP was dismissed by all Republicans as a liberal cesspool, they went wild over the PPP polling showing Democrats in trouble in VA and NJ.
We have moved from a wingnut position of " all polls are worthless" to "any pollster is irrefutable" in only eight months.
The Republican Party is now a quasi-religion. The only immutable truth in this religion is that anything that happens is good news for Republicans.
The Dems are the party of urban and near suburban America and the GOP the party of rural and the rest of suburban America. That is the sum and substance of our great cultural and political divide.
Given that urban and near suburban demographics are dominated by the highly educated wealthy and the badly educated poor, this raw data is unsurprising.
@kilioopu: "Bob X and Jordan, You're reading a lot into the data - that's way too much spin for me"
I don't know what Jordan's about, but all I was doing was making a lame attempt at a joke, mostly because I've never snagged a "First!" before in all my days here. I was really hoping for Andrew to read more into the data; perhaps he intends some follow-up posts on what this info amounts to.
I'd like to see an analysis that distilled the effect of income from the apparent effect of education level. I'm willing to bet money that a lot of Democrats with low education vote that way because they're poor.
I am probably too late to comment, and someone may have pointed this out, but their are two "issues" with using the Ages 18-29 column at the high education point (especially for the non-white rows).
First, as it has been stated, the sample size is very low. You can hardly see the last circle on the charts in that column for non-white (especially for the Other plot), so there are maybe 5(?) people representing their age group/race with high eduction. That really means nothing.
Beyond that, most people do not graduate undergraduate undergraduate school until they are 22, and for many that number is 23 or 24 (many tech/engineering degrees are now 5 years planned). I am not sure if "post grad" means you attended/completed one graduatel level course, or actually got some graduate level degree. However, even if it is the former, you are only going to be getting a sample of ages 22-29 (and most likely few to none under 24), so you are cutting that bracket almost in half. If you cut that age bracket into two (18-23 and 24-29), I would suspect you would see the younger bracket supporting Obama greater than the older.
So the first column has more than just education effects going on; there are age effects that are going on without being identified, and is effecting the way the data appears. Thus you really can not draw any conclusions from those plots without further analysis (and really more data points).
自慰套,自慰套,自慰器,情趣,情趣,視訊交友,充氣娃娃,AV,按摩棒,電動按摩棒,情趣按摩棒,按摩棒,跳蛋,跳蛋,跳蛋,男女,潤滑液,SM,情趣內衣,內衣,性感內衣,角色扮演,角色扮演服,吊帶襪,丁字褲,情趣用品,情趣用品,飛機杯,自慰套
艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 飯局小姐,領檯人員,領台,傳播妹,或者想要到台北酒店、林森北路酒店,私人招待所,或者八大行業當酒店PT,酒店公關,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的禮服酒店,鋼琴酒吧當酒店領檯,酒店小姐,公關小姐??,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、學生兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想找打工、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!
艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚，無業績壓力，無脫秀無喝酒壓力，高層次會員制客源，工作輕鬆，可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已，對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有！艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪，不需擔心！只提供最優質的酒店打工,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。
水水們妳有缺現金、有卡債、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學日本打工嗎?妳是工讀生找工作??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,兼職工作日領假日打工的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??整天還在煩腦如何賺錢有什麼賺錢方法,和賺錢最快方法!?,想要打工,日領工作,短期打工,兼差工作,打工兼差工作嗎!?,
請加入我們艾葳酒店經紀公司工作單純輕鬆”高時薪”又可日領徵想要當傳播妹,上班小姐,酒店兼差,酒店兼職,歡迎學生打工,!!!
加入我們實現夢想就從現在開始^__^
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment