How Did Division I-A College Football Cities Vote in 2016?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 01:28:08 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Dereich)
  How Did Division I-A College Football Cities Vote in 2016?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9
Author Topic: How Did Division I-A College Football Cities Vote in 2016?  (Read 21245 times)
NOVA Green
Oregon Progressive
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,417
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #150 on: November 22, 2017, 10:08:52 PM »

Ok--- rolling through a few more precinct numbers looking for "Dorm Votes", "Off-Campus Undergrad", and mixed "Undergrad/ Grad student University" precincts....

PAC 12 North:


University of Oregon:

We have two precincts that are predominately located on the University of Oregon Campus (Albeit with precinct consolidation we lose some degree of granularity, since these also include some off-campus undergrad housing, not physically located on Campus.... Still, it's the best we can do for a compare contrast:

"Dorm Vote--- overwhelmingly U of O undergrads located on campus aged 18-19"

Total Vote: 8,432--6,926 HRC (82.1% Dem), 673 Trump (8.0% Rep), 833 Other (9.9%)  + 74.1% D

"Off Campus overwhelmingly Undergrad Vote"--- (1) precinct:

Total Vote: 1,456-1,153 HRC (78.7% Dem), 134 Trump (9.1% Rep), 178 Other (12.8%)   +69.6% D

"Heavily Student Vote proximate to campus aged 18-29 (Mixed Grad and Undergrad)"

Total Vote: 7,178-5,551 HRC (77.3% Dem), 652 Trump (9.1% Rep), 975 Other (13.6%)  + 68.2% D

Combined Results for heavily University Precincts:

Total Vote: 17,075-- 13,630 HRC (79.8% D), 1,459 DJT (8.5% R), 1,986 Other (11.7%)  + 71.3% D

So, here we have yet another University where the Undergrad student population not only voted to the Left of the City, but to the Left of mixed areas with higher percentages of Grad Students....

The tenured "Professor Vote" is virtually non-existent in these types of precincts, as it is in most of the University Precinct results that I have pulled to date for some pretty obvious reasons that should not require yet more additional explanations.

So now the 3rd PAC-12 North University where Trump placed behind the combined 3rd Party vote, among a heavily White Student-Undergrad population....
Logged
NOVA Green
Oregon Progressive
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,417
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #151 on: November 23, 2017, 02:58:30 PM »

PAC-12 North:

Washington State University:

2016 Campus Precincts:

Total Vote: 178 Votes, 117 HRC (65.7% Dem), 35 DJT (19.7% Rep), 26 Others (14.6%) + 46.0% D

2016 Off Campus Student Precincts:


Total Vote: 1,481, 994 HRC (67.1% Dem), 208 DJT (14.0% Rep), 279 Others (18.9%) +53.1% D>R

2016 TOTAL Campus + Off-Campus Student Precincts:

Total Vote: 1,659- 1,111 HRC (67.0% Dem), 243 DJT (14.6% DJT), 305 Others (18.4%) +52.4% D

So yet again we have Trump placing 3rd behind the combined 3rd Party Votes....

Since, I already have the data pulled up, let's look at the 2012 numbers to see what they show for WSU student precincts....

2012 Campus Precincts:

Total Votes: 275- 180 Obama (65.5% Dem), 80 Romney (29.1% Rep)    + 36.4% Dem

2012 Off-Campus Student Precincts:

Total Votes: 1,534- 1,072 Obama (69.9% Dem), 348 Romney (22.7% Rep)      + 47.2% Dem

2012 Total Campus plus Off-Campus Precincts:


Total Votes 1,809- 1,252 Obama (69.2% Dem), 428 Romney (23.7% Rep)      + 45.5% Dem

So here you have some interesting contrasts and observations:

1.) Total turnout in student precincts at WSU appears to have dropped almost 10% between 2012 and 2016...

2.) Obama '12 only performed marginally better than HRC at 69% of the student vote, compared to HRC's 67%. This is notable, because of the unusually large 3rd Party voting in 2016 that there wasn't much of a drop-off in total Democratic vote share.

3.) Republican support virtually collapsed between '12 and '16, dropping almost 50% from a fairly low starting baseline to begin with.

4.) The youngest segment of Millennials here at least, do not appear to be any more Republican than those four years older, in fact quite the opposite, although this did not translate into Democratic gains among the vote share in 2016, it did increase the total Democratic vote margin by almost 10% despite lower turnout because of the collapse in Republican support between '12 and '16.

5.) Dorm precincts here appear to be slightly more Republican than the Off-Campus precincts, which is a bit different than we have observed in some other locations that we have examined.
Logged
NOVA Green
Oregon Progressive
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,417
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #152 on: November 23, 2017, 06:03:19 PM »

PAC 12- North:

Stanford University:

2016 Campus/ "Dorm" Vote:


Total Votes: 839--- 756 HRC (90.1% Dem), 26 DJT (3.1% Rep), 57 Others (6.8%)    + 87.0% D>R

Note that Trump placed 3rd behind Gary Johnson among Dorm Voters at Stanford.

2016 "Off-Campus" Undergrad Precincts:

Total Votes: 2,202---1,978 HRC (89.8% Dem), 58 Trump (2.6% Rep), 166 Others (7.5%) +87.2% D

Combined Campus Dorm Vote with Off Campus Under-Grad Precincts:

Total Votes: 3,041-- 2,734 HRC (89.9% Dem), 84 DJT (2.8% Rep), 223 Others (7.3%)     +87.1% D

Note that Trump actually placed behind both the Green and Libertarian Candidates and finished 4th in these off-campus undergrad student precincts.

Wow!!! I just pulled these numbers and was so stunned by the results, that I needed to go outside and smoke a cig to think about the implications of arguably the toughest school to get into as an Undergrad in the US and even globally, as rated by recent studies, which is essentially the closest thing we to an Ivy League school in the Western US voting in numbers more reminiscent of votes back in the USSR days, with Trump getting eviscerated to the point where he placed 4th and almost got beat by Write-In voters to win the 5th place prize!!!!

So--- ok now I needed to go back and see how Stanford Undergrads voted in 2012 to see if somehow this is normal against a generic Republican type candidate, where one would imagine that Romney might do a bit better in a University that is very pricey and the student body tends to come mainly from Upper-Middle Class and wealthier family backgrounds....

2012: Campus/ "Dorm" Vote:

Total Vote: 804--- 681 Obama (84.7% Dem), 82 Romney (10.2% Rep)              + 74.5% Dem

2012: Off-Campus Student Vote:

Total Vote 876--- 724 Obama (82.6% Dem), 100 Romney (11.4% Rep)             + 71.2% Dem

2012: Total Campus and Off Campus Undergrad Student Vote:

Total Vote: 1,680---  1,405 Obama (83.6% Dem), 182 Romney (10.8% Rep)     + 72.8% Dem

**** NOTE the reason for the variance between the total off-campus numbers was because of a precinct split between '12 and '16 in one of the "off-campus" precincts, and as I was unable to align it with its new precinct home, left it off the data for 2012, but honestly I doubt that would move that numbers that much in terms of total % of the vote the major Party candidates received in 2012.

Notes/Observations/Comments:

1.) Total Undergrad student voting at Stanford appears to have increased significantly between '12 and '16. The usual caveat here is that in heavily Undergrad campus precincts that there can frequently be ebbs and flows based upon the rates of expansion among the total student population in even a very short time frame such as four years.... Hence we can't necessarily use total votes from student precincts in order to confirm relative enthusiasm for various candidates as a data point in the same way that we can with less dynamic and static precinct populations, but still worthy of a mention.

