National Average Trending: An Incredible Waste of My Life

[Beet]

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. 

Yes he would, . There's really no way to get rid of the problem altogether.

If we take Nader as a true third party where we don't know how his partisans would have behaved, taking the two-party total as the denominator is a better estimate; because you would see a massive surge in the Bush vote where Nader did well in 2000; just on account of him not being on the ballot or collapsing.

On the other hand if we assume Nader as just another "arm" of the left (if not the Democrats), then it makes sense to look just at the Bush vote and take Nader+Dems as a single homogenous entity representing the "left-of-center". In this case there would still be a slight bias, relatively smaller.

So I guess it all depends on the assumptions.

[A18]

Dave's formula is already based on just the R and D votes.

[minionofmidas]

Very cool, Dave.

[WalterMitty]

lol great name lewis!

'scooter' libby always weirded me out.  why would a grown man ask to be called 'scooter'?

[ElectionAtlas]

I figure we'll bounce this around a bit before I mass-produce maps and data for previous years.  The current algorithm is
swing: (voteD1 - voteR1)/TotalVote1 - (voteD2 = voteR2)/TotalVote2. 
trend: (voteD1 - voteR1)/TotalVote1 - (voteD2 = voteR2)/TotalVote2) - ((voteDnational1 - voteRnational1)/nationaltotalvote1 - (voteDnational2 = voteRnational2)/nationaltotalvote2)

Minor parties will influence these meaning of the trend/swing figures - although even in the Case of Ralph Nader, its not obvious that all the votes would have gone Democratic -> how many would not have bothered to vote at all?  How many would have voted for Bush? How many for Badnarik?  (I've seen data in NH that more Bush voters cast ballots for Nader than Kerry voters).   

I think that "third party" votes are another level of analysis that can be performed when considering vote swings ant trends (there are maps for third-party strength already).
Enjoy,
Dave

[Alcon]

I figure we'll bounce this around a bit before I mass-produce maps and data for previous years.  The current algorithm is
swing: (voteD1 - voteR1)/TotalVote1 - (voteD2 = voteR2)/TotalVote2. 
trend: (voteD1 - voteR1)/TotalVote1 - (voteD2 = voteR2)/TotalVote2) - ((voteDnational1 - voteRnational1)/nationaltotalvote1 - (voteDnational2 = voteRnational2)/nationaltotalvote2)

Minor parties will influence these meaning of the trend/swing figures - although even in the Case of Ralph Nader, its not obvious that all the votes would have gone Democratic -> how many would not have bothered to vote at all?  How many would have voted for Bush? How many for Badnarik?  (I've seen data in NH that more Bush voters cast ballots for Nader than Kerry voters).   

I think that "third party" votes are another level of analysis that can be performed when considering vote swings ant trends (there are maps for third-party strength already).
Enjoy,
Dave

That's a good point.  The numbers I've seen say nationally something like 50% Gore, 30% non-vote, 20% Bush.  Of course, there's the question of how many of those non-votes were just saying that on principle.

I'm pretty sure that, contrary to what A18 said, the way you currently have it would have third parties affect the result because they affect the margin (total vote).  Am I understanding this correctly?  It might be worth trying it with just D vs. R, since minor parties will introduce a variable over time that might vary significantly.

[minionofmidas]

(I've seen data in NH that more Bush voters cast ballots for Nader than Kerry voters).   

I'd rule that out. I'm fairly sure all ballots cast for Nader were cast by Nader votes, none by Bush voters and none by Kerry voters.

[A18]

Yeah, somehow I got the idea he was dividing by the total two-party vote. I think that's what he should do.

[Beet]

I'm afraid I was operating on the (apparently) wrong assumption of a left-right linear model, such that the important measure is not Democratic vote but "left-wing" vote, and that Green voters (2000) represented a "left" vote so that their total would more accurately be counted as such rather than excluded altogether. If that is not the case, ala Dave's New Hampshire example, then of course no conclusion can be drawn from people who voted Nader. It seems a bit counter-intuitive to me though it's probably the wisest thing to do.

[Smash255]

Good idea, but has some problems.

For example areas in the northeast & mid atlantic that had a 9/11 shift (Long Island especially) will show a pretty solid rightward trend when in fact their is none (recent polls show Bush's approval hovering around 30% here, with most of those polls being when he was in the low 40's nationally) & the 9/11 impact that would show as a Republican trend is completley gone

[Beet]

How do you know it was a 9/11 trend effect though? While it's a plausible explanation, has anyone actually gathered any evidence for this? I mean, the biggest GOP shifts were in Rhode Island and New Jersey, not New York. A lot of these northeastern areas voted Republican before Clinton, it could just be the fact that neither Clinton nor Gore was on the ticket.

[Alcon]

Good idea, but has some problems.

