National Average Trending: An Incredible Waste of My Life
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:20:53 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  National Average Trending: An Incredible Waste of My Life
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: National Average Trending: An Incredible Waste of My Life  (Read 5716 times)
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 30, 2005, 06:02:07 PM »

I have set out to make trend maps for every state in the U.S. by taking the margin for each county in 2004, subtracting the national margin, doing the same for 2000, and comparing the numbers.

Say a county was tied in 2004 and 2000.  2004 was Bush +2.47, and 2000 was Gore +0.51.  Thus, the county would be 2.47 more Democratic than the national average in 2004, and 0.51 more Republican than the national average in 2000.  Thus, a swing of 2.98 to the Democrats.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 30, 2005, 06:04:34 PM »

I'm willing to make a small wager that you aren't anywhere close to completion by the end of the 2005 calendar year.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 30, 2005, 06:10:05 PM »

I'm willing to make a small wager that you aren't anywhere close to completion by the end of the 2005 calendar year.

I'm willing to bet I will die without finishing this project.  But anyway...the colour scale:

>10% = <4%
>30% = 4%-8%
>50% = 8%-12%
>70% = 12%-16%
>90% = >16%

This actually takes less time than you'd think.  I just have to copy it from the Atlas table, do an Excel calculation, etc.  The trouble is making the map for states that I haven't memorised the counties for...which I am now working on.

By the way, I consider +4% a statistically significant trend.  This is entirely arbitrary.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 30, 2005, 06:26:57 PM »
« Edited: October 30, 2005, 06:28:37 PM by Alcon-O-Lantern »

First, of course, is always Washington, because I'm a self-centred jerk.

There are 39 counties in Washington State.  Of them, 35 counties trended Democratic and 4 trended Republican.



Of these, 20 of the Democratic counties trended in a statistically significant way:  Asotin, Chelan, Clallam, Columbia, Ferry, Garfield, Jefferson, King, Kittitas, Lincoln, Okanogan, San Juan, Skagit, Skamania, Stevens, Thurston, Wahkiakum, Walla Walla, Whatcom, and Whitman.

No counties trended Republican in a statistically significant way.

Nine counties trended Democratic by ten points or more:  San Juan (Friday Harbor, 18.76);  Okanogan (Omak, 16.74);  Jefferson (Port Townsend, 15.77);  Columbia (Dayton, 12.77);  Whitman (Pullman, 12.18);  Whatcom (Bellingham, 12.14);  Garfield (Pomeroy, 11.12);  Klickitat (Goldendale, 10.66);  and Ferry (Republic, 10.25).

The Republican-trending counties were an interesting mix.  They were:

  • Pierce, a Democratic-leaning county which contains Tacoma
  • Adams, a small farming, extremely Republican county on the verge of becoming Hispanic majority
  • Franklin, heavily Republican and Hispanic, containing the tri city of Pasco with a mix of agricultural and manufacturing
  • Spokane, a solidly Republican county containing the Dem-leaning city of Spokane
Logged
MaC
Milk_and_cereal
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,791


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 30, 2005, 06:52:47 PM »

hey, Alcon could you also post a map of WA comparing it to all the rest of your county swings. (oh and do Michigan too, please!)
Logged
bgwah
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,833
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 30, 2005, 07:42:42 PM »

I have set out to make trend maps for every state in the U.S. by taking the margin for each county in 2004, subtracting the national margin, doing the same for 2000, and comparing the numbers.

Say a county was tied in 2004 and 2000.  2004 was Bush +2.47, and 2000 was Gore +0.51.  Thus, the county would be 2.47 more Democratic than the national average in 2004, and 0.51 more Republican than the national average in 2000.  Thus, a swing of 2.98 to the Democrats.

But to find a swing between the elections, shouldn't you subtract 0.51 from 2.47 instead of adding them together?
Logged
True Democrat
true democrat
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,368
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.10, S: -2.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 30, 2005, 08:04:24 PM »

You should get Dave to post these.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 30, 2005, 10:09:37 PM »
« Edited: October 30, 2005, 11:06:00 PM by Alcon-O-Lantern »

I have set out to make trend maps for every state in the U.S. by taking the margin for each county in 2004, subtracting the national margin, doing the same for 2000, and comparing the numbers.

