Paul M. Sommers Alyssa A. Chong Monica B. Ralston And Andrew C. Waxman. March 2010 MIDDLEBURY COLLEGE ECONOMICS DISCUSSION PAPER NO.

Similar documents
Who Really Voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012?

PERMISSIBILITY OF ELECTRONIC VOTING IN THE UNITED STATES. Member Electronic Vote/ . Alabama No No Yes No. Alaska No No No No

2008 Electoral Vote Preliminary Preview

Who Voted for Trump in 2016?

Matthew Miller, Bureau of Legislative Research

2016 Voter Registration Deadlines by State

12B,C: Voting Power and Apportionment

Chapter 12: The Math of Democracy 12B,C: Voting Power and Apportionment - SOLUTIONS

CIRCLE The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement. State Voter Registration and Election Day Laws

CIRCLE The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

Should Politicians Choose Their Voters? League of Women Voters of MI Education Fund

2008 Voter Turnout Brief

NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY Legislative Services Office

Gender, Race, and Dissensus in State Supreme Courts

ACCESS TO STATE GOVERNMENT 1. Web Pages for State Laws, State Rules and State Departments of Health

STATE LAWS SUMMARY: CHILD LABOR CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS BY STATE

Representational Bias in the 2012 Electorate

Campaign Finance E-Filing Systems by State WHAT IS REQUIRED? WHO MUST E-FILE? Candidates (Annually, Monthly, Weekly, Daily).

National State Law Survey: Statute of Limitations 1

Delegates: Understanding the numbers and the rules

Background Information on Redistricting

2008 Changes to the Constitution of International Union UNITED STEELWORKERS

MEMORANDUM JUDGES SERVING AS ARBITRATORS AND MEDIATORS

More State s Apportionment Allocations Impacted by New Census Estimates; New Twist in Supreme Court Case

NOTICE TO MEMBERS No January 2, 2018

Parties and Elections. Selections from Chapters 11 & 12

1. Expand sample to include men who live in the US South (see footnote 16)

Federal Rate of Return. FY 2019 Update Texas Department of Transportation - Federal Affairs

Election of Worksheet #1 - Candidates and Parties. Abraham Lincoln. Stephen A. Douglas. John C. Breckinridge. John Bell

New Americans in. By Walter A. Ewing, Ph.D. and Guillermo Cantor, Ph.D.

Limitations on Contributions to Political Committees

The Victim Rights Law Center thanks Catherine Cambridge for her research assistance.

American Government. Workbook

State Complaint Information

Case 3:15-md CRB Document 4700 Filed 01/29/18 Page 1 of 5

Rhoads Online State Appointment Rules Handy Guide

State Trial Courts with Incidental Appellate Jurisdiction, 2010

Affordable Care Act: A strategy for effective implementation

THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE: SOME FACTS AND FIGURES. by Andrew L. Roth

THE PROCESS TO RENEW A JUDGMENT SHOULD BEGIN 6-8 MONTHS PRIOR TO THE DEADLINE

The remaining legislative bodies have guides that help determine bill assignments. Table shows the criteria used to refer bills.

Bylaws of the. Student Membership

Campaigns & Elections November 6, 2017 Dr. Michael Sullivan. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GOVT 2305 MoWe 5:30 6:50 MoWe 7 8:30

Official Voter Information for General Election Statute Titles

National Latino Peace Officers Association

December 30, 2008 Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote

Democratic Convention *Saturday 1 March 2008 *Monday 25 August - Thursday 28 August District of Columbia Non-binding Primary

Union Byte By Cherrie Bucknor and John Schmitt* January 2015

Notice N HCFB-1. March 25, Subject: FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM OBLIGATION AUTHORITY FISCAL YEAR (FY) Classification Code

Judicial Selection in the States

Components of Population Change by State

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION [NOTICE ] Price Index Adjustments for Contribution and Expenditure Limitations and

Immigration Policy Brief August 2006

Louis M. Edwards Mathematics Super Bowl Valencia Community College -- April 30, 2004

How Utah Ranks. Utah Education Association Research Bulletin

INSTITUTE of PUBLIC POLICY

Campaign Finance Options: Public Financing and Contribution Limits

Subcommittee on Design Operating Guidelines

TELEPHONE; STATISTICAL INFORMATION; PRISONS AND PRISONERS; LITIGATION; CORRECTIONS; DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION ISSUES

Allocating the US Federal Budget to the States: the Impact of the President. Statistical Appendix

Red, white, and blue. One for each state. Question 1 What are the colors of our flag? Question 2 What do the stars on the flag mean?