2.) Overall support for the Democratic Candidate in terms of total vote share increased significantly between '12 and '16, jumping from 84 to 90%.... This itself if a bit interesting because generally in many University precincts overall Dem vote share dropped, even as margins increased, because of defections to 3rd Party Candidates.

What I suspect here is that even though there wasn't a ton of room to expand the Democratic margins as a total percentage spread, is that Stanford swung heavily Democratic as did many other Upper-Income precincts, Cities and Towns where a 15% 2012 to 2016 swing wasn't abnormal as many of us have discussed in another thread examining the 2016 election results in wealthier communities throughout the US. The economic profile of a standard Stanford student tends to skew heavily from this demographic....

3.) Trump??? Well he obviously wasn't particularly popular here, I mean how the hell does a Republican Pres nominee only capture 3% of the 18-22 Vote among what arguably should and was historically until very recently a fairly 'Pub constituency, let alone place behind both Stein and Johnson?

These should be some pretty sobering numbers for my Republican Atlasian friends and 'Pub leaning Indies out there when even fringe candidates beat their main dude...

Sure, I pretty much expected UW and U of O to vote overwhelmingly Dem within the PAC-12, and WSU and OSU to give a higher % of their vote share to Trump than the other PAC-12 schools (Land Grant schools with large focuses on Ag, Science & Engineering, etc), but still.

Next stop Cal (UC-Berkeley) and then I can wrap up the PAC-12 North for Uni Precincts and throw all of this data into a more appealing visual format with a few charts/graphs and all that cool stuff....

At this point the only question remaining is did UC-Berkeley Undergrad precincts vote more Democratic/Republican than Stanford Precincts?
Logged
NOVA Green
Oregon Progressive
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,417
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #153 on: November 24, 2017, 02:29:57 AM »

PAC 12 North:

University of California- Berkeley:

2016 Campus/ "Dorm" Vote:

Total Vote: 1,536--- 1,333 HRC (86.8% Dem), 81 Trump (5.3% Rep), 122 Other (7.9%)  + 81.5% D

Trump placed 2nd in the dorm vote, beating Stein by 19 Votes....

2016 Off-Campus Undergrad Vote:

Total Vote 10,264-- 8,924 HRC (86.9% Dem), 398 Trump (3.9% Rep), 942 Other (9.2%)  +83.0% D

Combined Dorm Vote and Off-Campus Vote:

Total Vote: 11,800--- 10,257 HRC (86.9% Dem), 479 Trump (4.1% Rep), 1,064 Other (9.0%)

DJT placed 3rd behind Stein among undergrad precincts in Berkeley....

Note: Off-Campus precincts in Berkeley are a bit tricky, because of the nature of the campus a large majority of Under Grads live off-Campus in the student ghettos South of Campus, as well as a few precincts North of Campus and one or two on the Western Side of Campus.

Inherently, this makes the "off-campus" vote a bit trickier since it dilutes the Undergrad precincts and contaminates the data sample by also adding on voters that are Grad Students in their '20s that don't necessarily vote the same way as the Campus based population.

Still, that data speaks for itself when once again Trump is only bagging 4-5 % of the Undergrad vote in the most difficult school to get admission to in the entire UC program....

Later if I have time will try to pull the 2012 numbers, but as is the case in many States and Counties, this might require a significant amount of time because of precinct changes between '12 and '16....

So, now will try to pull the PAC-12 North data into a more graphical format to represent the Undergrad votes at these various academic institutions....



Logged
NOVA Green
Oregon Progressive
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,417
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #154 on: November 24, 2017, 03:22:03 AM »

So here are the basic numbers for PAC-12 North University Precincts splitting the "Dorm Vote" from the off-campus precincts that are overwhelmingly Undergrad College students...





Needless to say, these numbers do not bode well for the Republican Party within the West Coast, when Trump actually placed 3rd behind combined third party candidates, and in some instances actually placed 3rd or 4th....

I haven't really had a chance to fully digest the data yet on this Thanksgiving Day, but at least wanted to throw the graphs out and complete the PAC-12 North data drilled down to the University Precinct level.
Logged
NOVA Green
Oregon Progressive
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,417
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #155 on: November 24, 2017, 03:34:57 PM »

PAC 12- South:

University of Utah:

2016 Campus/ "Dorm" Vote:

Total Vote: 1,089--497 HRC (45.6% Dem),197 DJT (17.6% Rep), 400 Others (36.7%) +28.0% D>R

Note McMullin came in 2nd with 30.2% of the campus vote....

2016 Off-Campus Undergrad Vote:

Total Vote: 3,347--2,415 HRC (72.2% Dem),416 DJT (12.4% Rep),516 Others (15.4%)
+59.8% D>R

Interestingly enough McMullin only received 8.1% here...

Combined Dorm Vote with Off-Campus Student Vote:

Total Votes: 4,436---  2,912 HRC (65.6% Dem), 613 DJT (13.8% Rep), 916 Others (20.6%)
+ 51.8% Dem

Note McMullin received 13.5% of the combined Vote.

Notes/Observations:

1.) The "Off-Campus" numbers were a bit trickier than in some cities since precinct lines did not neatly align with Census tract data, and additionally the Undergrad population is a bit more dispersed than in some Cities, meaning that the off-campus precincts are a bit more diluted, and likely included a slightly higher proportion of Grad students than some of the other places surveyed to date. Still, I tried to be fairly conservative in which precincts to include to minimize data contamination.

2.) The "Dorm Vote" versus the off-campus numbers are particularly interesting, considering McMullin's extremely strong performance among Dorm voters compared to his not so strong support among off-campus voters. Although I am not an expert on Utah Universities, it appears that the campus based student population appears to have a much higher percentage of Mormons (Which presumably would be McMullin's main base of support) than off-campus students.

3.) In both campus and off-campus precincts Trump's level of support was much lower than one might expect for such a Republican State, and even lower than that of many other fairly reliably Democratic University towns... I am curious what the 2012 precinct numbers will look like by comparison to see if this the norm, or an exception to the norm in previous elections.

4.) Clinton actually performed remarkably well in the off-campus precincts, and actually beat her overall 66% vote share that she received in SLC as a whole in the 2016 GE....





Logged
NOVA Green
Oregon Progressive
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,417
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #156 on: November 24, 2017, 04:33:54 PM »

PAC 12- South:

University of Colorado- Boulder:


2016 Campus/Dorm Vote:

Total Vote: 2,698--- 2,035 HRC (75.1% Dem), 437 DJT (16.2% Rep), 226 Other (8.4%)
+ 58.9% Dem

2016 Off-Campus Undergrad Vote:

Total Vote: 7,896--- 6,173 HRC (78.2% Dem), 1,036 DJT (13.1% Rep), 687 Other (11.1%)
+ 65.1% D

Combined Campus/Dorm Vote with Off-Campus Undergrad Vote:

Total Vote: 10,594--- 8,208 (77.5% Dem), 1,473 DJT (13.9% Rep), 913 Other (8.6%)
+ 63.6% Dem

So interestingly enough, despite the University of Colorado's reputation as a Liberal "hippie" stronghold, Trump actually performed slightly better than in most of the Universities of the PAC-12 that we have examined thus far....