Say a county was tied in 2004 and 2000.  2004 was Bush +2.47, and 2000 was Gore +0.51.  Thus, the county would be 2.47 more Democratic than the national average in 2004, and 0.51 more Republican than the national average in 2000.  Thus, a swing of 2.98 to the Democrats.

But to find a swing between the elections, shouldn't you subtract 0.51 from 2.47 instead of adding them together?

This results in the same numbers, and would be easier.  Thank you.  That's one of those things I would have realised tomorrow and yelled "stupid, stupid" at myself for.

I'm taking requests.  I should have some decent free time to finish it, and - Tweed - it's much faster than I imagined.  I'm doing states I know the counties of first, though.  Georgia and Texas will be a pain!

Queue
California
Delaware
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Massachusetts
Maine
Michigan
New Jersey
South Dakota
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 30, 2005, 10:27:11 PM »

There are 36 counties in Oregon.  Of them, 32 counties trended Democratic and 4 trended Republican.



Of these, 21 of the Democratic counties trended in a statistically significant way.

No counties trended Republican in a statistically significant way.

Four counties trended Democratic by ten points or more:  Benton (Corvallis, 11.12);  Multnomah (Portland, 12.10);  Hood River (Hood River, 13.71);  and Wallowa (Enterprise, 18.66).

The four Republican counties were all heavily Republican agricultural areas with ranching and timber industries.  Interestingly, so was Wallowa County, the biggest Democratic swing.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 30, 2005, 10:44:34 PM »

I have set out to make trend maps for every state in the U.S. by taking the margin for each county in 2004, subtracting the national margin, doing the same for 2000, and comparing the numbers.

Say a county was tied in 2004 and 2000.  2004 was Bush +2.47, and 2000 was Gore +0.51.  Thus, the county would be 2.47 more Democratic than the national average in 2004, and 0.51 more Republican than the national average in 2000.  Thus, a swing of 2.98 to the Democrats.

But to find a swing between the elections, shouldn't you subtract 0.51 from 2.47 instead of adding them together?

This results in the same numbers, and would be easier.  Thank you.  That's one of those things I would have realised tomorrow and yelled "stupid, stupid" at myself for.
South Dakota

But the original numbers are -0.51 and 2.47, if we count a Democratic lean to be a positive number.  So, you should subtract -0.51 from 2.47, which is adding 0.51 to 2.47, so what you were doing initially was correct.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 30, 2005, 10:46:36 PM »

I have set out to make trend maps for every state in the U.S. by taking the margin for each county in 2004, subtracting the national margin, doing the same for 2000, and comparing the numbers.

Say a county was tied in 2004 and 2000.  2004 was Bush +2.47, and 2000 was Gore +0.51.  Thus, the county would be 2.47 more Democratic than the national average in 2004, and 0.51 more Republican than the national average in 2000.  Thus, a swing of 2.98 to the Democrats.

But to find a swing between the elections, shouldn't you subtract 0.51 from 2.47 instead of adding them together?

This results in the same numbers, and would be easier.  Thank you.  That's one of those things I would have realised tomorrow and yelled "stupid, stupid" at myself for.
South Dakota

But the original numbers are -0.51 and 2.47, if we count a Democratic lean to be a positive number.  So, you should subtract -0.51 from 2.47, which is adding 0.51 to 2.47, so what you were doing initially was correct.

Democratic lean is negative.  Bush won by 2.47, Gore won by -0.51.  Thus, the overall lean adjustment should be -2.98, yes?  That is what I used for Oregon and Washington.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: October 30, 2005, 11:05:38 PM »

There are 16 counties and one independent city in Nevada.  Of them, 11 counties and the independent city trended Democratic and 5 trended Republican.



Of these, five of the Democratic counties trended in a statistically significant way, and three Republican counties trended in a statistically significant way.