Map of the Foreign Born Population of the United States, 1900

State-by-State Chart of HIV-Specific Laws and Prosecutorial Tools

Registered Agents. Question by: Kristyne Tanaka. Date: 27 October 2010

Who Runs the States?

The Electoral College And

ARTICLE I ESTABLISHMENT NAME

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS. OUT-OF- STATE DONORS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Women in Federal and State-level Judgeships

The sustained negative mood of the country drove voter attitudes.

ADVANCEMENT, JURISDICTION-BY-JURISDICTION

Department of Legislative Services Maryland General Assembly 2010 Session

2015 ANNUAL OUTCOME GOAL PLAN (WITH FY 2014 OUTCOMES) Prepared in compliance with Government Performance and Results Act

I. The relationship between states ratio of Democratic/Republican votes and measures of personal responsibility

Department of Justice

For jurisdictions that reject for punctuation errors, is the rejection based on a policy decision or due to statutory provisions?

SMALL STATES FIRST; LARGE STATES LAST; WITH A SPORTS PLAYOFF SYSTEM

Race to the White House Drive to the 2016 Republican Nomination. Ron Nehring California Chairman, Ted Cruz for President

o Yes o No o Under 18 o o o o o o o o 85 or older BLW YouGov spec

If you have questions, please or call

7-45. Electronic Access to Legislative Documents. Legislative Documents

Key Factors That Shaped 2018 And A Brief Look Ahead

Elder Financial Abuse and State Mandatory Reporting Laws for Financial Institutions Prepared by CUNA s State Government Affairs

2016 us election results

This report was prepared for the Immigration Policy Center of the American Immigration Law Foundation by Rob Paral and Associates, with writing by

Employee must be. provide reasonable notice (Ala. Code 1975, ).

U.S. Sentencing Commission Preliminary Crack Retroactivity Data Report Fair Sentencing Act

votenet [ur: t' ;{ I i{ Raj Naik Vice President Thursday, May 21,2009

Swarthmore College Alumni Association Constitution and Bylaws. The name of this Association shall be Swarthmore College Alumni Association.

America is facing an epidemic of the working hungry. Hunger Free America s analysis of federal data has determined:

Appendix: Legal Boundaries Between the Juvenile and Criminal. Justice Systems in the United States. Patrick Griffin

Case 1:16-cv Document 3 Filed 02/05/16 Page 1 of 66 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

2018 Constituent Society Delegate Apportionment

Class Actions and the Refund of Unconstitutional Taxes. Revenue Laws Study Committee Trina Griffin, Research Division April 2, 2008

The Changing Face of Labor,

Committee Consideration of Bills

Incarcerated America Human Rights Watch Backgrounder April 2003

ASSOCIATES OF VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA, INC. BYLAWS (A Nonprofit Corporation)

New Census Estimates Show Slight Changes For Congressional Apportionment Now, But Point to Larger Changes by 2020

LOOKING FORWARD: DEMOGRAPHY, ECONOMY, & WORKFORCE FOR THE FUTURE

Transcription:

WHO REALLY VOTED FOR BARACK OBAMA? by Paul M. Sommers Alyssa A. Chong Monica B. Ralston And Andrew C. Waxman March 2010 MIDDLEBURY COLLEGE ECONOMICS DISCUSSION PAPER NO. 10-19 DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS MIDDLEBURY COLLEGE MIDDLEBURY, VERMONT 05753 http://www.middlebury.edu/~econ

2 WHO REALLY VOTED FOR BARACK OBAMA? by Alyssa A. Chong Monica B. Ralston Andrew C. Waxman Paul M. Sommers Department of Economics Middlebury College Middlebury, Vermont 05753 psommers@middlebury.edu

3 WHO REALLY VOTED FOR BARACK OBAMA? How well (or poorly) did Barack Obama do in the 2008 presidential election among different age and income groups? Exit poll data on four different age groups (18 to 29 years of age, 30 to 44, 45 to 64, and 65 and over) as well as three different categories of family income (under $50000, between $50000 and $99999, and $100000 or more) were collected from Obama voters in each of the fifty states (www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23926593). The purpose of this brief note is to show how simple bilinear regression on these exit poll data in conjunction with the actual percentage of each state s Obama voters can be used to highlight Obama s relative attractiveness across age and income groups. Figure 1 shows a scatterplot of the actual percentage of Obama votes (expressed as a decimal) versus the percentage of Obama voters between 18 and 29 years of age (also expressed as a decimal). Each circular point represents a state, whose actual percentage of Obama voters can be read on the vertical axis and percentage of Obama voters between 18 and 29 years of age (based on exit polls) can be read on the horizontal axis. 1 What is the relationship between Obama s actual percentage of the total vote [Obama (actual)] and his support among voters under 30 years of age [Obama (18-29)], on average? The regression equation that summarizes this relationship is given by: Obama (actual) = 0.0633 + 0.7365 Obama (18-29) (2.60) (18.40) 2 R =.883 with t-values in parentheses. If, in all states, the percentage of Obama voters (18 to 29 years of age) were equal to the actual percentage of all voters who cast their ballots for Obama, then all points (squares in

