Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts

Thursday, February 02, 2012

Mac McCorkle has a little fun with Chronicle Reporter

My good friend Pope “Mac” McCorkle is having a little fun with the reporter from the Chronicle.  Here are the money quotes, from me and then his “refutation.”

“They don’t want a candidate who is going to hold [President Barack Obama] back,” Munger said. “Bev Perdue is a clown—she should have never been governor. The only reason she won was the tsunami of Obama’s campaign in North Carolina.”
But the unpopularity of an incumbent governor would not likely affect an incumbent president, said Pope McCorkle, visiting lecturer at the Sanford School of Public Policy, who worked as a consultant with Perdue’s 2008 campaign.  “[Perdue] had a better shot of winning than is commonly assumed,” McCorkle said. “She got more votes than Obama in 2008. The idea that her victory is solely attributable to Obama doesn’t hold water.”

Now, Mac is a smart guy, and knows full well that that is nonsense.  I laughed out loud when I read what he said.  There is just no necessary relationship, none at all, between the vote totals and whether Perdue would have won without Obama’s coattails.  The reason is straight ticket voting.  At least 2% of the folks who went to vote for Obama ended up voting for Perdue straight ticket, but did not vote for Obama at all because of the quirky NC rules.

  • Democrats: 46 % of all registered voters, but 58.76% of the straight ticket votes cast went to the Dems (1,283,486 total straight ticket votes) 
  • Republicans:  32% percent of registered voters,  40.4%  of straight-party votes (881,856) 
Democrats from the national party (not the Perdue campaign) organized the straight ticket get out the vote campaign.  They handed out cards, and told people (as they were getting off busses paid for by George Soros and his Wall Street pals, Obama fans all) how to vote straight ticket Democrat. (In NC, it takes two votes to vote straight ticket. If you just vote straight ticket, you cast a vote for Gov, but not for Prez.  That's not what you meant, but that's what you did).

I watched this happen, dozens of times, at different polling sites.  Those folks getting off the bus had NEVER HEARD of Bev Perdue.  They were there to vote for Obama, and when some Dem functionary handed them a card explaining how they should vote, straight ticket D, they did it.

Those numbers, 58% of straight ticket votes, and 1.28 million straight ticket votes cast, are by far the largest ever in NC history.

Now, consider just how lame Mac’s “refutation” is.  If I’m right, and the straight ticket votes from the Obama turnout machine were the difference in the race, then it would be IMPOSSIBLE for Bev to get fewer votes than Obama.  Make it simple:  suppose every Obama voter voted straight ticket.  And a few others voted for Bev.  Then Bev got all those straight ticket votes, and a few more.

That’s basically what happened.  Bev “beat” Obama by four thousand votes.  Statistically a tie.  But without Obama and the straight ticket votes, Bev would have gotten wiped out by Pat McCrory.  On election day, when far fewer people voted straight ticket, Pat “won” easily.  On election day, the votes looked like this:
  • McCrory 952,000
  • Perdue 783,000
But on the early, mostly straight ticket voting, with all those busses paid for by Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and Citigroup pulling up to the early polling places, here is how it came out:
  • McCrory 1,038,000
  • Perdue 1,351,000
In other words, Perdue built up an early lead of 300,000 because of all that straight ticket turnout for Obama.  In a normal year, with average turnout and average straight ticket voting rates, Bev would only have gotten 1,000,000 early votes, and would have lost the election by 250,000 votes or more.

The only way for me to be wrong is if the reason for all that historic straight ticket voting, and higher turnout, had NOTHING to do with Obama.  And that doesn’t pass the laugh test.  Consider this headline in the HuffPo:  "EarlyVoting Numbers Climb in NC, Mostly the Work of ObamaVolunteers."  That darned right wing HuffPo...

Obama volunteers. Not Perdue volunteers.  And Perdue only won because of early voting.  Perdue couldn't possibly have gotten fewer votes than Obama, because all those early votes were for BOTH.  Perdue loses, without Obama.  And my friend Mac is laughing at that reporter, for not asking better questions.  Good one, Mac.

Monday, January 16, 2012

Lee Siegel Is An Idiot

You don't have to be an idiot to write for the NY Times.

But it helps. P-Krrog, for example, is certainly not an idiot. But he has to act like one to publish in the Times.

Being an idiot is the only qualification I can see for Lee Siegel writing a column.

Some analysis, from NO MORE MISTER NICE BLOG.

A lagniappe: Here is Mr. Siegel being an idiot on the Daily Show. Now that "Kim Jong Il Looking at Things" won't have any new entries, perhaps someone can have a blog entitled "Lee Siegel Being An Idiot." It would have daily entries.

