17 August 2009

A great write up on this fake right-wing rage:

Rick Perlstein:

In America, Crazy Is a Preexisting Condition

Is a good write up, worth reading.

Facit: This kind of "rage" is not new and goes all the way back to the 50s. When we see in retrospect how utterly STUPID and non-propetic this stuff was, it makes it alot easier to combat this nonsense now.

Take a read.

04 August 2009

Orly Taitz and her fake birth certificates...


Politjab has identified the location of the latest FAKE Obama Kenyan birth certificate: Australia!!


The above is a birth certificate from Bromford, Australia from 1959.


Here is the fake Obama birth certificate.


Politjab describes in detail the similarities.





01 August 2009

Mayer talks to the birthers

Bill Maher pretty much sums it up.

You notice that the GOP rank and file is suddenly pulling away from the birthers.


Why?

Because they know that the whole thing is utter horsehit. But, like Dr. Frankenstein, they grew this monster in a test tube, they have to deal with it. 


I will also be doing a large posting on the birthers. They look alot like those Perot drop-outs from 1992.


You know, living in such a free and unfettered republic based on democratic principles means that everyone has the right to speak his or her mind.  I have just as much a right to stand on a rooftop and proclaim that the Zorkianers are going to land in 2 weeks and begin to eat our brains, if that's what I really want to say. But it doesn't mean that it is real.


But it also means that the rest of the county has the right to laugh its ass off at idiots who start this crap up in the first place. And that is exactly what is it: crap. And perhaps racist at that.

Website warning

For 3 years I have been visiting and sometimes contributing comments to the HEDGEHOG REPORT, which is a republican website that was once known for excellent polling data and analysis. I came as a centrist to the website to see what the right thinks.

The website-master, Dave Wissing, is excellent at putting out polling data. For a long time, only he front-paged the site.

However, since he began to let others front page at his once fine website, it has quickly degenerated into a massive racist anti-Obama hate fest.

For instance, did you know that it was expected that President Obama should serve up Colt 45 malt liquor at his now famous beer summit, since the stuff is cheap and the malt industry targets blacks, college students and the homeless? And this is mild compared to the postings of many visitors.

Apparently, many conservatives think that they can be clever and can slide in blatantly racist claims under the cloak of civility.

Once again, it is a sad day for the republican party, for most all of these comments are coming from members of the republican party. I will be doing a large post soon on the most obvious racist explosions within the GOP over the last year and you will be amazed at the frequency of such happenings.

Dave Wissing reminded me of the following :

"I would tend to agree with you on the tactics of some Republicans are using to attack Obama, but I will not apologize for anything ******** or ******** posted. They expressed their opinion and anyone was free to disagree. "

Since Dave Wissing is using the 1st amendment to allow such material on his website, then I am also going to use the 1st amendment and warn all of my friends, aquaintances and contacts to steer clear of his website.

Avoid the HEDGEHOG REPORT. It is not what it used to be.

09 June 2009

The 9.25 pick-up states from 2008 - analysis complete!!!




Now that all 9 Democratic pick-up states plus NE-02 have been analysed, I have also provided an exhaustive and most unique non-partisan summary of the pick-up states. I can guarantee you that there is information in this summary that you will not find anywhere else in this quality, clarity or combination.


There are a number of side-documents that go with the summary, plus links to all of the nine analyses and the GE 2008 final analysis for the entire Union.


I want to explain again that I have farmed this kind of thing out to Google Docs as it makes it easier for me to publish charts, tables and graphics. It is my hope that you will read the summary in it's entirety. There are surprises all over the place that only become apparent when one scratches under the surface and researches the GE 2008 at the county level, county for county. In the case of the 9.25 pick-ups, we are talking about 696 counties.