No counties trended by ten points or more.

More tomorrow.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: October 30, 2005, 11:16:16 PM »

I have set out to make trend maps for every state in the U.S. by taking the margin for each county in 2004, subtracting the national margin, doing the same for 2000, and comparing the numbers.

Say a county was tied in 2004 and 2000.  2004 was Bush +2.47, and 2000 was Gore +0.51.  Thus, the county would be 2.47 more Democratic than the national average in 2004, and 0.51 more Republican than the national average in 2000.  Thus, a swing of 2.98 to the Democrats.

But to find a swing between the elections, shouldn't you subtract 0.51 from 2.47 instead of adding them together?

This results in the same numbers, and would be easier.  Thank you.  That's one of those things I would have realised tomorrow and yelled "stupid, stupid" at myself for.
South Dakota

But the original numbers are -0.51 and 2.47, if we count a Democratic lean to be a positive number.  So, you should subtract -0.51 from 2.47, which is adding 0.51 to 2.47, so what you were doing initially was correct.

Democratic lean is negative.  Bush won by 2.47, Gore won by -0.51.  Thus, the overall lean adjustment should be -2.98, yes?  That is what I used for Oregon and Washington.

Oops, my mistake, yes, you're correct.
Logged
ElectionAtlas
Atlas Proginator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,628
United States


P P P
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: October 31, 2005, 09:33:36 AM »

Alcon,
how did you calculate your percentages?  If I look at Snohomish County, I have a margin in 2004 of 7.50 in 2004 (+ = Dem) and 7.96 in 2000 for a net shift to Republican of 0.46, not a shift to the Democrats.

Here is my auto-generated map
<5, < 10, < 15, < 20, > 20 as my color coding.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: October 31, 2005, 09:54:54 AM »

He compared them to the national average.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: October 31, 2005, 10:37:39 AM »

Alcon,
how did you calculate your percentages?  If I look at Snohomish County, I have a margin in 2004 of 7.50 in 2004 (+ = Dem) and 7.96 in 2000 for a net shift to Republican of 0.46, not a shift to the Democrats.

Here is my auto-generated map
<5, < 10, < 15, < 20, > 20 as my color coding.

I compared it to the national average, so an additional movement of 2.98 to the Democrats occurred.  Maps of just the swing are pretty readily available, so I thought this would be more interesting.

Would you prefer I used a different colour scale?
Logged
ElectionAtlas
Atlas Proginator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,628
United States


P P P
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: October 31, 2005, 04:56:05 PM »

Overall looks good.  I created the normalized (to national margin change) swing maps for all states as well.  Alcon - check Franklin/Walla Walla - the generated map has them reversed from your map.  Hope that I didn't take away any fun... great idea - if anyone has others, I have scripts that can generate county-level maps based on my blank templates.
Dave
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: October 31, 2005, 06:05:29 PM »

You could always do it for other years.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: October 31, 2005, 08:28:11 PM »

Well, it would automatic with Dave's script, and would only count the R and D votes each year.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: October 31, 2005, 10:00:52 PM »
« Edited: October 31, 2005, 10:03:18 PM by Alcon-O-Lantern »

Well, it would automatic with Dave's script, and would only count the R and D votes each year.

That would probably be best...in 2004 and 2000, I only did overall margin.  It would probably be better to do D vs. R, although it barely matters in 2004/2000.

It still ended up with some pretty crazy results, I recall, when Perot was considered in otherwise ultra-Republican counties.  Then again, now that look at the numbers again, it might be interesting.  It would sure show how Gore bled in rural areas.

Trinity County, California, in 1992 would have to be accounted for, I suppose, but other than that, why not? Smiley
Logged
Cubby
Pim Fortuyn
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,067
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -3.74, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: October 31, 2005, 10:26:50 PM »

Alcon thats really cool what you're doing. I like when you give descriptions of what certain counties are like, such as in WA and OR (but I guess you know those b/c they are near you) Its not a waste of your life, enquiring minds want to see maps Smiley

Whats up with Okanogan County? It seems like a big forest area, hardly the type of place to swing strongly to Kerry.