Sunday, January 01, 2012

Rob Kendall Gets Sworn In

Now that Rob Kendall has been sworn in, he may get sworn at.

But for today, he is the newest member of the Brownsburg, IN town council, representing ward #3.

I enjoyed the part where the commenter compared the speech to the Gettysburg Address. The commenter said, "That was NOT the Gettysburg Address."

And so, it begins. But seriously, good luck to Rob! We need more ambiguously Libertarian Republicans in this world.

Not So Much Predictions

I was going to call this predictions.

But it's more like "fun resources so YOU can make predictions." Here we go:

1. There are lots of models that predict share of two party vote in Presidential elections, based on the economy. Here is one that's fun to fool around with...

With plausible assumptions, that would imply that the Dems will get 49.7 -- 50.5 of the two party vote in November. Given the way the Electoral College "counts" votes, that would likely mean a narrow win for the Repubs. Of course that depends on who the Repub nominee is. But if you want to go strictly by the "economy determines whether incumbent Prez wins" theory, right now it's a toss up.

On the other hand, if there is 4% growth in the first two quarters of 2012, you would get a 53.5% vote in the states, and that is close to a landslide. So, the point is, to the extent the models matter, 2% growth and Obama loses. 4% growth and Obama wins in November.

This map is VERY fun for doing simulations, state by state, in Electoral College. (of course, the fact that I think that is fun may explain why I never had dates in high school)

2. Conference Board is predicting 1.5% growth for 2012. If that is right, then Obama loses. Again depending on who the Repub nominee is, of course.

3. Any prediction, based on any reasonable assumptions about the economy, predict that Repubs keep the House, and maybe even add a little to their majority. Redistricting will help here, because many state legislatures were taken over in 2010 election, and the winner redraws the maps.

4. Ben Nelson's (D-Neb) retirement puts the range of outcomes for the Senate at 51 D - 49 R to 47 D -- 53 R. But these are not equally likely. Most likely is 50 D -- 50 R, with VP Biden breaking tie votes in favor of Democrats. So, if I had to guess, Dems retain control of Senate, though only by the thinnest of margins.

5. Consumer confidence: on the economy, seems on the upswing. Still very weak. As long as the Euro is all covered with Greece, very scary situation. Our banks bought up a LOT of PIGS sovereign debt, with MF securities being only the most greedy. Other institutions are lined up like dominoes. World economy could get hammered here. That would be bad.

6. Congressional job approval is at its lowest level EVER, 11%. The House and Senate are each profoundly dysfunctional. But "we hate Congress, though we love our Congressman" is the old saying. The disgust with Congress rarely translates into voting out incumbents. Each election is separate, and based on personality and local factors. So the so-called "triple flip" where people vote against incumbents in Prez, House, and Senate races is very unlikely. People say they are mad, and then they line up and vote for incumbents.

7. Presidential approval is very bad also, but still in the mid 40% range. The difference is that we do vote on the Presidency, directly, in a way we do not on Congress. The rule of thumb is that if your negatives, of "disapprove" numbers, are above 45% you are toast. Right now, President Obama is toast, by that measure.

Oh, and happy new year, all you KPC fans! I am on leave until September, so I shall be blogging from many places around the globe, and I'm looking forward to it.

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Mike Tyson Does Herman Cain Spoof

This amused me. It is disrespectful, and possibly racist, but it amused me.


As Anonyman notes, "he had me at Pizza Pthursday"

Monday, December 05, 2011

All Politics is Local

From my NC State colleague Steven Green:
The Politics of Parenthood: Parenthood Effects on Issue Attitudes and Candidate Evaluations in 2008
Laurel Elder & Steven Greene, American Politics Research, forthcoming
Abstract: This project employs 2008 National Election Study (NES) data to explore whether parents are different than nonparents in terms of their political attitudes and candidate evaluations. We find that parenthood does have political consequences although often not in ways suggested by conventional wisdom. Rather than finding parents to be a conservative group, our results support the idea that raising children has liberalizing effects on the attitudes of women. Fatherhood shapes attitudes less than motherhood, but these fewer effects are in a conservative direction. We argue that the distinctive politics of mothers and fathers reflects the impact of parenting as a gendered socialization experience combined with the contrasting parenthood themes articulated by the Republican and Democratic parties. Finally, despite media coverage suggesting Sarah Palin’s “Hockey Mom” image would attract parents, especially mothers, to her candidacy and the Republican ticket we find no support for this idea.

Thursday, November 24, 2011

Sure, They Voted for Buchanan, But They Meant "Gore"!

Typo leads to wrong candidates election...

DERBY, Conn. (CBS Connecticut/AP) — A typo has led to the election of the wrong man to a finance board in Derby.