Here the links to the individual analyses, with a detailed description afterwards:



Mid-west:


OHIO - Part I, Part II, Part III , raw data
INDIANA - Part I, Part II and Part III, raw data
IOWA – Part I, Part II, Part III, raw data
NEBRASKA CD-02 – raw data


South:


VIRGINIA – Part I, Part II, Part III, raw data
NORTH CAROLINA – Part I, Part II, Part III, raw data
FLORIDA – Part I, Part II, Part III, raw data


West:


COLORADO – Part I , Part II , Part III , raw data, special 9-county 48-year voting history study
Supplemental to Colorado: DEMOGRAPHIC and ECONOMIC profile of Colorado (p.4, hispanic population)

NEW MEXICO – Part I, Part II, Part III, raw data, special 12 county 48-year voting history study
Supplemental to Nevada: DEMOGRAPHIC and ECONOMIC profile of New Mexico(p.4, hispanic population)

NEVADA - Part I, Part II , Part III, raw data, special 6 county 48-year voting history study
Supplemental to Nevada: DEMOGRAPHIC and ECONOMIC profile of Nevada (p.4, hispanic population)

A analysis for NE-02 (which is the „.25“ part of „9.25“) will be published when I have received the complete precinct data for Douglas and (part of) Sarpy counties from election officials who are willing to dig up the data over 48 years for me. But a comparison 2008 to 2004 is already possible and here is the raw-data.

Links to the large analysis for the entire Union:







Part I of the summary contains:
-links for the individual analyses for all the pick-up states plus the links for the GE 2008 analysis for the entire Union are given again. They will be reproduced at the bottom of this diary entry.

-an overview of the raw vote and percentage totals for the pick-ups states, first for 2008 only and then a comparison to 2004.

-three maps. One shows the geographic position of the pick-ups within the USA. The second shows the geographical relationship between the pick-ups and the Democratic retentions from 2004. The third shows the Democratic states from 2008 plus the 5 leanest GOP wins from 2008.

-a question: "How does this compare on a historical level?" 

The question is referring to the number of electoral votes that changed parties in 2008, namely, 113 EV. I then provide a table showing each general election back to 1948 and how many electors changed parties, and in which direction. The answer to the question is that Obama's EC shift is on par with the last election cycle, but less than in the 1980s.

Afterward, there is an introduction to the county-level analysis, including an exact numeric count of counties per state: Democratic retentions, Democratic pick-ups, Republican retentions and Republican pick-ups.
Quote:

"In the pick-up states, the Democratic party retained 146 of 148 Democratic counties from 2004 and then picked-up an additional 89 counties, for a total of 235 counties (33.76%). The Republican party lost 89 counties from 2004, retaining 459 counties and then picked-up 2 counties, for a total of 461 (66.24%). 235 + 461 = 696 counties."

"Nationally, all 9 states trended Democratic as Obama won them and their electors according to the WTA (winner-takes-all) system, but when we look at the inner details, the picture is much clearer: 642 of 696 counties in the pick-up states (92.24%) swung Democratic. The remaining 54 counties (7.76%) swing Republican. This indicates a statistical grand sweep for the Democratic party in the pick-up states. 
 
In 4 states, the ENTIRE state trended Democratic: Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada (all three western pick-ups) and Indiana.The pick-up in Indiana is historic not only because this is the first time since 1964 that a Democrat has won the state, but it also had the largest partisan shift of all 50 states in the GE 2008: +21.71%

The state with the largest contra-trend (Republican) against the national trend: Florida."
Part I ends with maps of Ohio, Virginia and North Carolina, showing the geographic position of the 28 counties that swung Republican, showing their proximity to Appalachia.

You can link to Part I via Google Docs.

Part II starts with an extensive study of the 39 largest counties out of the 9.25 pick-ups states, plus Durham County (NC) as honorable mention.
Quote:
"I have done a statistical analysis of the 39 largest counties of the 9.25 pick-ups. These are all counties that had a total vote of more than 170,000 and at least one candidate should have also gotten at least 100,000 of those votes or very,very close to it. All of those counties meet both criteria. Two counties (Stark County / OH, Washoe County / NV) had no candidate with 100,000 votes or more, but in both cases one candidate was very close to 100,000 and the countwide total vote was well over 170,000. Those 39 counties accounted for 44.49% of the total popular vote of the pick-up states, which is actually slightly LESS than it was in 2004 for the same states: 44.91%. Nonetheless, when only 39 of 696 analysed counties (5.60%, numerically) have almost half the electoral firepower of the region, then it is statistically very clear that the large urban areas have the real electoral firepower in presidential elections. The candidate who sweeps the urban areas has a far better chance of winning the presidency.

