The Boston Globe has released an interesting interactive website which allows you to set turnout levels and partisan margin for a number of different demographic groups (based on race, gender and religion) and see the effect on the 2008 Presidential election and the electoral college.
For example, in 2004, blacks turned out nationally at 60 percent and voted 78 percent for the Democratic nominee (based on exit polling). If you ramp up that turnout to 85 percent, and increase the Democratic share to 90 percent, the website projects that New Mexico will flip from red to blue, but the outcome of no other state will change, so John McCain would still be projected to win with 281 electoral votes. That's not a likely scenario - nothing else will remain static, of course, and 85 percent turnout among blacks is astronomical - but it's an interesting exercise just the same.
That was fun but McCain would have to take Florida, Indiana, Ohio and also Iowa and Missouri which also have been on the bubble but I like it.
Fun with numbers! This really doesn't tell us much. If 100% of blacks turn out in Idaho, but only a few thousand more turn out in Florida than in '04, the result is different. They wouldn't make a difference in Idaho, but would swing Florida blue.
Anyway, it doesn't matter much, because Obama will turn out a greater percentage of young voters and new voters and will pick up more disaffected Republicans than McCain will pick up disaffected Democrats. The Democrats are more fired up and the Republicans are very "ho-hum". GOTV will be especially important and the Democrats seem less fractionalized than the Republicans so they would be more able to organize into a cohesive campaign.
There is that race thing, though. Isn't that the point you were trying to make?
Euclid-Great opinion not much fact I am not sure what you mean by the race thing? I think the demographics map includes all the states not just Idaho.
"There is that race thing, though. Isn't that the point you were trying to make?"
Me? Nah. While I find it interesting that the Democrats and media think it's necessary to divide the electorate into sub-American groups (look at Barack Obama's listing of different types of "people" on his home page - notice anything missing?), I just thought this was an interesting and educating exercise and nothing more.
For example, I had no idea that turnout among blacks and whites was so similar - reading media accounts of national elections would lead one to believe that blacks rarely vote, and while I'm sure I've looked at the number in previous exit polling, I'm just as sure it gets lost in the media narrative about who is disenfranchised.
You? Yah. The every first map you post is a racial comparison. The line "For example, in 2004, blacks turned out nationally at 60 percent and voted 78 percent for" indicates a race issue. You did not, for example, lead with "Catholics", or "income earners from 50K to 90K", or "people who attend church at least twice monthly", or "high school graduates". Blacks. That qualifier means "Blacks". A race. So it's racial.
"You? Yah. The every first map you post is a racial comparison. The line "For example, in 2004, blacks turned out nationally at 60 percent and voted 78 percent for" indicates a race issue. You did not, for example, lead with "Catholics", or "income earners from 50K to 90K", or "people who attend church at least twice monthly", or "high school graduates". Blacks. That qualifier means "Blacks". A race. So it's racial."
Well, the three choices in the simulator - created not by me - to be clear, created by someone other than me - were to explore a change based on race, gender, or religion. Race was the first option, so I played with it - as an example of how it works, as I very clearly stated.
Again, I didn't choose how to set up the simulator, and I didn't program it.
Save your mock outrage and faux offense-taking for something that actually matters.
What mock outrage? What faux offense taking? I was pointing out that a. race is an issue in this election, even though it may be subtle as applied, it's still being applied and b. you, IP, joined in it, using "race" as your first variable instead of a different variable. Race is clearly an issue in this election, unfortunately, but it is an issue. Must it be the main issue?
Why are you so sensitive? I said "racial", not "racist". Methinks you may protest too much.
There is that race thing, though. Isn't that the point you were trying to make?
I think this is the line that maybe started race issue in the thread, what point were you trying to make? So do you expect the campaigns to ignore polling that indicates that most African American voters will be turning out and then voting for Obama?
Geez. IP apparently had the choice to be racist, sexist, or religionist.
What I found very interesting about the simulator was a comparison of what the results would be if people voted as they did in 2004 vs. 2006. With 2004 voting behavior McCain wins with 285 electoral votes; with 2006 behavior, Obama wins with well over 300.