Still, it doesn't appear that there was a large a defection to 3rd Party candidates that I might have expected and didn't see here or at UC-Berkeley, University of Washington, and University of Oregon, so it looks like HRC held the line at these "Flagship Schools", compared to the higher number of 3rd Party defections at places like Washington State University and Oregon State University.... University of Utah is an exception for obvious reasons....

Ok--- now I just need to crunch the campus precinct numbers for UCLA and USC and then can wrap up the precinct level data for the PAC-12 South and through the data into a graphical format.




Logged
NOVA Green
Oregon Progressive
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,417
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #157 on: November 25, 2017, 07:57:01 PM »

Big 12 Conference:

University of Texas- Austin:

Austin, Texas:

Total Vote: 333,172---239,779 HRC (72.0% Dem), 69,150 DJT (20.8% Rep), 24,243 Others (7.3%)
 + 51.2% D

2016 University of Texas Austin- Campus Precincts/ Dorm Vote:

Total Votes: 5,660--- 4,479 HRC (79.1% Dem), 786 Trump (13.9% Rep), 395 Others (7.0%)

+ 65.2% Dem

University of Texas Austin- Off Campus Undergrad Precincts:

Total Votes: 8,781--- 6,666 HRC (75.9% Dem), 1,463 DJT (16.7% Rep), 652 Others (7.4%)

+ 59.2% Dem

Combined UT-Austin Campus and Off-Campus Undergrad Precincts:

Total Votes: 14,441--- 11,145 HRC (77.2% Dem), 2,249 (15.6% Rep), 1,047 Other (7.3%)

Meanwhile here are a few other precincts in Austin that I found with a significant student population:

1.) St Edwards University (Liberal Arts Catholic University)

Total Votes: 2,076--- 1,724 HRC (83.0% Dem), 211 DJT (10.2% Rep)

*** This precinct is slightly tricky in that it does overlap with an off-campus neighborhood of South Austin, which is an overwhelmingly Democratic Part of the City, but still it is the main campus precinct and with an undergrad student population of 5,000, of whom a significant number reside in the dorms, it is still noteworthy and an interesting data point, especially when contrasted with another Catholic university in Mobile, Alabama that voted heavily Republican in 2016.

2.) Austin Community College Riverside---

Here is another precinct (# 429) where there is a significant concentration of Undergrad students located near the Town Lakes area of South Austin, but again precinct lines overlap with some areas that do not have nearly as high a concentration of residents aged 18-19...

Without going into the exact numbers, looks to be roughly 80-11 Dem

Notes/Observations:

1.) Obviously we large Universities located in major Metro areas the Undergrad student vote tends to be a bit more dispersed than in many smaller communities, so although obviously the UT-Austin Undergrad population is represented in significant numbers in some other Census Block Group Maps not included in my precinct calculations, I tried to use a Conservative analysis and generally only include precincts that were overwhelmingly 18-29 within a near proximity to campus, with an especial emphasis on the 18-19 year old population, since this helps separate out much of the Grad Student population, even though obviously Juniors and Seniors tend to be quite a bit more likely to live "off-campus" than Freshman and Sophmores....

2.) So once again we have both a Campus and Off-Campus based student population voting to the "Left" of the City, even a well known Liberal stronghold such as Austin....

Perhaps what is even more remarkable here, is that contrary to the stereotype about Austin that many Anglo-Texans and White Liberal and Conservatives alike have, is that Austin is actually a Minority-Majority City.... Only 49% of the City self-identify as White, 34% as Latino-Americans, 8% African-Americans, 6% Asian-Americans, so one might well expect the UT college students to vote more Republican than the overall population of the City at large, as opposed to the contrary....

This obviously was not the case....

3.) Related topic, it is notable that Trump only won 13/274 precincts in the City of Austin, which is a City of close to or over a Million by 2017, of which (7) of these precincts had fewer than ten voters, and only two had more than 500 voters....

The only precinct that he won with over 1,000 total voters was Precinct # 212 by (43-52 R) which is really a lovely part of Austin, home to many of the original Mansions that puts on one of the best Christmas Light decorative shows in all of Austin.... Needless to say, I suspect this particular precinct swung heavily between '12 and '16, as did many extremely wealthy precincts in most parts of the United States.

Obviously the struggle for Republicans in Texas, is that appears that one of the largest and fastest growing cities in the State, is becoming a heavily Democratic stronghold based upon overwhelming support from both Anglo and Minority voters alike....   

Trendlines do not look good in "Battleground Texas".....

3.) Again a '12 > '16 Compare contrast would be interesting for Austin, and the UT precincts in particular, since Texas is a state which could well continue to shift increasingly Democratic extremely quickly if swings that we have seen in heavily Anglo precincts in the larger Metro areas, with sustained swings among Middle and Upper-Middle Class Latinos (Which used to be a persuadable 'Pub voting block only a few short years ago), combined with sustained turnout among Working-Class Latinos in the Cities and 'Burbs, which did appear to have occurred in '16.

Obviously discussions regarding Texas '16 results and trends really deserve their own thread, and although I haven't delved down to precinct level data for Travis County in much detail yet, this is obviously a part of Texas that bears close watching, mainly because of the overwhelmingly Democratic numbers pumped out of the City of Austin in '16 +190k D, which in a State like Ohio would likely create much more attention....






Logged
NOVA Green
Oregon Progressive
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,417
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #158 on: November 25, 2017, 08:58:09 PM »

So we have now completed the results for the Big-12 Football Conferences by City/Municipality in the 2016 Presidential Election:

Here are how the respective cities of Big-12 Voted (Obviously Campus Votes will have a separate post):



So, what to make of all this?

1.) It obviously challenges the stereotype of the Big-12 essentially representing rural Great Plains and Farm Belt communities, where you have University communities in solidly Trump States (Oklahoma, Texas, West Virginia, Iowa, and Kansas), voting Democratic with the exceptions of Lubbock, Texas and Stillwater, Oklahoma....

2.) It is interesting that Lawrence, Kansas voted almost as Democratic as Austin Texas, despite it being an overwhelmingly Anglo City compared to Austin....

Austin has always been a foil for Texas 'Pubs as the "Liberal" Heart of Texas, but at some point one must wonder to what extent this is vernacular for "White Liberals" versus Huh??

Meanwhile quite Anglos appear to have voted more Democratic in places like Ames and Morgantown than the "Liberal" bastion of Texas.

3.) It also appears that HRC won the White Vote in Manhattan, Kansas (KSU).

4.) I haven't yet run all of precinct numbers by University Precincts for the Big-12, but honestly it wouldn't surprise me to see HRC having won ever single Big 12 University Undergrad precincts, with the possible exception of Texas Tech in Lubbock, although TCU might possibly have been a Trump win as well...

To be continued, but Trump's surge in the Great Plains states does not yet appear to have extended to the major Division 1-A Football towns and cities.....

