Demographics and the Electorate
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:12:37 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Demographics and the Electorate
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
Author Topic: Demographics and the Electorate  (Read 5683 times)
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: September 26, 2016, 12:39:53 AM »

Well that is the conundrum with the data. The interest level is at a record high, but the dissatisfaction is only surpassed by 1992 when Perot had a big showing as an independent. Without the big vote for Perot the turnout in 1992 would have been abysmal. Indeed in 1996 when Perot's vote dropped from 19% to 8% turnout dropped from 58% to 52%. This is consistent with half of the Perot voters from 92 staying home in 96.

Well, to be fair, I wasn't trying to put too much emphasis on any one single question there. I was more amazed at how all 3 of those are crazy high, and the first 2 are record setters for at least the past generation.

For your point, yes, there is significant dissatisfaction, but also note that in 1996, the interest level was a lot lower than this election when they were not happy about their choices. The situation is much different now, with huge interest but somewhat higher levels of dissatisfaction compared to 1996.

We could probably fill a decently-sized cubicle with different interpretations of this data, but from my view, I don't think it's unreasonable to say we might see turnout anywhere from 2012 levels to maybe somewhere between 2012 and 2004 (based on that chart)... Or not. Who knows.

On another note, if we see turnout levels like 1996 or 2000, we'll know that these questions aren't all that reliable in all cases. Win-win for us prognosticators!
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: September 26, 2016, 03:26:10 AM »

Question - is there any analysis on what the polls projected turnout is? Obviously a single poll is unreliable, but if you aggregate some you should get a picture of what pollsters are predicting.
Logged
Hilldog
Rookie
**
Posts: 117
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: September 26, 2016, 03:28:33 AM »

I saw a poll where Trump was at 14% among black voters. 
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,832


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: September 26, 2016, 03:35:01 AM »

Question - is there any analysis on what the polls projected turnout is? Obviously a single poll is unreliable, but if you aggregate some you should get a picture of what pollsters are predicting.

This is Reuters (who I can only praise for their willingness to share data)

Logged
ursulahx
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 527
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: September 26, 2016, 03:55:23 AM »

Question - is there any analysis on what the polls projected turnout is? Obviously a single poll is unreliable, but if you aggregate some you should get a picture of what pollsters are predicting.

This is Reuters (who I can only praise for their willingness to share data)



That seems to show a remarkably high drop-off in AA and Hispanic interest, contradicting some of the presumptions made on this thread (especially the apparent increases in enthusiasm among AA voters, and the registration efforts among the Hispanic community).

Assuming the projection is accurate it could mean increased white turnout will deliver the election to Trump (much as happened in the Brexit vote here, where 'anti-establishment' turnout was much higher than anticipated). Unless white people are turning out to vote against him, but there's not a lot of evidence of that.

If the projection isn't accurate, but the basis for LV weighting is similar, this explains partly why Clinton is not doing as well as many people think she should be doing.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: September 26, 2016, 03:59:57 AM »

Question - is there any analysis on what the polls projected turnout is? Obviously a single poll is unreliable, but if you aggregate some you should get a picture of what pollsters are predicting.

This is Reuters (who I can only praise for their willingness to share data)



That data makes no sense at all... I mean, wouldn't that suggest that turnout was largely stable 08-10-12? When it wasn't at all. I mean 2014 makes sense in relation to the data, considering 2010 turnout was only slightly better than 2014... Unless I'm completely misreading this.

Is it just me or is this an assumed projection...
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,832


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: September 26, 2016, 04:09:01 AM »

Question - is there any analysis on what the polls projected turnout is? Obviously a single poll is unreliable, but if you aggregate some you should get a picture of what pollsters are predicting.

This is Reuters (who I can only praise for their willingness to share data)



That data makes no sense at all... I mean, wouldn't that suggest that turnout was largely stable 08-10-12? When it wasn't at all. I mean 2014 makes sense in relation to the data, considering 2010 turnout was only slightly better than 2014... Unless I'm completely misreading this.

Is it just me or is this an assumed projection...

The graph is RCP. They haven't used midterm data at all so that's misleading. It's been extended from 2012 to 2016 using Reuters turnout model.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: September 26, 2016, 04:15:20 AM »

Question - is there any analysis on what the polls projected turnout is? Obviously a single poll is unreliable, but if you aggregate some you should get a picture of what pollsters are predicting.

This is Reuters (who I can only praise for their willingness to share data)



That data makes no sense at all... I mean, wouldn't that suggest that turnout was largely stable 08-10-12? When it wasn't at all. I mean 2014 makes sense in relation to the data, considering 2010 turnout was only slightly better than 2014... Unless I'm completely misreading this.

Is it just me or is this an assumed projection...

The graph is RCP. They haven't used midterm data at all so that's misleading. It's been extended from 2012 to 2016 using Reuters turnout model.

That's even more ridiculous, then. They're comparing the final results, based on the cross-tabs in one poll, dependent current subjective LV screens?
Logged
oriass16
Rookie
**
Posts: 28
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: September 26, 2016, 04:54:14 AM »

Folks you are missing the hall point, you should see each states separately. We do not have one race in here we have 51 separate races.