I'm eagerly awaiting more maps
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,805


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: November 01, 2005, 01:47:26 AM »
« Edited: November 01, 2005, 01:52:42 AM by thefactor »

Alcon, are you going to continue doing this in light of Dave's generated maps?

If so, I love what you're doing, but won't you be underestimating the Republican trend disproportionately in counties where Nader was popular in 2000? You probably realize this, but given that you're spending so much time on it, and I was a little confused as to your algorithim, I thought it might be best not take a chance... so this is what I mean:

Suppose County A, Gore gets 47.25, Bush gets 46.75, and Nader gets 5, in 2000. Gore is up about 0.5 here, and he is up 0.5 nationally, so the normalized score is zero.

Suppose County B, Gore gets 50.25, Bush gets 49.75, and Nader gets nothing. The normalized score is again zero.

In 2004/County A, Kerry gets 49.75, Bush gets 50.25, and Nader falls off the ballot. Now Bush is up about 0.5, and assume he is up 2.5 nationally for the sake of simplicity, so the normalized score is -2 for Bush. By my understanding of your algorithim the county trends Bush by (-2)-0=-2.

In County B, Kerry gets 49.75, Bush gets 50.25, again the normalized score is -2. By my understanding of your algorithim this county exhibits an identical trend, away from Bush by (-2)-0=-2.

Is this correct? If this is a wrong intepretation of your algorithim, my apologies.
But I hope you can see, given this algorithim considered here, there's a strong argument for saying that County A trended more stronger towards "the right" or towards the GOP, than County B, making the not-so incredible (IMO) leap that a majority of Nader voters would have strongly preferred Kerry to Bush in 2004. Yet this is not picked up in the data; for the pure county/national comparison, this is significant for all counties that deviated from the national mean percentage Nader vote in 2000; but for the trend it is only important for those counties that Nader did particularly well in, in 2000. There may be some distortions in that regard?
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: November 01, 2005, 01:51:35 AM »

Yes, this does tend to overestimate the trend.  This should not be regarded as a liberal/conservative trend.  At best it is Democratic/Republican trend.  This is very true in areas where Nader did well - a lot of them were just Nader voters moving to Kerry.

I suppose Democratic vs. Republican would probably be best.  Dave might reconsider, if it is not too hard, doing it with the two-party comparison instead.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,805


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: November 01, 2005, 01:54:33 AM »

Yes, this does tend to overestimate the trend.  This should not be regarded as a liberal/conservative trend.  At best it is Democratic/Republican trend.  This is very true in areas where Nader did well - a lot of them were just Nader voters moving to Kerry.

I suppose Democratic vs. Republican would probably be best.  Dave might reconsider, if it is not too hard, doing it with the two-party comparison instead.

Well I suppose Dave can do it in a lot of different ways without too much difficulty, if he wants to. I was thinking more along the lines of just looking at the percentage Bush vote, forget about the Democratic vote altogether. Since the libertarian party has been pretty marginal in both 2000 and 2004, I think that would give a more accurate picture of things.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: November 01, 2005, 01:57:48 AM »

Yes, this does tend to overestimate the trend.  This should not be regarded as a liberal/conservative trend.  At best it is Democratic/Republican trend.  This is very true in areas where Nader did well - a lot of them were just Nader voters moving to Kerry.

I suppose Democratic vs. Republican would probably be best.  Dave might reconsider, if it is not too hard, doing it with the two-party comparison instead.

Well I suppose Dave can do it in a lot of different ways without too much difficulty, if he wants to. I was thinking more along the lines of just looking at the percentage Bush vote, forget about the Democratic vote altogether. Since the libertarian party has been pretty marginal in both 2000 and 2004, I think that would give a more accurate picture of things.

I suppose, although Nader would still make things bothersome, wouldn't he?

I'm tired, so forgive me if I don't make sense.  Smiley
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.057 seconds with 11 queries.