Logged
NOVA Green
Oregon Progressive
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,417
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #159 on: November 26, 2017, 04:51:10 PM »

PAC-12 South:

University of Southern California:

2016 Campus/Dorm Vote:


Total Votes: 3,029----  2,573 HRC (84.9% Dem), 288 Trump (11.2% Rep), 168 Other (6.5%)

+ 73.7% Dem

2016 Off Campus Undergrad Vote:

Total Vote: 2,701--- 2,335 HRC (86.4% Dem), 177 Trump (6.6% Rep), 189 Other (7.0%)

+ 79.8% Dem

*** Trump placed 3rd behind the combined minor party candidate vote

Combined Dorm and Off-Campus Vote:


Total Vote: 5,730--- 4,908 HRC (85.7% Dem), 465 Trump (8.1% Rep), 357 Others (6.2%)

+ 77.6% Dem

NOTES and OBSERVATIONS:

1.) This does not include any Write-In votes, since honestly it would have been a bit of an exercise to try to consolidate these by precinct for LA County.... This likely would have moved the numbers slightly down on the total % for both major party candidates, but not that significantly looking at the total ballots cast by precinct vs the listed candidates on the ballot, and not sure how they treated under-votes and over-votes within the LA County reporting structure.

2.) This is not perfect precinct alignment with "Campus" vs "Off-Campus" precincts since there were a few overlaps, but that would not appear to have significantly impacted the results, since the numbers were fairly close between both.

3.) As in other cases, I tried to minimize inclusion of precincts that did not have a significant component of 18-19 year old voters for off-campus precincts, as well as a large number of residents in their '20s, to minimize accidentally including precincts heavy in Grad Students, TAs, as well as other residents in the surrounding neighborhood who might not be affiliated with the University at all.

This is likely part of the reason why the off-campus vote looks smaller than one might expect, combined with the easy accessibility to off-campus housing a few miles down the various interstates that run by campus, which is not as much the case in many smaller University Cities, where affordable off-campus student housing is more readily available in relatively close proximity to the University.

4.) On-Campus student voter turnout appears to be extremely low by PAC-12 standards, barely above 50%, which could indicate either a general lack of enthusiasm for the choice of candidates presented, or possibly Undergrad students moving out the dorms and failing to register to vote or receive their off-campus ballot, in an election which after all is held just barely half-way through Fall term.

5.) I was slightly surprised to see USC vote so overwhelmingly Democratic compared to most other University precincts in the PAC-12 South, and actually exceeding the overall level of Democratic Presidential support in most of the PAC-12 North University Precincts.

Let's face the cost of tuition has gone through the roof, even at most public schools within the PAC-12 over recent decades, let alone the Private Schools like Stanford and USC...

One must certainly wonder why the Private Universities of the PAC-12 are some of the most Democratic within the Conference?

6.) What makes the USC Undergrad student population so much different than that of ASU, University of Colorado, and University of Arizona, to see these election results?

Next stop UCLA student precincts to complete the PAC-12 South Undergrad Student Vote.....








Logged
NOVA Green
Oregon Progressive
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,417
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #160 on: November 26, 2017, 08:26:57 PM »

PAC-12 South:

University of California- Los Angeles:

2016: "Dorm"/Campus Vote:

Total Votes: 10,774: 9,173 HRC (85.1% Dem), 961 Trump (8.9% Rep), 640 Other (5.9%)

+ 76.2% Dem

So here's where it gets a bit tricky is that with UCLA because of the sprawling nature of the Campus that that the Student population is heavily Undergrad, but not so much as one might expect, since it appears that there are some on-campus precincts that likely include some Grad student housing (Unless UCLA has a disproportionately older Undergrad Campus population than one might expect)...

The Off-Campus vote is much more difficult to analyze, since although we have some slivers of 18-19 year old voters in a neighborhood South of Wilshire Boulevard, it makes it difficult to look at as a predominately Undergrad Student Vote....

These precincts appear to have gone roughly 79/80 Dem vs 15-16 Pub....

My thought is that the Undergrad Student vote is closer to the 85-9 D vs the 80-16 D, considering the high preponderance of voters in their '20s in the precincts South of Wilshire, despite the offsets of Grad Student housing on the UCLA campus....

Interestingly enough, UCLA campus turnout is closer to what one might expect for California, even in a heavily Student community, compared to what we saw from USC....

I suspect that a much larger proportion of the Undergrad US Citizen student population are actually from California versus USC....

Whatever the case might be, still I think this is just about the best we can get in terms of looking at the UCLA Undergrad student voting population....







Logged
NOVA Green
Oregon Progressive
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,417
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #161 on: November 26, 2017, 10:26:13 PM »

So, let's look at how the PAC-12 South Undergrad University Precincts voted in 2016 in a Graphical Format:

Dorm/Campus Vote:



Off-Campus Undergrad Vote:



So what meaning is there if anything delving into the weeds of Undergrad voting patterns within the PAC 12?

1.) Obviously the results from the University of Utah stand out dramatically, especially looking at the compare/contrast of the Campus Precincts vs Off-Campus Under-Grad Precincts, especially when looking at the numbers from Arizona State University off-campus precincts....

*** Maybe *** this is just an issue of which precincts were included in the "off-campus" precinct category, but even when looking at a much cleaner precinct level like the "Dorm Vote" as ASU, it's looking clearly as the most Republican student voters of the entire PAC-12 (24% Trump)....

The numbers are fairly consistent between ASU Campus and Off-Campus Precincts, which appears that this not a random outlier nor variable....

We can all certainly understand why the University of Utah results stand out, but what is even more interesting is why the ASU results stand out so much?

2.) One must certainly wonder UCLA and USC stand out as the most Democratic Universities within the Conference, even compared against traditionally Liberal / Democratic Universities like University of Colorado- Boulder and University of Arizona- Tucson???

What has changed in the composition of the student population over the past few decades that has shifted these number so dramatically?

3.) Regardless of these numbers, the trends to not appear well for Republicans in the Southwest, considering these are generally overwhelmingly Anglo Universities, where the student base appears to be voting very differently from the behavior of their parents....

Logged
NOVA Green
Oregon Progressive
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,417
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #162 on: November 26, 2017, 10:50:25 PM »

So here are the overall number for the PAC-12 Student precincts including Campus and Off-Campus Student Votes...

Logged
Pennsylvania Deplorable
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 532


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #163 on: November 26, 2017, 11:10:55 PM »

So we have now completed the results for the Big-12 Football Conferences by City/Municipality in the 2016 Presidential Election:

Here are how the respective cities of Big-12 Voted (Obviously Campus Votes will have a separate post):



So, what to make of all this?

1.) It obviously challenges the stereotype of the Big-12 essentially representing rural Great Plains and Farm Belt communities, where you have University communities in solidly Trump States (Oklahoma, Texas, West Virginia, Iowa, and Kansas), voting Democratic with the exceptions of Lubbock, Texas and Stillwater, Oklahoma....

2.) It is interesting that Lawrence, Kansas voted almost as Democratic as Austin Texas, despite it being an overwhelmingly Anglo City compared to Austin....

Austin has always been a foil for Texas 'Pubs as the "Liberal" Heart of Texas, but at some point one must wonder to what extent this is vernacular for "White Liberals" versus Huh??

Meanwhile quite Anglos appear to have voted more Democratic in places like Ames and Morgantown than the "Liberal" bastion of Texas.

3.) It also appears that HRC won the White Vote in Manhattan, Kansas (KSU).

4.) I haven't yet run all of precinct numbers by University Precincts for the Big-12, but honestly it wouldn't surprise me to see HRC having won ever single Big 12 University Undergrad precincts, with the possible exception of Texas Tech in Lubbock, although TCU might possibly have been a Trump win as well...

To be continued, but Trump's surge in the Great Plains states does not yet appear to have extended to the major Division 1-A Football towns and cities.....



