Monthly Archives: October 2016

vote

Rock the Vote!

Hello,

Please remember to vote on or by November 8!

This is the election of a lifetime. Only Hillary Clinton offers the policies needed to create new American jobs, defeat our enemies abroad, and unify a divided nation.

She has solutions; her opponent Donald Trump, has bigotry and authoritarian principles that know neither the Constitution nor American values.

This is election is about us — you, me, our children. Our future.

Please get out and rock the vote!

Arizona Early Voting

DemRepIndTotal
Registered Voters (10/24/2016) 1,019,050 1,185,023 1,164,373 3,400,611
Percent of Electorate29.97%34.85%34.24%
Current polling average among select demographic breakdowns
TrumpClinton
Dem3.00%96.00%
Rep90.00%6.00%
Ind44.00%39.00%
Current turnout and electorate composition by party.  Combined with polling averages, early vote tallies are estimated as well as a final vote tally (that assumes an impossible 100% voter turnout) if the electorate’s composition does not change.
DemRepInd Trump Clinton
2016 Turnout52.62%53.83%33.62% 762,187 705,363
2016 Percent of Electorate33.70%40.10%24.60% 1,629,743 1,508,239
Averaging the approximated vote shares by demographics yields this approximated early vote tally.
TrumpClinton
Estimated Early Votes 762,187 705,363
If current turnout remains the same through election day, we might see these final results.
TrumpClinton
If this patter holds, estimated final vote tally 1,629,743 1,508,239
Compare to 2012.
2012 Early Votes (Estimates)
Obama 476,60047.66%
Romney 508,80050.88%
What percent of the 2012 early vote does each candidate have?
TrumpClinton
Percent of 2012 Early Vote149.8%148.0%
Who’s leading the early vote?
TrumpClinton
Share of Early Vote47.93%44.35%
Likely due to relative third-party popularity, both candidate’s early vote percentage is running behind their predecessor’s.
TrumpClinton
Points Ahead/Behind 2012 Early Vote Share-2.96%-3.31%

North Carolina Early Voting

Voter registration statistics
WhiteBlackHispanicOtherUnknown
Registered Voters (10/24/2016) 4,761,412 1,520,330 162,123 498,111 –
Percent of Electorate70%22%2%7%0%
Current polling average among select demographic breakdowns
TrumpClintonTrumpClintonTrumpClinton
White0.550.35Dem0.120.835Male0.470.405
Black0.120.82Rep0.8250.07Female0.380.475
HispanicInd0.390.345
Other
Current turnout and electorate composition by race.  I combine this with polling averages to estimate Trump and Clinton vote shares.  “Other” and “unknown” provide challenges.
WhiteBlackHispanicOtherUnknownTrumpClinton
2016 Turnout (of total Registered Voters by Race)46%45%36%21%84774/? 1,184,524 1,225,631
2016 Percent of Electorate70%22%2%3%3% 2,577,788 2,637,123
Same as above, but by sex.
MenWomenTrumpClinton
2016 Turnout43%47% 1,272,421 1,350,458
2016 Percent of Electorate42%56% 2,803,917 2,975,940
By party.
DemRepInd Trump Clinton
2016 Turnout48%48%40% 1,286,981 1,429,527
2016 Percent of Electorate42%32%26% 2,836,899 3,148,374
Averaging the approximated vote shares by demographics yields this approximated early vote tally.
TrumpClinton
Estimated Early Votes (Average of Above Breakdowns) 1,247,975 1,335,205
If current turnout remains the same through election day, we might see these final results.
TrumpClinton
If this pattern holds, estimated final vote tally 2,739,535 2,920,479
Compare to 2012.
2012 Early Votes (Estimates)
Obama 1,394,66150.58%
Romney 1,336,04348.45%
What percent of the 2012 early vote does each candidate have?
TrumpClinton
Percent of 2012 Early Vote93%96%
Who’s leading the early vote?
TrumpClinton
Share of Early Vote40.22%43.03%
Likely due to relative third-party popularity, both candidate’s early vote percentage is running behind their predecessor’s.
TrumpClinton
Points Ahead/Behind 2012 Early Vote Share-8.23%-7.55%