Just ignore the nation wide polls especially with trump, he can lose the popular votes by 5 points and still win the electoral college votes because he is not very strong in traditionally conservative states but just strong enough to win it, while he is much stronger than other republicans in the rust belt area where there are huge percentage of uneducated whites.

I see trump may be capable of wining NV,OH and PA cause of huge population of uneducated whites, in 2012 they did not turn out in big percentage with trump their turn out will be bigger.

Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,832


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: September 26, 2016, 04:54:40 AM »

Question - is there any analysis on what the polls projected turnout is? Obviously a single poll is unreliable, but if you aggregate some you should get a picture of what pollsters are predicting.

This is Reuters (who I can only praise for their willingness to share data)



That data makes no sense at all... I mean, wouldn't that suggest that turnout was largely stable 08-10-12? When it wasn't at all. I mean 2014 makes sense in relation to the data, considering 2010 turnout was only slightly better than 2014... Unless I'm completely misreading this.

Is it just me or is this an assumed projection...

The graph is RCP. They haven't used midterm data at all so that's misleading. It's been extended from 2012 to 2016 using Reuters turnout model.

That's even more ridiculous, then. They're comparing the final results, based on the cross-tabs in one poll, dependent current subjective LV screens?

That's the issue I have. They've effectively upped white turnout to recent historical highs and dropped minority turnout to mid term levels. Which is unprecedented.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: September 26, 2016, 06:13:17 AM »

Aren't there better polls than Reuters to use for this?
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,832


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: September 26, 2016, 06:18:45 AM »

Aren't there better polls than Reuters to use for this?

I can't find any other giving projected turnout rates by different groups. There's a lot of smoke and mirrors when it comes to pollsters stating what the LV screen actually is.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: September 26, 2016, 06:52:56 AM »

Question - is there any analysis on what the polls projected turnout is? Obviously a single poll is unreliable, but if you aggregate some you should get a picture of what pollsters are predicting.

This is Reuters (who I can only praise for their willingness to share data)



That data makes no sense at all... I mean, wouldn't that suggest that turnout was largely stable 08-10-12? When it wasn't at all. I mean 2014 makes sense in relation to the data, considering 2010 turnout was only slightly better than 2014... Unless I'm completely misreading this.

Is it just me or is this an assumed projection...

The graph is RCP. They haven't used midterm data at all so that's misleading. It's been extended from 2012 to 2016 using Reuters turnout model.

Do you have the link to the article with the graph?

Midterm turnout data doesn't correlate that well with presidential year turnout, so I can see why they would only use the presidential years.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: September 26, 2016, 10:11:32 AM »

This is the thing I just can't square in my mind. Polls are what they are, but these are what I thought at the start of the process, and what I can't shake now:

Romney lost by 4 points in 2012.

If we held turnout and vote share by demographics equal, and just adjusted populations for population growth in the last 4 years, Romney would have lost by 5 points.

Romney won 59% of white people.

Romney won 27% of Hispanics.

Romney won 52% of men, 44% of women.

Given all of these things, I sometimes try to think how they could be different in a Trump-Clinton race. I could see Trump maybe winning a bit more of the white vote, but not a whole lot more. 59% is the highest percentage of the white vote that's gone to one candidate since 1988. Hispanics are likely to vote more against Trump than they did against Romney, and I think they're likely to turn out at least marginally more, though maybe that turnout will be matched by similar increases in turnout by other groups. I could, sadly, see Trump winning up to 55% of of men, but also only getting <40% of women. That might be a wash.

Basically, it looks to me like there are more factors cutting against Trump than for him, demographically, and he needs to make up 5 points of ground from Romney's 2012 baseline.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,832


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: September 26, 2016, 12:31:37 PM »

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-poll-decoder/

I was actually doing this myself so I'm glad this does it for me! It takes all the demographic data out of the national, non tracker polls and puts it together. You can compare it with the exit polls.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: September 26, 2016, 12:44:41 PM »

Is there a compelling hypothesis as to *why* LV screens might be doing particularly poorly this time?  If a demographic group is being systematically over or under-estimated as LVs, then why is that more of an issue this year than other years?  Are NCWs so psyched by Trump that they're more likely to tell pollsters that they're enthusiastic about voting, or what?

And I know that each individual pollster doesn't like to divulge this kind of info, but has anyone written a good article that describes the most common methods that pollsters use to rate respondents as LVs?
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: September 26, 2016, 12:51:57 PM »

Aren't there better polls than Reuters to use for this?

I can't find any other giving projected turnout rates by different groups. There's a lot of smoke and mirrors when it comes to pollsters stating what the LV screen actually is.

Even without turnout rates don't a lot of pollsters publish crosstabs with nr of respondents included? I'm guessing that would allow backing out what they think the shares of the electorate are.
Logged
Kempros
Rookie
**
Posts: 118
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: September 26, 2016, 12:57:27 PM »

We should not be divided into demographics because we are our own individuals and our own personal votes. Though I see where it comes into play with analysts.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: September 26, 2016, 01:01:54 PM »

This is excellent!
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: September 26, 2016, 01:03:21 PM »

Aren't there better polls than Reuters to use for this?