Of these 39 counties, there were 21 Democratic retentions, 8 Democratic pick-ups and 10 Republican retentions. This means that of the same 39 counties in 2004, the picture was much more even: in 2004, there were 21 Democratic counties of these 39 and 18 Republican counties.

The Democratic party picked up Hillsborough (Tampa) and Pinellas (Clearwater) counties in Florida, Wake (Raleigh) county in North Carolina, Washoe (Reno) County in Nevada, Hamilton (Cincinnati) County in Ohio, Jefferson (Golden) and Arahapoe (Littleton) counties in Colorado and Douglas (Omaha) County in Nebraska."

The important thing about this study is it's depth and breadth: each of the 39 (40) counties are analysed comparing 2008 to 2004, measuring raw vote and margin differences, also the counties' percentual take of their respective states' popular vote and also their take of the pick-up states combined. But the counties are also each given a spreadsheet to trace their voting history back to 1960 and the results are nothing less than amazing!
Next, from the analysis in Part II:
Superlatives:

-the largest raw vote total of all 39 counties: Miami-Dade County, FL: 864,636 votes

-the largest Democratic winning raw vote total: Miami-Dade County, FL: 499,831 votes
-the largest Democratic raw-vote margin of the pick-ups: Cuyahoga County, OH (Cleveland): +258,542 vote margin
-the three highest Democratic winning percentages: Denver- CO, Boulder, CO and Cuyahoga- OH: 75.45%, 72.29% and 68.70%, respectively.
-the three largest Democratic winning margins (by percent): Denver- CO, Boulder- CO and Cuyahoga- OH: +52.41%, +46.14% and +38.74%, respectively
-the highest democratic margin-shift (swing): Marion County, IN: +26.40% margin shift. This is especially impressive, as this shift was not from a pick-up, but rather, a Democratic retention county.

-the largest Republican winning raw vote total: Duval County, FL: 210,537 votes
-the largest Republican raw-vote margin of the pick-ups: El Paso County, CO: +51,419 vote margin
-the three highest Republican winning percentages: Butler - OH, El Paso- Co and Lee- FL: 60.52%, 58.69% and 54.67%, respectively
-the three largest Republican winning margins (by percent): Butler - OH, El Paso- CO and Brevard- FL: +22.58%, +18.82% and +10.37%, respectively
-the lowest negative Republican margin-shift (swing): Brevard County, FL: -5.73% margin shift

All of the Democratic retentions and pick-ups showed raw vote, percentual and margin GAINS.
All of the Republican retentions showed percentual and margin LOSSES.
4 of the Republican retentions showed raw-vote gains: Brevard, Lee, Polk and Pasco counties, all in Florida. The other 6 Republican retentions showed raw-vote losses.

9 Republican or Democratic tipping-point (margin = less than 4%) counties from 2004 became solid Democratic wins in 2008: Pinellas, Volusia and Orange Counties-FL, Wake, Guilford and Mecklenburg Counties- NC, Montgomery and Stark Counties - OH, Arapahoe County- CO

5 Republican retentions have become tipping point counties for 2012: Sarasota (+0.10%), Virginia Beach (+0.71%), Duval (+1.90), Seminole (+2.70%) and Pasco (+3.75%) . Statistically this means that 1/2 of the Republican retentions studied here are endangered territory for 2012 and (this has been proven historically many times over) in the case of a sucessful re-election campaign for the Democratic party in 2012, these five counties are the most likely candidates to become Democratic pick-ups in 2012.

