Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
the article talks about black full participation alone making it a 44-56 race. If there werent enough white people in the state to make up the last 6%, then you would have a point and could say it isnt a "perfect fit"
But there are infact enough white people to do so, and based on ideology, they absolutely make it up.
Wrong again, I said your data was true in that it was simplistic and assumed uniform distribution, sadly for you the world is not uniformly distributed.
You are making the "i dont understand therefore my method is the best" argument
Most people understand ideology, demographics(age and race) and the idea of disenfranchised voters.You seem to not get it.
the people who arent voting in Mississippi are younger, more liberal, and more people of color than the people who are voting.
Your entire argument is based on an assumption that the people who dont vote are just as white, just as conservative, just as old, and you are wrong. Again, a simple look at the US census says that. as well as pew research on ideology.
IN short, you can not assume who didnt vote based on who did vote. Every single mid term election proves that.
1) The article, using 2004 numbers, says that Obama would have received 530,300 votes out of a total of 1,215,300 votes (or ~44% of the vote). This number includes blacks voting their share of the population and Barack picking up all the white voters in MS that Kerry won in 2004. Of course, due in part to increases in voting population among both black and white voters, etc., Obama ended up getting more votes than that in 2008 (he won 554,662 votes), but so did the GOP nominee compared to Bush in 2004 (McCain won 724,597 compared to Bush's 684,981 votes). But, even with this, the race was still ~56% to ~43% in favor of McCain.
2) My data is the best we have to go off of as it is actual voting patterns. Not imagined voting patterns based off of how people self identified in a survey by political party, which ignores the racial/political/etc. history of MS and the south. Sorry, but the only one who seems to not get this is you, as you point to the fact that some ~20% of white voters in MS are Democrats as an automatic sign that maximum voter participation for all races in MS means that the Dem Party would get ~20% of the white vote
3) Younger, some liberal, and some blacks aren't voting in MS (of course, 2008 showed heavy increases in the black vote in MS, which still didn't really help Obama much). But, not only do many of these younger voters include conservative voters, but there are more than a few white conservative (including middle age and older white conservative voters) who are not voting that would help to offset an increase in the Democratic leaning voting under a max participation model. That's far removed from an assumption that the people who don't vote are "just as conservative, just as old," etc., but I'm not surprised that you to continue to misrepresent what is right before you. Indeed, by acknowledging that the election would tighten under max participation (52%-48% vs. the more spread out results we see today), it is clear that the folks who aren't voting are not "just as conservative, just as old," etc. as the democratic leaning voters who aren't voting. If they were, then I'd argue that, even with max voter participation, the GOP nominee could still expect to win ~56% to the Dem nominee's ~43%. This is not very difficult to grasp.
4) In short and to close, my model of extrapolating based on actual voting patterns (and racial, political, etc. demographics, while seeking to control for the fact that just because a white voter in the deep south says that s/he is a Democrat, doesn't mean that s/he is a Democrat voter) remains far superior to your model, which focuses too heavily on the racial, political, etc., demographics in the area.
1) The article, using 2004 numbers, says that Obama would have received 530,300 votes out of a total of 1,215,300 votes (or ~44% of the vote). This number includes blacks voting their share of the population and Barack picking up all the white voters in MS that Kerry won in 2004. Of course, due in part to increases in voting population among both black and white voters, etc., Obama ended up getting more votes than that in 2008 (he won 554,662 votes), but so did the GOP nominee compared to Bush in 2004 (McCain won 724,597 compared to Bush's 684,981 votes). But, even with this, the race was still ~56% to ~43% in favor of McCain.
do you understand that my post is about max turnout, and not 58.9% turnout .
Quote:
2) My data is the best we have to go off of as it is actual voting patterns. Not imagined voting patterns based off of how people self identified in a survey by political party, which ignores the racial/political/etc. history of MS and the south. Sorry, but the only one who seems to not get this is you, as you point to the fact that some ~20% of white voters in MS are Democrats as an automatic sign that maximum voter participation for all races in MS means that the Dem Party would get ~20% of the white vote
You have a right to your flawed opinion.
Quote:
3) Younger, some liberal, and some blacks aren't voting in MS (of course, 2008 showed heavy increases in the black vote in MS, which still didn't really help Obama much). But, not only do many of these younger voters include conservative voters, but there are more than a few white conservative (including middle age and older white conservative voters) who are not voting that would help to offset an increase in the Democratic leaning voting under a max participation model. That's far removed from an assumption that the people who don't vote are "just as conservative, just as old," etc., but I'm not surprised that you to continue to misrepresent what is right before you. Indeed, by acknowledging that the election would tighten under max participation (52%-48% vs. the more spread out results we see today), it is clear that the folks who aren't voting are not "just as conservative, just as old," etc. as the democratic leaning voters who aren't voting. If they were, then I'd argue that, even with max voter participation, the GOP nominee could still expect to win ~56% to the Dem nominee's ~43%. This is not very difficult to grasp.
I dont think you know what the word "offset" means.
If all eligible Gen X people vote and all Millennials vote, they dont "offset" each other as Millennials outnumber them 2 to 1.
52-48 is the percentage if numbers remained the same threw out each group, My argument is that actual surveys of people in mississippi say that isnt true.
Based on your own exit poll that shows ideology, Barack Obama won 18-29 year olds with 55% of the vote, but they were only a 19% share of the actual vote, but the biggest share of the vote staying home as well as they are 27% of the voting age population
Further more that group of White people were 18% for Obama, 81% for McCain(not 88-11 as you would claim). Black people in the same age group actually supported Obama with 99% of the vote(not 96 to 4 as you claim).
Also, black people make up 43% of that age group instead of 37.5% as a whole
Again, your entire argument is based on assuming distribution being the same(assuming the same number of people stay home in each age group) and that just isnt true.
I already did the math for you. Assuming independents stay independent which is about 130,000 voters.
You end up with
1,010,000 Democrats
1,065,000 Republicans
give or take a couple thousand as I rounded down with math.
Quote:
4) In short and to close, my model of extrapolating based on actual voting patterns (and racial, political, etc. demographics, while seeking to control for the fact that just because a white voter in the deep south says that s/he is a Democrat, doesn't mean that s/he is a Democrat voter) remains far superior to your model, which focuses too heavily on the racial, political, etc., demographics in the area.
1. You cant make the bold argument since the "exit polls dont suggest it" as Barack Obama won 92% of self described Democrats. (your logic, not mine)
You have not taken all those things into account that you listed, you have flat out ignored them as I have pointed out with actual census data. I dont get why you are pretending that you have.
The age structure of the electorate is more important than the age structure of the total population. I don't know if 35% is accurate, but in Midwest states like Indiana, senior citizens comprise a greater % of the population than in other parts of the country. Furthermore, senior citizens vote at greater rates than younger people, so the 35% may not be off by all that much.
Spot on.
Roughly 25% of the country is too young to vote. So naturally other age demographics are going to have higher representation in polls.
Some polls are junk just like how some studies are junk.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