Regarding Austin, I should note that Travis county is the only county (out of something like 254) in Texas where Clinton won the white vote. Whites in Texas are expected to be more conservative than whites on the Great Plains, although those states, being whiter, are more republican. Kansas didn't exhibit the same kind of swing seen in the states around it. Brownback backlash may have been a factor.

Trump's surge didn't really extend to many cities at all. It was mostly a rural phenomenon. I would think that both he and Clinton got less than Romney and Obama in 2012 simply because the rise of third parties was especially pronounced with young voters. It's also worth considering that students who live close to their colleges may have voted at home, perhaps making the on campus vote disproportionately out of staters registered at the last minute (presumably strongly leaning D)
Logged
NOVA Green
Oregon Progressive
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,417
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #164 on: November 28, 2017, 02:15:09 AM »

Big 12 Conference:

University of Oklahoma:

2016 Dorm/Campus Vote:


Total Vote: 2,850---- 1,837 HRC (64.5% Dem), 721 DJT (25.3% Rep), 292 Other (10.2%)

+ 39.2% D

2016 Off-Campus Undergrad Vote:

Total Vote: 2,717--- 1,517 (55.8% Dem), 944 DJT (34.7% Rep), 256 Other (9.4%)

+ 21.1% D

Combined Campus and Off-Campus Undergrad Vote:

Total Vote: 5,567--- 3,354 (60.2% Dem), 1,665 (29.9% Rep), 548 Other (9.8%)

+ 30.3% D

Notes/Observations:

1.) Insert standard caveats regarding some precincts split between Campus and Off-Campus, and tried to code to the best of my ability against Census Tract Info and Campus Boundaries.

2.) Same deal with trying to carefully code precincts as "off-campus" based not just on physical proximity, but also trying to ensure that these precincts needed to have a significant proportion of 18-19 year old population, combined with am extremely large % of the population, to avoid capturing an excessive quantity of the Grad Student/ "Professor Vote", nor accidentally including nearby precincts, solely because of physical proximity to the University.

3.) So interestingly enough a much large gap between Campus vs Off-Campus precincts than we have seen in many of the other communities where I have pulled these numbers....

4.) It is interesting regardless to see how a State like Oklahoma that went overwhelmingly Trump, still appears to have gone heavily Democratic among the Undergrad student population, many of whom are In-State Oklahoma students, whose parents, like many others can't afford to spend 2x the cost of College Tuition to send their children to an out of state campus....

5.) Again we see another scenario where the Undergrad "Gown Vote" voted significantly differently than the "Town Vote"....

6.) We have observed on other threads how Upper-Income communities in many parts of the Country swung significantly towards the Democratic Pres nominee between '12 and '16, and obviously Norman as essentially not just a University City, but also a suburb/exurban community outside of OKC, likely saw some swings towards HRC among the more monied neighborhoods/ precincts in the City....

It would be interesting to do a compare contrast between '12 and '16 looking at some of the wealthier precincts within Norman, to see if they mirror some of the other significant swings we saw towards HRC in wealthier 'Burbs of OKC and Tulsa....

7.) At some point in relatively "elite" state Universities, one must certainly wonder to what extent their is a correlation between swings between their Middle-Aged and Upper-Middle-Class parents in many of these places....

Certainly a project that someone could like earn a Political Science Masters Thesis on running the data through the more rigorous process of Academia.
Logged
NOVA Green
Oregon Progressive
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,417
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #165 on: November 28, 2017, 11:29:01 PM »

So we have now completed the results for the Big-12 Football Conferences by City/Municipality in the 2016 Presidential Election:

Here are how the respective cities of Big-12 Voted (Obviously Campus Votes will have a separate post):



So, what to make of all this?

1.) It obviously challenges the stereotype of the Big-12 essentially representing rural Great Plains and Farm Belt communities, where you have University communities in solidly Trump States (Oklahoma, Texas, West Virginia, Iowa, and Kansas), voting Democratic with the exceptions of Lubbock, Texas and Stillwater, Oklahoma....

2.) It is interesting that Lawrence, Kansas voted almost as Democratic as Austin Texas, despite it being an overwhelmingly Anglo City compared to Austin....

Austin has always been a foil for Texas 'Pubs as the "Liberal" Heart of Texas, but at some point one must wonder to what extent this is vernacular for "White Liberals" versus Huh??

Meanwhile quite Anglos appear to have voted more Democratic in places like Ames and Morgantown than the "Liberal" bastion of Texas.

3.) It also appears that HRC won the White Vote in Manhattan, Kansas (KSU).

4.) I haven't yet run all of precinct numbers by University Precincts for the Big-12, but honestly it wouldn't surprise me to see HRC having won ever single Big 12 University Undergrad precincts, with the possible exception of Texas Tech in Lubbock, although TCU might possibly have been a Trump win as well...

To be continued, but Trump's surge in the Great Plains states does not yet appear to have extended to the major Division 1-A Football towns and cities.....



Regarding Austin, I should note that Travis county is the only county (out of something like 254) in Texas where Clinton won the white vote. Whites in Texas are expected to be more conservative than whites on the Great Plains, although those states, being whiter, are more republican. Kansas didn't exhibit the same kind of swing seen in the states around it. Brownback backlash may have been a factor.

Trump's surge didn't really extend to many cities at all. It was mostly a rural phenomenon. I would think that both he and Clinton got less than Romney and Obama in 2012 simply because the rise of third parties was especially pronounced with young voters. It's also worth considering that students who live close to their colleges may have voted at home, perhaps making the on campus vote disproportionately out of staters registered at the last minute (presumably strongly leaning D)

1.) Travis County---- Not to pedantic, but likely the only County where HRC won the "Anglo" Vote.... It wouldn't surprise me if there were a few counties in South Texas where HRC won the "White" Vote, simply because just like in parts of Southern Colorado and Northern New Mexico, you have an established "Old Spanish" population that self-identifies as both White, but not necessarily Anglo, despite this group apparently swing Republican a bit between '12 > '16....    Still, your fundamental point is completely taken, received and agreed with.... Smiley

2.) Texas Anglo Voters---- Yes overall I would agree with that statement that Texas Anglos tend to be more Conservative than Great Plains Whites, and I think it is backed up by various sources including exit polls, statewide population Demographics of the VAP, etc...

The fascinating thing about Texas (Having lived there for some four years until recently) is the stark contrasts not only within regions of the State, but even within the terrain of Metro Geography....

Was Austin the only significant City of population in Texas that HRC won a majority or plurality of the White/Anglo Vote in???

Honestly I don't know the answer to this, and obviously this would be a research project that someone could do a high level Undergrad or Masters Paper on, especially if running a '12 > '16 compare/contrast on voting patterns, demographic change, and turnout in the larger Cities of Texas...

Still, what is perhaps the most significant takeaway here is that likely this population swung heavily Democratic between '12  and '16....

The results from Maricopa County Arizona were not an anomaly, in that the largest swings between '12 and '16 happened in heavily Anglo precincts (Which in the Southwest have a direct correlation to income within the larger Cities)

3.) Kansas is interesting, and the "Brownback Factor" likely played a role here (Certainly in the 'Burbs of KC), but that doesn't necessarily explain similar swings of Upper Middle-Class voters in the largest Cities of Oklahoma, nor Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW)....