O Democratic retentions or pick-ups are tipping-point counties for 2012.
Here is the EXCEL SPREADSHEET that has all of the raw calculations for the 39 (40) largest counties.
In order to simplify the look of the table and make the information easier to see, I created a table to show the chronological progression of each county from 1960 to 2008. For each county and year, I have assigned either a D, R or an I, depending on which party won the county in that year. And then I have shaded each cell according to winning party. I then organized the table in order from CORE GOP counties to CORE DEM counties. Take a good, hard look at the table when you read Part II, it is most enlightening.
You can link to Part II via Google Docs.
Quotes:
"In the case of some counties that visually look as if they should be core GOP counties there is instead the marking -steady-; these are GOP counties that should be core counties, but which almost flipped in 2008, so their status is now uncertain. And some Democratic counties are marked as -steady- as the margins are very lean.
But the table makes it very easy to see which years are landslide years: 1972 and 1984, to a smaller extent 1992 and 2008. In 1972, we see a sea of red go through all counties except Lucas County, OH. In 1984, we see a sea of red go through all counties except the bottom 5. At the top we see 3 core GOP counties that also resisted the Johnson landslide of 1964. Notice that all three counties are in Florida.
Starting in 1988, the Democratic party started re-building in the urban areas:
3 counties were added to the Democratic column in 1988, resisting the GOP pull in that year: Boulder, Summit and Lucas counties. And those counties have become core DEM counties since then.
8 counties joined the Democratic column in 1992 and have stayed there since then: Palm Beach, Broward, Volusia, Bernalillo, Franklin, Montgomery, Clark, Miami-Dade. They are mostly strong DEM counties, save for Montgomery and Volusia, which tend to go with leans margins. There are 4 more counties that joined the Democratic column in 1992, but were reclaimed by the GOP in either 1996 or 2000: Pasco, Wake, Stark, Guilford. Pasco returned to the GOP in 2004 and has stayed there. It is therefore the only county to complete buck the blue trend, in spite of reduced margins in 2008.
Mecklenburg and Pinellas counties joined the Democratic column in 1996, were reclaimed by the GOP in 2000 or 2004 and were reclaimed by the Democratic party in 2004 or 2008.
Fairfax joined the Democratic column in 2000 and has stayed there since, with ever increasing margins.
Orange and Marion counties joined in 2004 and were retained in 2008. Both of these retentions had massive margin shifts toward the Democratic party in 2008: +18.41 and +26.40%, respectively.
The 8 counties that Obama picked-up are clear to see in the middle of the table. Six of those counties have one thing in common: this is the first time they have gone Democratic since 1964, statistical evidence of a sweep similar to but not as extreme as Johnson in 1964: Hamilton, Douglas, Jefferson, Wake, Hillsborough and Pinellas counties were slightly smaller wins for the Democratic party than in 1964. However, Washoe and Arapahoe counties were larger wins for the Democratic party than in 1964, thus breaking a 44 year record. Notice that both of those counties are in the west.
We can see clearly from the table that the last time a party had flipped 8 counties or more was in 1992, when Bill Clinton picked-up 12 counties. George W. Bush, Jr. picked up 3 counties in 2000 and 1 more in 2004. Those counties returned to the Democratic party in 2000 or 2004.
In 1988- just analyzing these 40 counties- there were 8 Democratic counties and 32 Republican counties. In 1992, out of the same mix of 40 counties, there were 20 Republican counties and 20 Democratic counties, an even split. In 2000, there were 21 Republican counties and 19 Democratic counties. But in 2004, in spite of a republican re-election, the Democrats had 22 counties, the Republicans 18. And now in 2008, it's 30 Democratic, 10 Republican. There can be no doubt about it: statistically, the urban areas in the Union have moved decisively to the Democratic party in 47 of 50 states (the evidence for which I will present before the end of 2009). This example from the 9.25 Democratic pick-ups is mild in comparison to the statistical data that came out of cities in core Democratic territory: Philadelphia (83% for Obama), Detroit (74% for Obama), New York (86% for Obama), Los Angeles (69% for Obama), Seattle (70% for Obama), Portland (77% for Obama) Chicago (76% for Obama), Boston (64% for Obama), Honolulu (70% for Obama), Milwaukee (67% for Obama), Madison (73% for Obama), New Orleans (79%), Baton Rouge, Dallas (deep in GOP territory: 57% for Obama), St. Louis (60% for Obama) etc, etc, etc."
Conclusion:
"The Democratic wins in the pick-up states, as in the retentions, was not the example of the Democratic party barely holding on the to so-called "blue" states plus one "red" state or getting to one vote over 50%. The sweep through the pick-ups is statistically clear. The last time a sweep like this happened in the Republican party, it held the white house for 12 years. On the other hand, Johnson and Nixon had massive sweeps in 1964 and 1972 and in spite of this,the White House switched hands in the following cycles. So, though such a sweep is no forecast for the future, the data tells us quite clearly where the new battle lines will form in these nine states for the 2012 General Election. And both parties will be targeting key counties in key districts in 2010 in order to sway the affected area to their side before 2012 even gets off the ground."
--------------------------------------------------------------