James J. Butler was the highest vote-getter, winning 1,526 votes for the 10-member Board of Apportionment and Taxation, which oversees the town’s finances.

However, his father, 72-year-old James R. Butler, was nominated by the Democratic Town Committee for a second, two-year term.

The News Times of Danbury and New Haven Register report that James R. Butler says his 46-year-old son is not interested in politics or serving in public office.


A reader asks: "Key, Converse, or Downs? Is this evidence in favor of any one of the above theorists? It probably speaks best of Downs considering the line, "'The error was made in the caucus back in July and nobody picked up on it,' she said." I wonder how elite ignorance fits into Downs' theory? Game theoretic irrationality?!"
What I wonder is why Democrats can't come up with a way to proofread ballots. The "butterfly ballot" that cost Algore the 2000 election: Democrats.

(Nod to RWP)

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Boston Globe Article

Did a fun interview with Donovan Slack (yes, a woman named Donovan) for the B-Globe. Here is the article...

Excerpt:

Today’s visit is the latest in a string of presidential trips to battleground states since he introduced his jobs bill in September. The White House has said the forays are designed to take the president’s case for passage of the legislation directly to the public with hopes of pressuring Congress to pass it.

Congress has so far passed only one small piece of his bill, a measure signed by Obama yesterday that will provide tax credits to businesses that hire veterans. The rest appears mired in partisan gridlock on Capitol Hill, a logjam the president hopes to loosen by pushing his case directly to the public.

“We’re hopeful that the pressure from the American people is ultimately going to prevail,’’ one of the president’s top economic advisers, Brian Deese, said in an interview yesterday.

But some analysts say the destinations the White House has chosen for the trips appear to target electoral votes in the 2012 election rather than congressional votes to pass the jobs bill.

Shortly after unveiling the legislation, Obama held an event on a bridge that connects Ohio and Kentucky, the home turfs of House Speaker John Boehner and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, both Republicans. But his itinerary since then has included Colorado, Michigan, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania, which do not have similar connections to GOP leadership on Capitol Hill but are all critical battleground states in next year’s presidential election.

It appears that he has “completely abandoned the idea of legislative accomplishments and switched to electoral accomplishments,’’ said Michael Munger, a Duke University political science professor who was a Libertarian candidate for governor of North Carolina in 2008.

Some analysts say it is a necessary tactic for the president.

“Taking his case to the folks in swing states makes obvious sense looking forward to 2012,’’ said Christopher Parker, a political science professor at the University of Washington.

Parker and others believe the logjam in Washington will not ease until the 2012 election is decided and the public gives a mandate to one side or the other to take action. Right now Republicans will not approve large amounts of new spending without an equal amount of cuts, and they are vehemently opposed to tax hikes. Democrats want new spending to accelerate economic recovery, including what is in the president’s jobs bill, but will not make deep spending cuts without new tax revenue.


"Makes obvious sense looking forward to 2012"? Prof. Parker, it's 2011. He is Prez NOW. There has never been a President, in my memory, so utterly indifferent to legislative accomplishment, or to the state of the nation. He does not enjoy working on legislation, doesn't care about policy, and doesn't like having people disagree with him. Much more fun giving campaign speeches to hand-picked audiences, 'cause they will stay say "Yay! You are the MAN!" Even though Prez O is NOT the man. Even Chris Matthews recognizes that Prez O is a nebbish.

Wednesday, November 09, 2011

Libertarian Tim Rohr Wins Lenoir City Council Seat

Tim Rohr, one of my favorite people, won reelection on the town of Lenoir City Council. The results:


We have a much better chance at the local level.

Friday, November 04, 2011

Election--Calc U Later!

Interesting little calculator. You make assumptions, it predicts results.

It may not predict results very well, but these models are surprisingly accurate.

Nod to Anonyman, who is enjoying this circus way too much.

Hey, I Know You!

Somebody versus nobody: An exploration of the role of celebrity status in an election

Lara Zwarun & Angela Torrey, Social Science Journal, forthcoming

Abstract: This study examines the role celebrity status may play in potential voters’ evaluation of a political candidate presented in a newspaper article. Participants indicated greater intention to vote for a candidate who was a recognizable Hollywood actor than an unknown candidate in a political race, regardless of how substantive the political information provided about the candidate was. This suggests that familiarity with a celebrity can act as a heuristic in peripheral processing. Younger people were more likely to vote for a celebrity candidate than older voters, but how liberal or conservative participants are was not a significant factor in the decision to vote for the celebrity. Nor did participants’ need for cognition or level of political involvement predict intention to vote for the celebrity, suggesting that celebrity status is meaningful to motivated and thoughtful voters as well as those who are less motivated and informed. The possibility is raised that this could be an indication of celebrity status being used as a component of deliberate political decision-making, and future research in this direction is suggested.