What's a bit under the radar for many Americans, and Atlas posters as well, is the extent to which many of these Central Plains states Metros like Kansas City, Oklahoma City, Tulsa, and Dallas, are some of the fastest growing areas of the United States.

4.) Students Voting "On Campus" or "Off-Campus"....   I think you make a decent point here, although I would argue that perhaps "In-State" University residents might have been more likely to vote absentee mail ballot at their parents address, since that's a lot easier than driving however long to your home town or neighborhood to vote in person!

Still, one would imagine that many "out of state" students would do the same, as I did some 20 years ago when I was going to College in Ohio, but preferred instead of registering and voting locally, to cast my mail-in ballots for elections back home that I was more motivated to vote in than Ohio local and State elections....
Logged
NOVA Green
Oregon Progressive
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,417
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #166 on: November 29, 2017, 04:11:04 AM »

Big 12 Conference:

Oklahoma State University:

2016: Campus/ Dorm Vote:

Total Vote: 1,643: 779 HRC (47.4% Dem), 671 DJT (40.8% Rep), 193 Other (11.7%)

+ 6.6% Dem

2016: "Off-Campus Vote:"

Total Vote: 2,614: 1,254 HRC (48.0% Dem), 1,045 DJT (40.0% Rep), 315 Other (12.1%)

+ 8.0% Dem

Combined Campus and Off-Campus Undergrad Vote:

Total Vote: 4,257: 2,033 HRC (47.8% Dem), 1,716 DJT (40.3% Rep), 508 Other (11.9%)

+ 7.5% Dem


Notes/Comments/Observations:

1.) Usual deal with precinct boundaries not neatly overlapping with OSU campus precincts

2.) Similar gig looking at US Housing Tracts by age at off-campus precincts when measured against % of population in the 18-29 year range

3.) As a relatively small College Town with a population of only some 46k, student populations tend to be a bit more distributed than in larger University Towns and Cities...

Still, if we isolate the heavily Non-Student precincts from the Student precincts we see something like the following:

Total Vote: 9,647--- 3,646 HRC (37.8% Dem), 4,918 Trump (51.0% Rep), 1,083 Other (11.2%)

+ 13.2% Rep

What is interesting here is that Stillwater is overwhelmingly White (76.4%), and the precincts surrounding Oklahoma State University tend to be even more overwhelmingly White, but we see a clear compare contrast between the "Townies and the Gownies".

As a heavily University town, it is also interesting to note that precincts located within places within the highest % of a Phd are quite more Republican than the town as a whole, while precincts with those with a Masters Degree are more Democratic than the town as a whole....

4.) Not yet sure what to make of Stillwater results overall, and not that cognizant on the respective student population and academic programs, etc but obviously the Undergrad student population here is significantly different from that of Norman, Oklahoma for whatever reason...

Still, obviously this is something that my Republican friends might want to consider, especially since this might arguably be one of the most Republican States in the United States, where the sons and daughters of privilege in Oklahoma, at elite State Universities are apparently not voting for the Party of Ronald Reagan....

What has gone wrong with the Republican Party platform and policy positions to cause them to lose the support of what back in the '80s, when College Students voted heavily Republican, we used to refer to as the "Reagan Youth", when Frat districts used to generally vote much more Republican than their surrounding Campus Cities and communities?

The 1980s are long done and gone, but still the faint memories remain (Combined of course with an alternative College Radio classic Punk Song from the Old Skool Band "Reagan Youth" from the early '80s NYC scene...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V47_DQ3WT6c

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_Youth

5.) Naturally Generational shifts happen, and unfortunately the Generation of my Grandparents that survived the Great Depression, who fought in the War against the Nazis and Italian Fascists on the Western Front (My Grandfather included), and against Asian style Fascism in the form of Japanese Ethno-Nationalism, who were once the most reliably Democratic voting block passed away, along with their collective stories and life wisdoms.

The Millennials are an interesting bunch, including my five kids and their spouses/domestic partners, friends, and co-workers, so even in Stillwater it appears that the Trump style of Republicanism is not resonating....

Yet another community to do a compare/contrast between '12 and '16 Pres overall votes within these campus precincts, and look at swings.

6.) It is also interesting to observe what is an extremely large 3rd Party voting pattern for Oklahoma, which is actually closer to what we have observed in some West Coast student communities.... Maybe we are seeing a significant defection of Romney Republicans towards Gary Johnson and the Libertarian alternative?

We don't know exactly how 3rd Party voters in 2016 in Campus communities would have voted in a Binary election, but in many places thus far it appears as a defection to the "Left".... Maybe at OSU there was a defection to the the Libertarian, as possibly similar type Campus communities such as Waco, Texas, where students might more likely have voted Republican, except for the Dude at the top of their ticket....









Logged
NOVA Green
Oregon Progressive
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,417
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #167 on: December 01, 2017, 04:28:19 PM »

Big 12 Conference:

Kansas State University:

Campus/Dorm Vote:

Total Vote: 1,476--- 734 HRC (49.7% Dem), 544 DJT (36.9% Rep), 198 Others (13.4%)

+ 12.8% Dem

Off-Campus Undergrad Vote:

Total Vote: 1,372--- 814 HRC (59.3% Dem), 390 DJT (28.4% Rep), 168 Others (12.2%)

+ 30.9% Dem

Combined Campus/Off-Campus Undergrad Vote:


Total Vote: 2,848--- 1,548 HRC (54.4% Dem), 934 DJT (32.8% Rep), 366 Others (12.9%)

+  21.6% Dem

NOTES/COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS:

1.) Same methodology as elsewhere, lumped the three precincts that were predominately located on campus as the "Dorm/Campus Vote", and only included a few precincts that are overwhelmingly 18-19 and college age population in their 20s for "Off-Campus" Vote.

2.) There was a significant gap between the "Dorm Vote" and the "Off-Campus Undergrad Vote", in this case with the former tending to be quite a bit less Democratic than the latter. However both were still significantly more Democratic than the City at large, and the Undergrad Student vote is likely what provided HRC with her margin of victory in the City of Manhatten, and caused Trump to only win Riley County by a slim 3 % margin. Among the Campus vote, KSU actually is one of the least Democratic Universities that I've pulled precinct data for within the Big 12, but the off-campus numbers are similar to heavily Democratic margins at West Virginia University, University of Oklahoma, and Baylor University.

3.) The other precincts in Manhatten where HRC performed well tended to have a higher proportion of working-class African-American and Latino-American residents... the Upper-Middle-Class precincts in the Western part of the City, presumably where we see more of the "Professor" and "Retired Professor Vote", University Administrators, etc voted narrowly for Trump, although not by extremely large margins.

4.) One other thing I initially thought curious was why voter turnout appeared so low in Riley County compared to the total population of the County, even accounting for lower voter registration and turnout rates among College Students.... Then I remembered that this is also a Military Base County, home to Fort Riley, and frequently younger enlisted Men and Women tend to vote via absentee ballot at their parent's address, because the transitory nature of Military life makes it much more difficult to deal with the hassles of trying to vote locally...

Still, when looking at the subset of younger Millennials, Military Base communities and heavily college precincts are the only places where we can pull data for the voting habits of this Generation, other than exit polls, which obviously have their own inherent limitations, especially once one breaks them down to Statewide levels with inherent MOE issues for population subsets.

