by kjblair2, Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:27:19 PM EDT
This is a follow up to a previous diary where I had started to look at the impact of race and gender on selected primaries after West Virginia. The premise is that one can take the data from exit polls and estimate the percentage of voters that used race and gender in their voting decisions. Most exit polls ask if race or gender was important in deciding who you voted for. By looking at how people who answered "yes" to these questions, one can determine their impact on the outcome.
More in the extended entry.
by kjblair2, Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:13:01 PM EDT
Let's look at some data as opposed to throwing numbers and accusations around. Exit polls ask if the gender and race of the candidate was important in who you voted for. We'll have to make a couple of assumptions.
1. The responses are an accurate reflection of the person responding to the question.
2. As in all polls, we'll have to assume the results reflect the voting population.
3. And we'll also have to assume that voters using gender as a reason to vote for Clinton aren't sexist (since in this campaign its generally understood that if you aren't voting for Clinton specifically because she's a women that represents a sexist approach) and that voters using race as a reason to vote for Obama aren't racist (likewise, if you're not voting for Obama specifically because he's black that is construed as a racist approach).
More in the extended entry.
by kjblair2, Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:09:39 PM EDT
Jerome's previous post cherry picks data to the same extent that Markos does at dkos. It's intellectually dishonest and both of them should stop it.
An alternate approach would be to take ALL of the state head-to head matchups on Pollster.com and see where the chips fall. It includes all of the states (except Kentucky) that Jerome includes in his analysis plus several others which he just happened to leave out. Not having Kentucky isn't a big deal since both candidates lose to McCain. The state-by-state analysis is in the extended entry.
by kjblair2, Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:13:52 PM EDT
I live in the 17th CD in Pennsylvania and Tim Holden is my Congressman. He grew up in St. Clair, PA and has represented the 17th since 1993. He got redistricted into the 17th and was expected to lose to George Gekas but pulled off the upset and hasn't been really challenged since. He's fairly conservative but accurately represents his district. He also hasn't endorsed either Clinton or Obama. Why is this a problem for Clinton?
See the extended entry for the details.
by kjblair2, Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:45:37 AM EDT
People are looking at the results of primaries in individual states and using the voting results and exit poll data in an effort to predict who will carry that state in the general election. That approach is fraught with errors. One way to show this is to look at historical data and determine if there is a correlation. Since Ohio is a focal point in 2008, and since Pennsylvania didn't have 2004 primary exit poll data, let's compare how Kerry did in the 2004 Ohio Democratic primary to how he did in the GE later that year. As you'll see in the extended entry, the correlation isn't very good in a lot of areas.