Talk Elections

Here's the "even" map of a generic Presidential election according to the Cook PVI, with "median" state (Colorado) in green.

()

Urban vs. Rural (population density)

Hypothesis: The more rural, the more Republican.

()

% non-Hispanic white population

Hypothesis: The more white, the more Republican.

()

Per-capita income

Hypothesis: The wealthier, the more Republican.

()

Median household income

Hypothesis: The wealthier, the more Republican.

()




Seems to me that urban vs. rural is the best predictor of voting patterns - whiteness has only a weak correlation and wealth appears to have a negative one (public-sector workers and urban vs. rural, presumably).

So is the green state in each map the median?

Yes, the state that would put one party "over the top."

Can't you just go into Excel and run a =Correl(%Republican,%OtherVar) command?

I think % of advanced degrees has an even greater correlation. (i.e. above = Dem., below = Rep.)

The last map perfectly shows what's so depressing about US politics (poor people voting massively for a party dedicated to serve the interests of the wealthier).

However, it is generally the wealthy voters in each state which vote more Republican--it's just that poor people in, say, Kentucky, are more Republican than poor people in Connecticut.

The wealthy voters are more Republican, sure, but that doesn't mean that poor voters alone wouldn't carry the state for Republicans.

Kentucky 2008 exit poll (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=KYP00p2), whites with income under $50k:
42% Obama
57% McCain

or, even worse, the same statistic for Mississippi:
16% Obama
84% McCain

Considering the GOP's ideology, them attracting more than 10% of the poor is already pretty shocking.

Part of the reason I hate US comparisons with Euro politics. These kindsa people would be voting Labour or BNP in the UK (for example) or the PS or the FN in France.

Compare that to higher income brackets.

Not really.

It is, if you assume voters would vote at least somewhat rationally.

I ran a correlation coefficient for some similar factors in France, vis-a-vis Sarko2007 by canton:

median HH income: 0.27
population density: -0.11
unemployment: -0.28
Retirees: -0.05
Ouvriers: -0.02
CPIS: 0.09
aged 60-74: -0.01

In any huge group of people ( the American lower class, in this case), there will be some (many) people who are low-information, cynical, selfish, short-sighted, passive, prejudiced, etc. The poor aren't saints. A lot of those poor people who vote Republican, I would venture to guess, do so because

a) They feel threatened by urban, cosmopolitan values and ways of life (this is especially true with rural people) that they associate with the Democratic Party.

b) The Republicans speak to their hopes (vote for us, and things will improve) and fears (vote for them, and the terrorists win). The Democrats speak to...their wallets. Oh, and of course, the Democrats  have taken their votes for granted, especially in light of NAFTA, the transfer of wealth and resources from rural to urban areas, and the many broken promises of Democratic politicians and Presidents, especially in recent years.

Furthermore, how many of those poor Republican voters are really Republican in ideology, or even have the time or resources to come up with a  coherent, "rational" political ideology? Seriously. The bulk of political resources, activism, organization, etc., at any rate, comes from the middle and upper classes (in both parties, this is the case).

By the way, this is why I can't stand the people who say "the free market" is rational. The market is made up of people, and people, more often than not, are not "rational" actors.

Now, having said all that, I'm still a Democrat. But I sometimes can see why Republicans do so well with certain demographics in the poor, working and middle classes.

WHAT THE

Lots of old people in declining left-wing rural regions, such as the Limousin or the rural parts of the SW.

Anyhow, here's another strong correlation:

ouvriers and Le Pen 2007: 0.46
but...
ouvriers and Le Pen 2002: 0.23
ouvriers and FN-EXD 2010: 0.28

Amusingly stark contrast between the FN vote in 2002 and 2007, but not too surprising if you've read into the Sarkozyst OPA on the FN in 2007.

That's weird. I've always heard that old people was Sarko's strongest demographics...

Back to the US: The racial differences show up intrastate. Wealth differences show up intra-metro.

You're assuming that economics is the only rational basis for casting a vote.

When a party is working so actively in making your life miserable, you are expected not to vote for it.

Well, it should be.

Rational ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_ignorance)
The Myth of the Rational Voter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter)

Also, when rich people vote against their economic self-interest, this is noble or something. If poor people do it, it must because they've been hoodwinked.

All this thread really does is demonstrate the ecological inference fallacy.