Georgia's Very Own Megathread!

[Bacon King]

I used Hancock specifically because it's the only rural county where black voters were a greater proportion of the vote than the partisan breakdown you assume for "unknown" voters. This would effectively double the discrepancy, because it'd be one of the only counties where "unknown" voters are more likely to vote Obama than you estimate so it would make your guess of a white percentage off by even more.

Throughout most of the state, there's a fairly strong direct correlation in your map between a white voter's proximity to black voters, and the white voter's probability of voting for Obama, which is literally exactly the opposite of what you say is happening. Even when you throw out the smaller urban centers like Augusta, Albany, Macon, Savannah, and Columbus, and college towns Milledgeville and Statesboro, you have a bunch of counties that are blacker than surrounding counties where whites are also more likely to vote for Obama.

See: Hancock, Warren, Taliaferro, Washington, Jefferson, Macon, Talbot, Marion, Sumter, Stewart, Quitman, Clay, Calhoun, Liberty, etc

The cocks are the most obvious example of a consistent pattern throughout the black belt and really the entire state south of the Atlanta metro. It makes no sense based on my personal knowledge of these places.

Regarding the turnout, I'm not surprised that people who don't check off the boxes on their form have a lower than average turnout. Whether it's out of paranoia or laziness or age or whatever, pretty much any factor you can think about that would keep someone from identifying their race and gender on a form would also make them less likely to go to the polls on election day.

[windjammer]

BK, could you update BACON KING'S FAMILY POLITICAL TRACKER please?

[Adam Griffin]

I used Hancock specifically because it's the only rural county where black voters were a greater proportion of the vote than the partisan breakdown you assume for "unknown" voters. This would effectively double the discrepancy, because it'd be one of the only counties where "unknown" voters are more likely to vote Obama than you estimate so it would make your guess of a white percentage off by even more.

Throughout most of the state, there's a fairly strong direct correlation in your map between a white voter's proximity to black voters, and the white voter's probability of voting for Obama, which is literally exactly the opposite of what you say is happening. Even when you throw out the smaller urban centers like Augusta, Albany, Macon, Savannah, and Columbus, and college towns Milledgeville and Statesboro, you have a bunch of counties that are blacker than surrounding counties where whites are also more likely to vote for Obama.

See: Hancock, Warren, Taliaferro, Washington, Jefferson, Macon, Talbot, Marion, Sumter, Stewart, Quitman, Clay, Calhoun, Liberty, etc

The cocks are the most obvious example of a consistent pattern throughout the black belt and really the entire state south of the Atlanta metro. It makes no sense based on my personal knowledge of these places.

Regarding the turnout, I'm not surprised that people who don't check off the boxes on their form have a lower than average turnout. Whether it's out of paranoia or laziness or age or whatever, pretty much any factor you can think about that would keep someone from identifying their race and gender on a form would also make them less likely to go to the polls on election day.

Yeah, that makes sense. I was thinking we might be seeing some neat bell curve of sorts, where whites were more pro-Obama not only in rural areas where there are virtually no blacks, but also in more rural areas where there are large black populations.

But...

2012 electorate, Hancock:

77.34% black
21.21% white
1.45% other

The others/unknowns don't even play a significant role here. Using the formulas, I get this:

(77.34*0.95) + (1.45*0.65) = 74.41%

80.92 (Obama vote %) - 74.41 = 6.51

6.51/21.21 = 30.69% of white vote for Obama

Even if you count all of the unknowns as whites: 32.87%
And count all of the unknowns as blacks: 28.62%

I haven't checked the other counties. The ones you named: are those the ones you believe there are issues with on here? Especially in the SW...on both Carter and Sanford's turf...?

[Deus Naturae]

Palin endorses Handel.

[windjammer]

Palin endorses Handel.

Who?

[TX Conservative Dem]

GA Democrats' best bet is in 2018 to taking back the governorship.

[Joshgreen]

GA Democrats' best bet is in 2018 to taking back the governorship.

Thanks for your brilliant insight

[TX Conservative Dem]

At some point, Georgians are going to be sick and tired of Republican rule in the Peach State.

[Bacon King]

At some point, Georgians are going to be sick and tired of Republican rule in the Peach State.

wow

much insight

[Bacon King]

I used Hancock specifically because it's the only rural county where black voters were a greater proportion of the vote than the partisan breakdown you assume for "unknown" voters. This would effectively double the discrepancy, because it'd be one of the only counties where "unknown" voters are more likely to vote Obama than you estimate so it would make your guess of a white percentage off by even more.

Throughout most of the state, there's a fairly strong direct correlation in your map between a white voter's proximity to black voters, and the white voter's probability of voting for Obama, which is literally exactly the opposite of what you say is happening. Even when you throw out the smaller urban centers like Augusta, Albany, Macon, Savannah, and Columbus, and college towns Milledgeville and Statesboro, you have a bunch of counties that are blacker than surrounding counties where whites are also more likely to vote for Obama.

See: Hancock, Warren, Taliaferro, Washington, Jefferson, Macon, Talbot, Marion, Sumter, Stewart, Quitman, Clay, Calhoun, Liberty, etc

The cocks are the most obvious example of a consistent pattern throughout the black belt and really the entire state south of the Atlanta metro. It makes no sense based on my personal knowledge of these places.

Regarding the turnout, I'm not surprised that people who don't check off the boxes on their form have a lower than average turnout. Whether it's out of paranoia or laziness or age or whatever, pretty much any factor you can think about that would keep someone from identifying their race and gender on a form would also make them less likely to go to the polls on election day.

Yeah, that makes sense. I was thinking we might be seeing some neat bell curve of sorts, where whites were more pro-Obama not only in rural areas where there are virtually no blacks, but also in more rural areas where there are large black populations.