For example areas in the northeast & mid atlantic that had a 9/11 shift (Long Island especially) will show a pretty solid rightward trend when in fact their is none (recent polls show Bush's approval hovering around 30% here, with most of those polls being when he was in the low 40's nationally) & the 9/11 impact that would show as a Republican trend is completley gone

While accounting for Nader involves throwing potentially unscientific numbers in, this is downright impossible.

Besides, I have certain troubles buying the 9/11 theory.  Just look at upstate New York.

[Smash255]

How do you know it was a 9/11 trend effect though? While it's a plausible explanation, has anyone actually gathered any evidence for this? I mean, the biggest GOP shifts were in Rhode Island and New Jersey, not New York. A lot of these northeastern areas voted Republican before Clinton, it could just be the fact that neither Clinton nor Gore was on the ticket.

Some of the NY suburbs showed a sharp shift.  Nassau County went from a 19 poit Dem victory in 96 & 2000 to a 5.6 point Dem victory in 04 (a shift from 11.5% more Dem in 96 to 19% more Dem in 2000 to 8% more Dem in 04)  Suffolk County went from being 11% more Dem than the national average in 00 to 3.5% more Dem than the national average).  Both counties shifted Dem against the national average from 88-00 in every Presidential election.  Also I tend to think its the 9/11 shift (which seemed to evaporate especially after Katrina) when you look at the fact the counties mentioned were only a few points more Dem than the national average last year, but approval ratings show Bush's approval 10-13 points LOWER here now than the national average (polls showed Bush hovering around 30% on Long Island about a month ago when his national approval was in the low 40's.

Now only though a handful of people this theory kind of holds with some members of my family who voted for Clinton twice, voted for Gore in 2000, but voted for Bush in 04 primarily due to his 9/11 handling, but now wish they didn't vote for him.  Another point is in part some of the areas that saw a shift  to the GOP in 00-04 (Long Island, parts of Jersey) that were once Republican & trended heavily Dem in the 90's) are socially liberal areas.  Not exactly something that will cause any trend to the GOP in the last couple years

[TeePee4Prez]

Smash has a point.  Look at the Philadelphia suburbs that were NOT affected by 9/11.  The only one was Bucks and it had a slight GOP shift.  There are a lot fo New Yorkers that get off the Trenton train and live in Bucks County  One would have NEVER thought in the 1980s Montgomery County would pick a Dem president by 12 points, but it happened in 2004 which is a record.  Also Lois Murphy and Allyson Schwartz won their respective portions of Montco easily and we picked up two State House seats one against a supposed all-star incumbent and one in an open seat against a former Congressman.  Delaware went by 15 and Chester is on the verge of flipping (+4 Bush) and that county usually had 20+ GOP victories in the 1980s and earlier.

[Cubby]

How do you know it was a 9/11 trend effect though? While it's a plausible explanation, has anyone actually gathered any evidence for this? I mean, the biggest GOP shifts were in Rhode Island and New Jersey, not New York. A lot of these northeastern areas voted Republican before Clinton, it could just be the fact that neither Clinton nor Gore was on the ticket.

Some of the NY suburbs showed a sharp shift.  Nassau County went from a 19 poit Dem victory in 96 & 2000 to a 5.6 point Dem victory in 04 (a shift from 11.5% more Dem in 96 to 19% more Dem in 2000 to 8% more Dem in 04)  Suffolk County went from being 11% more Dem than the national average in 00 to 3.5% more Dem than the national average).  Both counties shifted Dem against the national average from 88-00 in every Presidential election.  Also I tend to think its the 9/11 shift (which seemed to evaporate especially after Katrina) when you look at the fact the counties mentioned were only a few points more Dem than the national average last year, but approval ratings show Bush's approval 10-13 points LOWER here now than the national average (polls showed Bush hovering around 30% on Long Island about a month ago when his national approval was in the low 40's.

Now only though a handful of people this theory kind of holds with some members of my family who voted for Clinton twice, voted for Gore in 2000, but voted for Bush in 04 primarily due to his 9/11 handling, but now wish they didn't vote for him.  Another point is in part some of the areas that saw a shift  to the GOP in 00-04 (Long Island, parts of Jersey) that were once Republican & trended heavily Dem in the 90's) are socially liberal areas.  Not exactly something that will cause any trend to the GOP in the last couple years

You are absolutely right Smash. I was stunned by Bush's increase in the New York Metro Area. I think the same situation applies to Connecticut except we also had the Lieberman factor (ie he wasn't on this ticket). I had been predicting 60%+ Democrat for NY and CT, nearly that for NJ, yet the lingering 9/11 feelings and perhaps the GOP convention countered what people's actual feelings were.

[A18]

bump

What is this based off right now, and is there any interest in getting it for other years?