Educated Voters are Propelling Clinton to Swing State Leads  

 

It is no secret that Donald Trump has few viable paths to 270 electoral votes.  Those that do exist hinge on a few swing states: Iowa, Ohio, Florida, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire.  A map with those states classified as toss-ups and all other states classified a la 2012 (except for Maine’s second congressional district, where recent polls have shown a double-digit Trump lead) leaves Trump 78 electoral votes shy of winning the presidency.  From there, it’s a game of math – the most credible and likely paths necessitate that he win Florida, Pennsylvania, and a couple of other states.  Losing Pennsylvania greatly diminishes Trump’s prospects: Without the Keystone State, he needs to sweep the remainder to earn exactly the magic number.

And so it becomes natural to ask: How is Trump doing in said swing states?  What are his prospects for winning?  Is he notably doing better in some swing states than in others?  It is the last question I attempt to answer in order to gain insight into electoral coalitions and divisions.

 OhioIowaPAFloridaNevadaNCNHNational
Ohio —0.990.850.700.990.980.980.91
Iowa0.99 —0.920.790.980.940.990.96
Pennsylvania0.850.920.870.880.740.910.95
Florida0.700.790.87    —0.660.550.710.93
Nevada0.990.980.880.66      —0.971.000.89
NC0.980.940.740.550.970.950.81
NH0.980.990.910.711.000.950.92
National0.910.960.950.930.890.810.92        —

Table 1: Correlation index between the swing states.

To flesh out the leading question – how is Trump doing in state X compared to  state Y – I regressed each swing state results on the others as well as the national outcome, one at a time, to generate a formula used to predict Trump’s vote share in each swing state.[1]  I use Trump’s RealClearPolitics polling average as the x-variable for each equation.[2]  The results, pictured in table 2, are highlighted red or blue to denote whether the predicted Trump value is greater than Hillary Clinton’s polling average for that state.

 Ohio (18)Iowa (6)PA (20)Florida (29)Nevada (6)NC (15)NH (4)NationalResult
Ohio0.4250.3930.4140.4520.3520.4120.4100.41553
Iowa0.4560.4300.4360.4700.4090.4710.4400.44472
PA0.4160.3720.3850.4230.3280.4100.3940.38918
Florida0.4440.4080.4120.4330.2000.4630.4260.41339
Nevada0.4650.4420.4450.4790.4250.4860.4470.45578
NC0.4310.3950.4240.4640.3640.4260.4170.42668
NH0.3700.3200.3620.4120.2420.3140.3530.3560
National0.4240.3850.4010.4310.3500.4200.4060.40018
  
Average0.4290.3930.4100.4450.3710.4250.4120.41272
Clinton Avg0.4080.3870.4470.4330.4150.4220.4270.409 
Difference0.0210.006-0.0370.012-0.0440.005-0.0010.003 

Table 2: This shows Trump’s projected vote shares based on his polling average in each state shown and his national polling average.  Each row is the projected vote share for the swing states based on the row’s state header.   Simulations are then compared to Clinton’s polling average (bottom); if Trump is projected to have a higher vote share, then the cell is highlighted red.  A blue cell means Clinton is ahead.  Electoral votes are then added – Trump needs 78 to win.  Highlighted color shows the electoral winner.

Trump needs 78 electoral votes to clinch the presidency; he reaches that number in only one simulation – that with state predictions based on his current Nevada polling average.  Besides again showing the arduous task Trump faces in accumulating the needed electoral votes, this model shows whether Trump is systematically over/underperforming expectations in some states based on his polling in others.  A few examples quickly jump out.  Trump is notably outperforming expectations in Iowa and Nevada while coming up short in New Hampshire and the all-important Pennsylvania.  In both Iowa and Nevada, his current polling average (bolded and as of this writing) greatly exceeds predictions for those states based on his performance elsewhere.  The opposite holds true in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire.  There, Trump’s polling average rests well below where we would expect him to be given his standing in other states.  Why might this be and what does it tell us?