Bonus: Fort Riley On-Base Precincts:

Total Votes: 90--- 33 HRC (36.7% Dem), 45 DJT (50.0% Rep), 12 Others (13.3%)    + 13.3 % Rep

So anyways, take all of that with a couple shakers of salt considering the extremely small sample size, but the obvious thing that stands out here is the high 3rd Party vote totals, which are actually relatively similar to what we have seen in many Undergrad Campus precincts....

Logged
NOVA Green
Oregon Progressive
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,417
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #168 on: December 02, 2017, 08:38:26 PM »

Big 12 Conference:

Texas Tech University: (Lubbock, Texas)Sad

Dorm/Campus Vote:

Total Vote: 1,400 Total Votes---  564 HRC (40.3% Dem), 712 DJT (50.8% Rep), 124 Other (8.9%)

+ 10.5% Rep

Off-Campus Undergrad Vote:

Total Vote: 3,011--- 1,402 HRC (46.6% Dem), 1,332 DJT (44.2% Rep), 277 Other (9.2%)

+ 2.4% Dem

Combined Campus and Off-Campus Undergrad Vote:

Total Vote: 4,411--- 1,966 (44.6% Dem), 2,044 (46.3% Rep), 401 Others (9.1%)

+ 1.7% Rep


Notes/Comments/Observations:

1.) Texas Tech is a bit trickier than some University communities to look at because trying to look at the off-campus student population is more difficult, likely because the student population is a bit more dispersed than in some other communities.... This is likely a factor of easy proximity or access to housing near the campus, where the student population mixes a bit more with the "Townie" population than in some other places, so the "off-campus student vote" is slightly more diluted than in many other places we have examined to date.

2.) Still, even considering these limitations, it is not at all improbable nor implausible that Trump won the Undergrad student vote at Texas Tech, even though the "off-campus student vote" appears to have voted narrowly Democratic, based upon the precinct results surveyed, these results include a likely higher than average number of Grad Students.

3.) Despite all of that, Texas Tech (45-46 R) voted significantly more Democratic than Lubbock as a whole (31-53 R), which certainly stands out considering that the University is much more of a Business and Engineering University compared to most in Texas, has a significantly larger Greek population, etc....

4.) Despite the extremely large Latino population in Lubbock (33% of the Population), it doesn't appear that this made a dramatic difference in the overall 2016 Presidential Election numbers for the City as a whole, but is worth watching going forward, especially since the Anglo population drops to only 36-41% of the population when looking at people between the age of 0-17.

5.) Other than campus precincts in Lubbock, the only places where HRC won, appear to have been overwhelmingly Latino and African-American precincts (Located mainly in East Lubbock, with some scattered populations in a few precincts in South Lubbock, representing 8% of the population of the City)....

6.) It will be interesting to watch shifts in the voting patterns over the next decade or so when the older generation that is overwhelmingly Anglo (66% of 55-64), (73% of 65-74), (79% of 75-84), (88% of 85+) becomes increasingly supplanted by younger Generations.

7.) Trump only received 54% of the Vote in the City of Lubbock in 2016, and although I haven't yet crunched the 2012 City precinct numbers, the County overall swung 19% between '12 and '16, and I suspected the swings in the City were much larger than the County as a whole....

I would imagine that if Trump is the head of the ticket in 2020, the City of Lubbock could well be much closer to a tie, depending on how all of the 3rd Party Voters in '16 vote, where most likely we won't see a significant 3rd Party movement....



Logged
NOVA Green
Oregon Progressive
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,417
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #169 on: December 03, 2017, 12:10:46 AM »

Big 12 Conference:

Iowa State University:

Ames, Iowa:

Dorm/Campus Vote:

Total Vote: 6,302---- 3,268 HRC (51.9% Dem), 2,367 DJT (37.6% Rep), 667 Others (10.6%)

+ 14.3% Dem

Off-Campus Undergrad Vote:

Total Vote: 8,270---- 4,975 HRC (60.2% Dem), 2,273 DJT (27.5% Rep), 1,022 Others (12.4%)

+ 32.7% Dem

Combined Campus and Off-Campus Undergrad Vote:

Total Vote: 14,572--- 8,243 HRC (56.6% Dem), 4,640 DJT (31.8% Rep), 1,689 Others (11.6%)

+ 24.8% Dem

Notes/Comments:

1.) Standard NoVa methodology applies, and Ames was a bit easier than a few other College 'Ball towns in the Big 12 when it came to pulling up the Campus Vote /Off Campus Vote, and where precincts aligned a bit more with off-campus Undergrad populations than a few of the other Cities I've looked at here.

2.) One of the things that really jumped out here was what appears to be an extremely high voter turnout level among Undergrads, compared to most Universities in the Conference. I suspect that this is a mixture of factors, from a much higher % of the Undergrad Student population being "In-State" residents, combined with being from a State which generally has fairly high voter turnout levels compared to most other States in the Union...

3.) Once again we see yet another dramatic contrast between the Campus vote vs off-campus Undergrad vote within the Big 12, that favors the 'Pub Pres candidate vs the 'Dem Pres candidate.

Note sure why this might be the case, but On-Campus numbers place it towards one of the More 'Pub Universities and off-campus numbers place it as one of the most 'Dem Universities well behind UT-Austin, but narrowly ahead of KSU and WVU....

4.) So now we are down to two Universities, University of Kansas (Lawrence), and Texas Christian University (Fort Worth), and the main question is will the campus population in Lawrence vote more Democratic than those in Austin, and how will TCU students vote compared to other University communities within both Texas and the Great Plain States?







Logged
NOVA Green
Oregon Progressive
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,417
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #170 on: December 03, 2017, 01:27:23 AM »

Big 12 Conference:

University of Kansas:


Lawrence, Kansas:

Dorm/Campus Vote:


Total Vote: 1,784--- 1,338 HRC (75.0% Dem), 299 DJT (16.8% Rep), 147 Other (8.2%)

+ 58.2% Dem

Off-Campus Undergrad Vote:

Total Vote: 3,929--- 3,130 HRC (79.7% Dem), 483 DJT (12.3% Rep), 316 Others (8.0%)

+ 67.4% Dem

Combined Campus and Off-Campus Undergrad Vote:

Total Vote: 5,713--- 4,468 HRC (78.2% Dem), 782 DJT (13.7%), 463 Others (8.1%)

+ 64.5% Dem

So it looks like there is a good chance that Undergrad students at the University of Kansas voted more Democratic than Undergrads at UT-Austin....

Although the dorm vote in Austin as a bit more Democratic than in Kansas, the off-campus student precincts were significantly less Democratic than in Lawrence, where Trump only received 12% of the Vote, which is actually a lower share of the vote than he received in most of the PAC-12 South, and even slightly better than a few Universities in the PAC-12 North!

Overall, these numbers from Kansas don't look particularly promising for the 'Pubs in that State, especially considering the context of massive swings in the traditionally heaving Republican Upper-Income suburbs of Kansas City.









Logged
nclib
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,300
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #171 on: December 03, 2017, 03:36:27 PM »

Interesting how Democratic Lawrence, KS and KU are. Lawrence and its county (Douglas) are very Democratic (and anti-gay marriage amendment) compared to their state.