27 May 2009

Sotomayor

The "Votemaster" at electoral-vote.com has done an excellent write-up on Sonia Sotomayer and the bind it puts the GOP in.

Because he echoes so many of my thoughts, I have decided to reprint his excellent write- up here:

"President Obama's choice of second circuit appellate judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court puts Senate Republicans in a bit of a pickle. On the one hand, she is of a moderate-to-liberal bent, having grown up in poverty in public housing in the Bronx and later graduating from Princeton (on a scholarship) and then Yale law school. So Republicans will instinctively oppose her, but of course they know if they manage to kill her nomination, Obama will nominate another moderate-to-liberal candidate, maybe even further to the left. When Sotomayor was nominated the appellate court in 1998, seven current Republican senators voted for her confirmation. These were senators Bennett, Cochran, Collins, Hatch, Judd, Lugar, and Snowe. It will be awkward, to say the least, for them to vote against her now unless they can find some decision she made as an appellate judge that they claim was completely inappropriate. Snowe has already complimented Obama on his choice of a woman. Her vote is thus already in the bag. This will give Collins the cover to vote for confirmation as well. So barring something unexpected, the Republicans have no realistic hope of actually scuttling Sotomayor's nomination.

On the other hand, the Latino community is likely to perceive the rise of a Puerto Rican from the Bronx to the Supreme Court with immense pride. If the Republicans even try to filibuster her, come the 2010 elections, if they try to expand their share of the Latino vote, this filibuster will come back to haunt them. It is bad enough that a young, telegenic, and very conservative Latino, Marco Rubio, is running for the Senate in Florida--with practically the entire Republican party supporting his primary opponent, Gov. Charlie Crist (R-FL). It will be a tough sell for the GOP to tell Latinos in 2010 (and 2012), "We love you, we just didn't happen to like the only Latino ever nominated to the Supreme Court or a very conservative Cuban-American running for the Senate. But when the right Latino comes along at the right moment, boy will we ever support him or her. Trust us."

During the confirmation hearings, Republicans on the judiciary committee will ask Sotomayor if she is a judicial activist and she will say absolutely not, she is just there to interpret the constitution and the output of all the wise people who serve in Congress and pass laws. But in reality, a lot of what the Supreme Court has to actually decide has little basis one way or another in the constitution. For example, does the fourth amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches allow or prohibit a school to strip search a 13-year-old girl on the basis of a rumor that she may have prescription drugs hidden in her bra? The constitution does not say what is a reasonable search or an unreasonable search, but when this specific case came up, they had to fill in the blanks.

There is a fair chance the Republican strategy will be comb over Sotomayor's life and decisions very carefully looking for dirt and if any is found, use that as the reason for opposing her. But in the absence of dirt, and knowing that they don't have the votes to sustain a filibuster, they probably won't try. The political downside for 2010 and 2012 is too great.

A side effect of the Sotomayor nomination is that it may allow Obama to delay dealing with immigration reform for a while since Latino voters will be feeling good about him for a while just due to this nomination. On the other hand, if Obama (or more realistically, Rahm Emanuel) wants to enjoy the spectacle of the GOP tearing itself to bits, reintroducing the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill would be a good first start. The Tancredo wing the the Republican party will go all out to block it because it provides a path to citizenship for over 10 million illegals currently in the U.S. But an all out fight against these people--many of whom have friends and relatives who are citizens (and voters) will further alienate Latinos from the Republican Party. In contrast, the only major Democratic constituency that might oppose the bill is the labor movement, but there are probably other ways to mollify them (e.g., an all out push for card check).