Race, a default heuristic, tells part, but not all of, the story.  Trump might be outperforming expectations in Iowa because of his strength among whites (and Iowa is around 90 percent white), but what about Nevada, with its growing population of Hispanics (who have no love for the candidate)?  Pennsylvania is around 80 percent white, but Trump shows few signs of strength there.  Furthermore, New Hampshire is another overwhelmingly white state and yet Trump is very much underperforming expectations there.  Though race is an important factor in Trump’s performances in these swing states, the discrepancy in his polling numbers can be further explained by another variable: Education.

Nevada, as noted columnist and state expert Jon Ralston noted, is not a particularly well-educated state.  In fact, according to the 2010 Census, only 21.7 percent of adults in the state had at least a bachelor’s degree.  Iowa fares somewhat better — 24.9 percent of Iowan adults fit the criteria.  By comparison, in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire, 27.1 percent and 32.8 percent, respectively, have a least a bachelor’s degree.

The numbers are even more disparate when looking at exit polls.  As education increases, so does voter turnout, so the differences noted by the census are exasperated at the polls.  In 2012, 43 percent of Iowa voters and 42 percent of those in Nevada were college graduates as opposed to 48 percent in Pennsylvania and 51 percent in New Hampshire.  While these numbers might not seem dramatic, a few percentage points means tens to hundreds of thousands of voters.

In 2012, Barack Obama won voters who graduated college by just two percentage points.  Today, according to Reuters polling, Clinton leads Trump by 20 points among college graduates, an advantage which extends to white voters.  She could be the first Democrat to win white voters in 60 years.  Strength among college educated voters is empowering Clinton even in states where she might otherwise be at a disadvantage given the state’s racial composition (combined with Trump’s strong showing among whites, especially white men).  Holding all else equal, educational attainment differences between swing states likely explains why Trump is beating expectations in some while falling short in others.

And yet it’s a deficit that could be overcome if Trump had a sophisticated ground game capable of registering and mobilizing non-college graduates inclined to support him.  Luckily for Democrats, anemic investment on the ground means that Trump will be playing catchup if he hopes to mitigate the effects of his non-appeal to non-college graduates.

 

[1] This exercise, of course, has a very small n.  However, because many swing states have highly correlated results, the regressions were generally statistically significant and, as will be shown, the predictions from the resultant equations almost always pass the eye test for reasonability.

[2] Throughout this example, I use four-way polling averages from RCP.

Does Lawmaker Ideology Influence Trump Defection?

Over the weekend, a number of GOP lawmakers un-endorsed Donald Trump, with some going as far as calling on him to drop out of the race.  What role did ideology play in the decision-making?  Below is a chart that maps out the ideology (in the from of DW-NOMINATE scores) for the entire 114th House GOP caucus and whether the MC supports Trump (a value of 1 indicates support for the nominee while 0 means the lawmaker does not support the top-of-the-ticket).  Data regarding support is found from this spreadsheet, compiled by @Taniel.Screen Shot 2016-10-12 at 11.32.07 AM

Moderates abandoned Trump in greater numbers than conservatives, though a few strong conservatives also walked away from the nominee.  Another consideration comes into play — district competitiveness.  Lawmakers hailing from competitive districts (who tend to be moderate) might risk electoral defeat at the hands of appalled independent voters if they continued to support Trump; those from solid-GOP districts, on the other hand, might risk alienating Trump voter and thus inviting a future primary challenge or, at worst, encouraging voters to skip down-ballot races, perhaps imperiling a reelection bid.

The below chart compares lawmaker ideology to the Cook Political Report’s district Partisan Voter Index — the evident trend of increased moderation as a district becomes more competitive (a PVI close to 0) is a well-documented phenomenon.   Interestingly, a few lawmakers from safe districts have decided to un-endorse Trump.  However, by and large, condemning and refusing to support Trump seems to be but a calculated political move dependent upon reelection, not party health or policy principles. Screen Shot 2016-10-12 at 11.47.44 AM