I can't find any other giving projected turnout rates by different groups. There's a lot of smoke and mirrors when it comes to pollsters stating what the LV screen actually is.

Even without turnout rates don't a lot of pollsters publish crosstabs with nr of respondents included? I'm guessing that would allow backing out what they think the shares of the electorate are.

Are you after the raw number of respondents in each demographic group or the %age of the electorate that they are assumed to make up (after weighting)?  I would think the latter would be the more relevant number, and I'm pretty sure that PPP for example always includes those percentages, for example.
Logged
Erc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,823
Slovenia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: September 26, 2016, 01:03:30 PM »
« Edited: September 26, 2016, 01:10:25 PM by Erc »

I think with the tightening we are seeing that the typically-Republican college-educated white voters are more prone to fall back in line than the typically-Democratic non-college-educated working class white voters.  When Clinton was ahead, she had some real bleed in the WCW vote, but the college-educated white vote that Trump bled has all started to fall back into place.  (See the Georgie polls where this phenomenon occurred.)

What I think the issue here is that WCW are not in as good of a shape as college-educated whites; and thus they are more willing to vote for a change from their normal voting patterns than college-educated whites who have an easier time falling back in line and voting as they normally do.

I think this is the big issue we are seeing and that ultimately it is what could be putting Trump over the finish line.

Except the polls really aren't backing this up.  Clinton is maintaining, if not expanding her lead among white college-educated voters.

Comparing the late September ABC-WaPo poll to the early September poll (insert usual caveats about crosstabs):

You may be right, to some extent, about white college-educated males, who went from +1 Clinton to +11 Trump.

But white college-educated women went from +10 Clinton to +25 Clinton, more than making up for the fickle men.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: September 26, 2016, 01:05:38 PM »

Aren't there better polls than Reuters to use for this?

I can't find any other giving projected turnout rates by different groups. There's a lot of smoke and mirrors when it comes to pollsters stating what the LV screen actually is.

Even without turnout rates don't a lot of pollsters publish crosstabs with nr of respondents included? I'm guessing that would allow backing out what they think the shares of the electorate are.

Are you after the raw number of respondents in each demographic group or the %age of the electorate that they are assumed to make up (after weighting)?  I would think the latter would be the more relevant number, and I'm pretty sure that PPP for example always includes those percentages, for example.


The latter, naturally, since that is what would reflect the LV screen. But I think many pollsters publish reweighted nrs in their crosstabs?
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: September 26, 2016, 01:07:26 PM »

This should probably be merged with Erc's demographics thread no?

Anyway, this has Trump running behind Romney's white vote margin by 6% running ahead among blacks by 7% (on the margin, mind you) and facing the same margin among Hispanics. To have that translate into running ahead of Romney by 2% in overall margin, clearly pollsters are expecting turnout to be GOP-friendly compared to 4 years ago.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,832


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: September 26, 2016, 01:08:55 PM »

Aren't there better polls than Reuters to use for this?

I can't find any other giving projected turnout rates by different groups. There's a lot of smoke and mirrors when it comes to pollsters stating what the LV screen actually is.

Even without turnout rates don't a lot of pollsters publish crosstabs with nr of respondents included? I'm guessing that would allow backing out what they think the shares of the electorate are.

Well for example if we take the Bloomberg poll, they don't even provide demographic breakdowns at all. Monmouth gives me that, but not raw numbers to calculate turnout and so on. A few polls give what they assume the makeup of the electorate is, but not differential turnout. Indeed some of them appear to be doing exactly what they did in 2012 with respect to weighting.
Logged
Erc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,823
Slovenia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: September 26, 2016, 01:24:17 PM »
« Edited: September 26, 2016, 03:26:55 PM by Erc »

In terms of the electorate, we can tease out what ABC/WaPo late September thinks via the cross tabs.  It breaks down as:

44% Non-College White
28% College White

27% Non-White

[This breakdown is largely unchanged from the early September poll, apart from a 2% increase in the non-white vote at the expense of the college white vote.]
----
63% Non-College (all races)
37% College (all races)



Note that that's a huge difference from the 538 calculator, which suggests (if turnout remains unchanged from 2012 up to demographic shifts):

33% Non-College White
37% College White

29% Non-White

or from the 2012 Exit Polls:

53% Non-College (all races)
47% College (all races)

28% Non-White (all education levels)

Non-white turnout isn't the real story here (just a 1-2 percentage point difference), it's the college vs. non-college white vote, which has huge differences!

In terms of the 538 calculator, that corresponds to (in addition to a pretty steep drop in black turnout):

58% turnout for white college-educated voters
75% turnout for white non-college-educated voters.

That's very close to one of my "absurd" scenarios from the first page.

Is this really what's going on?  Is Trump really getting 30% more white non-college-educated voters, while 25% of white college educated voters are so disillusioned they aren't turning up?

It's possible, I suppose, but I really can't believe that the share of white college educated registered voters who are voting for a major candidate this year (rather than staying home or voting 3rd party) is larger than the share of white non-college-educated registered voters who are voting for a major candidate this year.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4  
« 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 0.067 seconds with 13 queries.