But...

2012 electorate, Hancock:

77.34% black
21.21% white
1.45% other

The others/unknowns don't even play a significant role here. Using the formulas, I get this:

(77.34*0.95) + (1.45*0.65) = 74.41%

80.92 (Obama vote %) - 74.41 = 6.51

6.51/21.21 = 30.69% of white vote for Obama

Even if you count all of the unknowns as whites: 32.87%
And count all of the unknowns as blacks: 28.62%

I haven't checked the other counties. The ones you named: are those the ones you believe there are issues with on here? Especially in the SW...on both Carter and Sanford's turf...?

Maybe the issue is that you're underestimating Obama's share of the black vote or the general nonwhite vote? Where you getting those numbers from? That would also explain the pattern.

And yeah those counties I listed are the ones that immediately stood out to me as being counties blacker than their surroundings where whites are apparently more likely to vote for Obama.

[Adam Griffin]

Maybe the issue is that you're underestimating Obama's share of the black vote or the general nonwhite vote? Where you getting those numbers from? That would also explain the pattern.

And yeah those counties I listed are the ones that immediately stood out to me as being counties blacker than their surroundings where whites are apparently more likely to vote for Obama.

The numbers come from the data on the same PDFs you linked to (turnout by race and electorate composition by county). It was obviously assumed that Obama lost a bit of the black vote between 2008 and 2012 (from 97% to 95%), but he did do better as a % of the vote in a lot of these types of counties in 2012 when compared to 2008. I just figured that it was based on sheer numbers and not preference. In most cases, the swing to Obama that we saw in a lot of those counties if attributed solely to increase in AA support would imply that he got 100%+ of the black vote.

Still using Hancock as a example (since I've been too lazy to go back and do the others yet), let's assume 100% black support and 100% of all other/unknown voters are black as well (which means Obama got 100% of their votes, also):

(77.34*1.0) + (1.45*1.0) = 78.79%

80.92 (Obama vote %) - 78.79 = 2.13

2.13/21.21 = 10.04% of white vote for Obama

That'd match the surrounding counties pretty well, but is a huge stretch to assume that every single voter who wasn't white voted for Obama, and that every unknown voter was also non-white.


Let's consider another scenario, where Obama gets 97% of the black vote and 80% of the other vote (in line with your theory that other/unknowns match that of the remainder of the electorate):

(77.34*0.97) + (1.45*0.8 ) = 76.18%

80.92 (Obama vote %) - 76.18 = 4.74

4.74/21.21 = 22.35% of white vote for Obama

This would still be quite a bit out of whack with a lot of the other surrounding counties.

[Miles]

Perdue knocks Handel for not having a college degree.

[windjammer]

Perdue knocks Handel for not having a college degree.

It won't change a lot of things.

[Adam Griffin]

Perdue knocks Handel for not having a college degree.

Dang, you always beat me to it.

[Miles]

Perdue knocks Handel for not having a college degree.

Dang, you always beat me to it.

Aww, sorry. Keep your thread though

[Adam Griffin]

Perdue knocks Handel for not having a college degree.

Dang, you always beat me to it.

Aww, sorry. Keep your thread though

This parody Twitter account went live today, and it is epic.

[RogueBeaver]

American Future Fund goes on air for Handel.

[windjammer]

Georgia Governor race: now lean rep for Sabato

[JRP1994]

Georgia Governor race: now lean rep for Sabato

I'm actually beginning to think that Carter is likely to outperform Nunn.

[Maxwell]

Georgia Governor race: now lean rep for Sabato

I'm actually beginning to think that Carter is likely to outperform Nunn.

If Perdue is nominated, that will certainly be the case.

[windjammer]

Georgia Governor race: now lean rep for Sabato

I'm actually beginning to think that Carter is likely to outperform Nunn.

If Perdue Broun and Gingrey aren't nominated, that will certainly be the case.

[Skill and Chance]

I agree that Carter is now better positioned than Nunn, with the GOP primary fortunes of Broun and Gingrey falling and Deal looking worse and worse.  However, Nunn could have a populist opening against Perdue with his recent college education comments.  I'm starting to worry about Handel again if she gets momentum from that gaffe.  

The biggest loser might end up being John Barrow for declining any statewide run this year.

[JRP1994]

I agree that Carter is now better positioned than Nunn, with the GOP primary fortunes of Broun and Gingrey falling and Deal looking worse and worse.  However, Nunn could have a populist opening against Perdue with his recent college education comments.  I'm starting to worry about Handel again if she gets momentum from that gaffe. 

The biggest loser might end up being John Barrow for declining any statewide run this year.

I agree. Honestly, Carter comes across as a more serious candidate than Nunn, in my opinion. With her, I see a lot of generic rhetoric and not much substance... Where's the beef?

[Miles]

FWIW, here's a good spreadsheet of the fundraising for legislative candidates.

[moderatevoter]

I agree that Carter is now better positioned than Nunn, with the GOP primary fortunes of Broun and Gingrey falling and Deal looking worse and worse.  However, Nunn could have a populist opening against Perdue with his recent college education comments.  I'm starting to worry about Handel again if she gets momentum from that gaffe.  

The biggest loser might end up being John Barrow for declining any statewide run this year.

I agree. Honestly, Carter comes across as a more serious candidate than Nunn, in my opinion. With her, I see a lot of generic rhetoric and not much substance... Where's the beef?

That's an impression I've gotten too, just listening to some of the things she's said.

She talks some about deficit reduction, particularly, in this radio interview:
http://zpolitics.com/michelle-nunn-on-zoller-and-bryant/