I am in the process of compiling city results of flagship universities (the city/town not necessarily the on-campus and off-campus precincts) compared to the state result. I am looking forward to the rest of the Flagship cities, but so far the biggest discrepancy is Michigan and the smallest discrepancy is Alaska (of course the univ. city is more Democratic in all states so far).
Logged
NOVA Green
Oregon Progressive
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,417
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #172 on: December 03, 2017, 03:45:58 PM »

Big 12 Conference

Texas Christian University (TCU)Sad

Fort Worth, Texas:

Campus/Dorm Vote:

Total Votes: 1,987--- 910 HRC (45.8% Dem), 927 DJT (46.7% Rep), 150 Others (7.5%)

+ 0.9% Rep

Off-Campus Undergrad Precincts:

Total Votes: 1,310--- 638 HRC (48.7% Dem), 562 DJT (42.9% Rep), 110 Others (8.4%)

Combined Campus & Off-Campus Votes:

Total Votes: 3,297---- 1,548 HRC (47.0% Dem), 1,489 DJT (45.2% Rep), 260 Others (7.9%)

+ 1.8% Dem


Notes/Comments:

1.) TCU was slightly problematic in that both Dorm precincts include off-campus areas as well, so it's slightly murky to cleanly separate the vote, but of the two that is much more heavily located on campus, Trump won by significant margins, compared to the second precincts that has some dorms but not as many as the former. Still, regardless it is pretty clear that Trump won the "on-campus" dorm vote, by at least a few points if not more.

2.) The Off-Campus precincts were also a bit problematic, in that there are only a handful of precincts that have a significant population of 18-19 yrs plus a good chunk of voters in their '20s, which could be safely defined as predominately TCU undergrad precincts....

3.) My suspicion is that Off-Campus TCU undergrad students have a wider range of housing options and mobility than in some other campus areas, meaning that their votes are not as geographically concentrated as much as in some other Campus communities.

4.) This makes it a bit difficult to determine which candidate "won" the undergrad TCU student vote, but it looks pretty close either way, with neither candidate likely receiving a majority of the vote.

5.) TCU definitely voted more Republican than Fort Worth at large, which voted for HRC by some 6% and a narrow majority of the voters in a City of over 700,000.

6.) Next stop to summarize results for the Big 12 by University....





Logged
NOVA Green
Oregon Progressive
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,417
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #173 on: December 03, 2017, 05:32:20 PM »

Interesting how Democratic Lawrence, KS and KU are. Lawrence and its county (Douglas) are very Democratic (and anti-gay marriage amendment) compared to their state.

I am in the process of compiling city results of flagship universities (the city/town not necessarily the on-campus and off-campus precincts) compared to the state result. I am looking forward to the rest of the Flagship cities, but so far the biggest discrepancy is Michigan and the smallest discrepancy is Alaska (of course the univ. city is more Democratic in all states so far).

Yes Lawrence definitely stands out compared to the Statewide results, and although I was not particularly surprised to see both Lawrence and KU vote overwhelmingly Democratic, having known a few people that grew up there during the 1960s/ early 1970s, and also during the '80s and early '90s, I was a bit surprised to see the University precincts holding their own compared with many Universities in the PAC-12.

Also, let me know if there are any City results you are looking for as part of your flagship University project, since I have raw precinct summations by municipality for some of these places floating around on my PC, that aren't results that are easily accessible via State/County websites, without going through and coding precincts by City within these places....

Sounds like a cool project, and shoot me a PM if there is anything you are looking for in particular in case I already spent the time running the numbers, so you don't need to go through what can sometimes be a labor-intensive process unnecessarily.... Smiley

Logged
NOVA Green
Oregon Progressive
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,417
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #174 on: December 03, 2017, 07:33:41 PM »

Ok--- Big 12 Conference summarized in a Graphical / Chart Format:

Big 12 Conference Cities--- 2016 Votes by Party:



Ok--- already summarized in a previous graph, but decided to modify the chart to name the City rather than the University, since these are the total vote numbers from the Municipality in which the Campus is located.

Big 12 Conference: Dorm Votes from precincts heavily based "On Campus":




Comments:

1.) Trump appears to have won the "Dorm Vote" at two Universities---  TCU and Texas Tech, which is perhaps not that surprising considering these both have student populations that are more likely to come from backgrounds less receptive towards voting Democrat (Private Christian University, and major Texas Science & Tech school) than many other White/Anglo Millennials in many other parts of Texas, and within the Conference overall.

2.) I was surprised to see Clinton win the Oklahoma State University Dorm Vote, not to mention the margins at KSU, Iowa State University, and Baylor

3.) Obviously the margins at places WVU and University of Oklahoma were much higher than one might have expected, as opposed to UT-Austin and University of Kansas/ Kansas University, where one could have made a reasonable supposition that these would be heavily HRC voters.

Big 12 Conference: Off-Campus Heavily Undergrad Precincts:



1.) So here the interesting thing is that HRC appears to have won the "Off-Campus" Undergrad vote in all of these Universities, even TCU and Texas Tech.... Now, tbh "off-campus precinct data" can be a bit trickier in some cases, as I noted in the various posts regarding these two Universities as well as others, so there is a higher potential MOE since sometimes these precincts might include a higher or lower percentage of grad students, and or locals not currently enrolled at the University.

Still, the Undergrad student votes from Texas Tech and TCU appear to be pretty close between the two major party candidates, once one includes the off-campus student population.

2.) The consistency between Campus and Off-Campus results at WVU, UT-Austin, and Oklahoma State University tend to reinforce the overall voting numbers of the Undergrad student voting population.

3.) We do see some significant variances between "Dorm Votes" and "Off-Campus" voters in several off-campus University towns, Iowa State and Kansas State stand-out as skewing quite a bit more Democratic with the "off-campus vote" and University of Oklahoma as skewing much more Republican with the "off-campus vote"....

These results are likely as a result of a mixture of factors, with off-campus undergrad students much more likely to be 20-22 + Years, working part-time jobs in the surrounding "Student Ghetto" communities on the edges of Campus, and mingling in a bit more with the local younger "Townies", many of whom are also working these same types of jobs on the edges of Campus.

Throw in a few Grad Students working in the "Sweatshops of Academia" getting paid crap wages to teach 100-200 level Undergrad Classes as a "Professor", a few townies mingled into the mix, but still these are heavily Undergrad student precincts selected to minimize data contamination.

Consolidated University City/Campus/Off-Campus Chart:



1.) So here we see HRC outperforming DJT Trump in every Big 12 City among the student population, with the exception of Fort Worth and possibly Ames, Iowa (Depending upon the Campus vs Off-Campus Undergrad student breakdown).

2.) TCU "Off-Campus" votes are interesting, considering they are actually pretty close to Fort Worth as a whole, despite the University being pretty heavily Anglo, compared to the City at large.... Similarly Texas Tech numbers are interesting, considering the Lubbock has an extremely large Latino population, as well as a decent sized African-American population, but still the University voted much more Democratic than the City as a whole....

3.) Numbers from Waco (Baylor), Manhattan (KSU), Norman ( Univ of Oklahoma) show an extremely sharp contrast between the "Townie Vote" vs the "Gownie Vote" especially considering that we don't have an easy methodology to subtract the University Vote from the City Vote, but still it looks pretty clear that the Student vote flipped Waco TX, Manhattan KS, Stillwater OK, and Norman OK....

4.) Votes from students added to Democratic margins in Morgantown WV, Austin TX, and Lawrence KS, although these Cities would still have voted Democratic by decent numbers regardless of the Undergrad Student Vote....







Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9  
« 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 0.144 seconds with 14 queries.