The difference is of course that 2004 was a presidential year 2006 was not.
For example, I had no idea that turnout among blacks and whites was so similar - reading media accounts of national elections would lead one to believe that blacks rarely vote, and while I'm sure I've looked at the number in previous exit polling, I'm just as sure it gets lost in the media narrative about who is disenfranchised.
The disparity as I understand it is in registered and eligible voters, not in the behavior of registered voters. I haven't seen the same media reports you've seen, but unless they are specifically talking about registered voters, the media narrative you are decrying is actually correct. I'm not attacking you, but I think you are misinterpreting the situation.
As for the racial issue, I don't think the criticism is fair, and your responses are, but leave it to your reactionary friends to play the "racist" card when no one even mentioned "racism". Clearly, anyone can understand that an issue is racial if it has anything to do with race, but that doesn't make it racist.
"The disparity as I understand it is in registered and eligible voters, not in the behavior of registered voters. I haven't seen the same media reports you've seen, but unless they are specifically talking about registered voters, the media narrative you are decrying is actually correct. I'm not attacking you, but I think you are misinterpreting the situation."
I don't think I am. Every four years, in the lead up to a Presidential election, there is media speculation about turnout among blacks - turnout being generally used as "what percentage of registered voters actually vote" - with hopeful anticipation for how increased turnout will help the Democratic nominee. Young voters are another common subject of such hopeful reporting. There are similar articles following the election, lamenting lower turnout among this group or that group with speculation as to how differing turnout could have changed the results.
Of course, you're correct about the difference between increasing turnout and increasing registration. If Obama can do the latter significantly, he may not need to improve turnout (as a percentage) to see large gains in margins. But I suspect that the turnout percentage increase will be the much more significant factor, but that's just a hunch based only on close examination of voting patterns here in Champaign County from the Primary. I'm of course completely unfamiliar with the Obama ground game and voter registration efforts, and what happens here is absolutely not representative for what happens elsewhere, so my hunch is probably worthless.
Clearly, anyone can understand that an issue is racial if it has anything to do with race, but that doesn't make it racist.
You are making a pretty big leap of faith there :-)
The stuff I've read suggests the opposite IP--there has been a huge surge in registered voters. There may be some turnout effects--which would appear to favor Democrats at this stage--but the biggest issue is that there's just a much higher number of registered voters than there were four years ago--a much more significant boon for the Democrats.
I'm hoping that it will backfire on them in the long run--the Republican party will continue to become more and more irrelevant, and people will turn their criticism to the Democrats. In a best case scenario, I'm hoping for the collapse of the two party system, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
I never said "racist", never called anyone racist, never suggested anyone was racist, just that the comparisons were "racial".
In fact, here, so you don't miss it, IN FACT, the map shows voting by RACE.
Why is this such a third-rail topic? Uber-libs brand conservatives as "racist" for making any race based comparison, and conservatives backpedal so fast to deny "racism" they can't see the difference between "racial" and "racist".
Wake up folks, there ARE race components to this election. Yet, the word ending "...ial" is seen as "...ist".
It is not a leap of faith. It is the simple ability to read and understand 6 letter words.
redstatewannabe is really Al Sharpton, or is he our own native son Jesse Jackson?
Note: "native" means from here, like A. Lincoln, "native" does NOT mean a person from a jungle or something. I can call Jesse Jackson a native just as easily as I can call A. Lincoln a native. Without it being racist. Or even racial.
Sheesh
Why is this such a third-rail topic?
so you do admit that it is one?
All I am saying is that it is very, very difficult to discuss things "racial" without it turning into "racist" - sounds to me like you tend to agree.
"The stuff I've read suggests the opposite IP--there has been a huge surge in registered voters. There may be some turnout effects--which would appear to favor Democrats at this stage--but the biggest issue is that there's just a much higher number of registered voters than there were four years ago--a much more significant boon for the Democrats."
You may be right.
Just nosing around through some hotly contested Primary states:
Indiana:
That's less than a one percent increase from 2006 to 2008.