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Looks like Intraders have discovered Hibbs

On Intrade this morning, Obama's re-election probability is 47.9%, which is the low point for this contract:





This low-ish probability of re-election is now in line with what my main man Doug Hibbs has been predicting via his "Bread & Peace" model, namely Obama loses (Hibbs is predicting 46.2% of the vote for Obama):




(clic the pics for a more Romnian view)

Hibbs has been predicting an Obama loss since May, which is when the Intrade Obama contract peaked at 70% (due to his RIP OBL bounce).

All hail the Stormin' Mormon?

Monday, October 10, 2011

Will Wilkinson on Ron Paul

Will W gives an analysis of Dr. Ron Paul.

The U.S. could do worse, and almost certainly will do worse, for President.

But I really am confused how people identify RP with "libertarian." It just ain't so. A friend recently told me that RP was "the most libertarian of the major candidates." Okay. But Mussolini* was the most libertarian of the Axis dictators, but that doesn't make him a libertarian.

(*No, I'm not saying RP is Mussolini; I'm saying that the "he's the most XXXX of the YYYYs" doesn't mean the person is actually XXXX).

On the other hand, I was and remain sympathetic to the claim that the main part of the state-sponsored Repub party, and the state-owned media, ignore RP because he is TOO libertarian. That's a fair critique, as Jon Stewart points out.

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

James Surowiecki has occupational dyslexia

In his latest column in the New Yorker, he calls me a political scientist and Doug Hibbs an economist!

OUCH.

Here is the article that I believe he's referencing, from the Journal of Law & Economics. We show that if you define electoral performance by incumbent return rates instead of party vote share, a wide range of economic conditions (inflation, unemployment, and income growth) affect House elections, and at least some of the effects are independent of whether or not the incumbent is of the same political party as the president.

It's one of my favorite papers (I mean of ones I've written or co-written). My co-author, Joe McGarrity did a ton of work on it, as we got a very daunting R&R offer from the journal and Joe really did the job on making the referees and Editor happy.

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Madcap Electoral College Hi-Jinks: Remember the Colorado

Them wascawwy Wepubwicans! Gonna take Penn proportional in the Electoral College! And the "fair and balanced" folks at NY Mag had this to say:

Pennsylvania, like every other state, is free to dole out its electoral votes however it wants. Republicans control both chambers of the state legislature as well as the governorship, so if the GOP wants to switch over to a congressional-district apportionment system, all the Democrats can really do is whine. As Nick Baumann points out in Mother Jones today, the same thing could be repeated in other blue states across the country.

Democrats, meanwhile, don't have the ability to retaliate by splitting up the electoral votes of traditionally red states.


Democrats, Democrats, whatchagoando, whatchagoando when Cantor comes for you? Poor defenseless little things!

Except that our brave reporters didn't mention that the Dems have tried this same crap several times, most recently in Colorado. That paragon of virtue Kos was all excited, back then, in 2004. It was GREAT news, a brilliant strategy.

How come it's cheating if the Repubs do it? I agree it's a bad idea, but this seems like pretty selective reporting.

Friday, September 02, 2011

Obama Wins in 2012?

I have said several times Obama will win in 2012. (After I said in March 2008 that he was "unelectable," so ignore whatever I say).

But now a man with an actual MODEL (sort of) has called it for BHO.

Meet Prof. Lichtman...

(Nod to Anonyman)

Monday, August 08, 2011

From the personals

MBM ISO 270 electoral votes for a 4 year relationship.

Turnons: electric cars, choo-choos, windmills, peas, taxing the rich

Turnoffs: tea, paperwork, take home pay, ratings agencies

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Don't Want Those Third Parties "Spoiling" Elections!

Utah may decide to go with IRV to avoid "spoiling" elections.

Really.

(Nod to the Bishop, who has spoiled a lot of elections all by himself)

Thursday, June 23, 2011

Retail politics

Ignacio, a loyal KPC reader from Chile, passed me a great article about politics in Argentina, which I will loosely translate here:

On the same day she announced her bid for re-election, President Kirchner also announced a new government program "TVs for Everyone" (televisores para todos). Initially there will be 200,000, 32 inch hi def sets available. People can finance them over 60 payments at 15% interest. Kirchner announced the program will start by offering the TVs to retirees because "they have the most time available to watch TV".

Oh Crissy, could it also be because old people vote more frequently than any other group?

If you think that 15% interest is a bad deal, consider that the actual inflation rate in the country right now is thought to be between 25 and 30%!