4 Figure 1) would fall on a 45-degree line, given by: Obama (actual) = Obama (18-29) The regression equation and the 45-degree line intersect at a single point, where Obama (actual) is equal to Obama (18-29) which in turn is equal to.24. That is, the regression analysis predicts that, on average, in states where Obama received 24 percent or more of the state s total vote, he was more popular with 18-to-29 year-olds than he was with the state s general population. In fact, Barack Obama received no less than (Wyoming s) 33 percent of the total vote in any state, a result that underscores his strong popularity among voters under 30 years of age. 2 Table 1 summarizes the regression results for all four demographic and three income groups. The last column of Table 1 gives the critical point of intersection between the regression line and a 45-degree line. 3 The negative entry in the last column of Table 1 for Obama voters with incomes under $50000 shows that however small his support in any state, he was very popular with the poorest voters. Obama was least popular with voters 45 to 64 years of age and voters with family incomes of at least $100000. Among voters 30 to 44 years of age, Obama was more popular than he was with the general electorate (i.e., his actual vote percentage exceeded 53.4 percent) in the states of: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin all states that he ultimately won. But among voters over 44 years of age and voters from families earning more than $50000 a year, he was more popular than the general electorate (i.e., his actual vote percentage exceeded 68.0 percent) in just the states of Vermont and Hawaii.

5 Concluding Remarks Regression analysis on election exit poll data can be used to gauge a candidate s relative popularity among different demographic and socioeconomic groups. In 2008, the youngest and poorest voters played a decisive role in electing the first-ever African-American U.S. president. For voters over 44 years of age and voters from families earning more than $50000, Obama s support was no greater than (and, in some instances, substantially less than) his support from all voters.

6 Table 1. Regression Results for Selected Age and Income Groups of Obama Voters in the 2008 Presidential Election Critical point of Group Constant Slope R 2 intersection with 45-degree line Age 18-29 year olds.0633.7365.883.240 (2.60) a (18.40) b 30-44 year olds.0970.8184.814.534 (3.36) (14.48) 45-64 year olds.0482.9443.901.866 (2.16) (20.91) 65 years and over.1783.7378.757.680 (5.61) (10.74) Income Under $50000 -.0177.8998.871 -.177 (-0.60) (17.98) $50000 - $100000.1119.8367.911.686 (6.14) (22.20) $100000 and over.1679.7583.838.695 (7.45) (15.62) a t-values in parentheses b All slope coefficients are significant at better than the.001 level.

7 Figure 1. Scatterplot of Obama Vote Actual Total Vote v. Vote Among 18-29 Year-Olds 0.7 Variable Obama(18-29) 45-degree line Obama (Actual Total) 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Obama (18-29 Year-Olds) 0.8

8 Footnotes 1. MSNBC did not report the breakdown between Obama and John McCain, his Republican opponent, for 18-29 year-olds in the states of Colorado, Oregon, and Washington. There were observations on all fifty states for 30-44 and 45-64 year-olds. Among voters 65 years of age and over, there were missing observations on Obama for Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Utah, and Wyoming. Insofar as the three income categories were concerned, there was no observation on Utah for voters from families earning $100000 or more; otherwise, the exit poll data on Obama voters by income was complete. 2. Figure 1 shows just two states (Alaska and Utah) where Obama s percentage of the actual vote exceeded his percentage of the vote among voters under 30 years of age [Alaska, 38 percent v. 36 percent and Utah, 34 percent v. 33 percent]. 3. A series of paired t-tests across the fifty states between Obama s actual percentage of the state s total vote and the state s corresponding Obama support for each of the four age groups was significant for 18-29 year-olds (p <.001, in Obama s favor), not significant for 30-44 year-olds (p =.338), significant for 45-64 year-olds (p <.001, in John McCain s favor), and significant for voters 65 years of age or older (p <.001, again, in John McCain s favor). All three paired t-tests involving income groups were statistically significant (p <.001), with only the poorest income group (i.e., families earning less than $50000) favoring Obama.