North Carolina, with another hot primary, has increased from 5.5 million in April of 2007 (the first total I could find post-2006 election) 5.86 million a few weeks ago, an increase of about five percent, which is considerable, but with one report that just around 45,000 of those are African-American.
Anyway, it's interesting to stuff to explore.
Sure it's a third rail issue, but it shouldn't be. Some may think Obama will work hard to give blacks an advantage, some may think he will work hard to level the playing field, yet others may think he will work to lead by inspiration, and others will think that he will give away everything to the blacks. Some may think he isn't black enough. The first ever black (half black, half white, so he isn't "black", or "white") major party candidate, and that can't be discussed? Nonsense. A mere mention of "IP, why did you start with a racial comparison" draws the "I am not a racist" kneejerk response? I'm not afraid to talk about race and what impact it will have, and I'm not afraid to talk about race and what expectations there may be. I don't know much about Obama, so I don't know if I like him or not. I know about Jesse Jackson, and I don't like him. For Jackson, his "blackness" is what is all consuming, for Obama, he seems to have other things taking pre-eminence, he happens to be black. Far more difficult, no doubt, than a white person preoccupied with other things and not having to realize he is white every day and what that means to others, but Obama seems too busy to say, "I'm black and this is the black man's view", like Jesse Jackson does. If people are afraid to talk or post about black politicians because it's a third rail, stay off the train. We'll run the train without you. Maybe this isn't the time or the place to discuss race in this race. Everybody is so chicken, it probably won't be discussed at all, because the blacks will cry "racist" and the whites will backpedal and say, "Not me!"
"A mere mention of "IP, why did you start with a racial comparison" draws the "I am not a racist" kneejerk response?"
Well, yes - especially given the way you asked the question, with the implication that I was playing with the racial turnout sliders because I've got some sort of racial hangup.
And it's silly for you to lament that nobody is willing to have a conversation about race and its impact on this campaign when you interjected that, right off the bat, as soon as I posted something completely worthy of discussion and completely non-racist.
So forgive me for being confused by your scolding me for talking about race, and scolding me for not being willing to talk about race. The political climate is a bit poisonous this year with charges of racism, and it's only going to get worse.
Actually, I would argue that the political climate is a bit poisonous this year with racism--given FOX news' recent incidents, that's an interesting perspective gap to say the least :)
"Actually, I would argue that the political climate is a bit poisonous this year with racism--given FOX news' recent incidents, that's an interesting perspective gap to say the least :)"
Well, Fox News sucks, and they're willing to do whatever it takes to get ratings, including completely ridiculous things that will have the other "news" outlets tsk-tsking them for a full 24-hour news cycle.
I think there's a scientific study out there somewhere that proves that watching television news actually makes people stupider. There's got to be, right?
There is no such word as "stupider".
See?
There is no such word as "stupider".
Then what do you call that collection of letters with a readily understood meaning?
And, are you discounting The American Heritage Dictionary as a lexical authority?
I think there's a scientific study out there somewhere that proves that watching television news actually makes people stupider. There's got to be, right?
Actually, this study showed that FOX news makes people dumber. The other study, which I can't find right now, concurred, but found that watching morning news digests makes one dumber faster than just watching regular TV.
Negative perception of blacks rises with more news watching, studies say
From the U of I a week ago.
"more stupid", not "stupider"
I would suggest watching, listening to, or reading any single source is a negative. Broad based knowledge gathering makes one less stupider, and more smarter.
Then what do you call that collection of letters with a readily understood meaning?
Communicative, and that's good enough for me.
And, are you discounting The American Heritage Dictionary as a lexical authority?
Yes. Webster's is a waste too.
Then what do you call that collection of letters with a readily understood meaning? Communicative, and that's good enough for me. Oh really? Are your students allowed to come "close enough" if they have been communicative? Wen I went to the stor a bawt a galen of milk and a lofe of bred.
Why don't you look up the definition of "blog" and "go **** yourself"? (Of course, by this I mean "go improve yourself")
Was that communicative enough?
Wow. Bad day, Xian?