Supreme Court justices have a funny way of marching to their own drummers once given a lifetime appointment. President Eisenhower was once asked what the biggest mistake of his 8 years in office was and he said it was appointing former California governor Earl Warren to the Supreme Court. Certainly President George H, W. Bush did not expect David Souter, a quiet intellectual to become a solid liberal vote on the court.

So one can ask what the chance is that Sotomayor suddenly becomes Antonin Scalia's new best friend. Time will tell, but her past judicial decisions aside, Sotomayor grew up poor and knows poverty well. She also has diabetes and may be sympathetic to people suing health insurance companies, for example. To suddenly turn her back on her whole life would be surprising. A counterexample is Clarence Thomas, but he is a bit of a special case. Thomas may have discovered early on that by being a black conservative he was a rare commodity highly valued by conservatives in general and the Republican Party in particular and he exploited this to gain high rank, whatever his true personal beliefs. There is little to suggest that Sotomayor has acted like a liberal for years in order to curry favor with Democrats. Besides, it wouldn't work. The pool of liberal Latinas is much to large for yet another one to attract any attention."

24 May 2009

Not as quiet as you think

I have been doing a very, very extensive county-by-county analysis series of the GE 2008, starting with the 9 Democratic pick-up states. 8 of those states are completed. Nevada comes out late next week.

Here the links to the complete documents at GOOGLE DOCS:

Mid-west:

OHIO - Part I, Part II, Part III , raw data / INDIANA - Part I, Part II and Part III, raw data

IOWA Part I, Part II, Part III, raw data


South:

VIRGINIAPart I, Part II, Part III, raw data / NORTH CAROLINAPart I, Part II, Part III, raw data

FLORIDAPart I, Part II, Part III, raw data


West:

COLORADO – Part I , Part II , Part III , raw data, special 9-county 48-year voting history study

Supplemental to Colorado: DEMOGRAPHIC and ECONOMIC profile of Colorado (p.4, hispanic population)


NEW MEXICO – Part I, Part II, Part III, raw data, special 12 county 48-year voting history study

Supplemental to New Mexico: DEMOGRAPHIC and ECONOMIC profile of New Mexico (p.4, hispanic population)



NEVADA: in progress


------------------------------------

After Nevada is finished, there will be a pick-up wrap-up. Then I will take about a 2 month break from statistics and come back to the battleground states that McCain won and the so-called battleground states that were, statistically speaking, not really battlegrounds (i.e. Pennsylvania).

27 April 2009

Virginia - a county by county in-depth analysis


As was the case with INDIANA and OHIO, I have now completed a massive county-by-county study of the results of the GE 2008 for VIRGINIA.

President Obama, who won the Commonwealth of Virginia with a +6.30% margin, was the first Democratic candidate to win this state since 1964 and the second Democratic candidate to win since 1948. Of note: VIRGINIA and COLORADO, both Democratic pick-ups in 2008, are the no. 1 and 2 states that came closest to Obama's national winning margin; VIRGINIA went „blue“ for slightly less than the national margin while COLORADO went for President Obama with slightly more than the national margin. It is rare when an unexpected battleground state flips and also mirrors the national numbers, but even rarer when this happens with two such states. Note also that these two states are in completely different regions of the Union, more proof that the GE 2008 was a so-called "re-alignment election".

In a nutshell:

1.) Obama set a new VIRGINIA raw vote record for a candidate of any party: 1,959,932 votes, 242,573 votes more than Bush's record-breaking raw vote from 2004. This is also the largest increase in votes for one party from one cycle the the next in VA history; the Democratic party added 504,790 votes to it's total over 2004. Incidentally, McCain also did better than Bush (2004) in VIRGINIA: he bested Bush's PV take by 8,046 votes. However, the ratio of the democratic vote increase over the GOP vote increase was 63.74 to 1! The popular vote growth rate for VIRGINIA was 16.91%.

2.) Obama won VIRGINIA with the 11th largest winning percent, the 11th largest winning margin, the 4th largest state partisan shift and the 4th largest Partisan Value* in US history for a Democratic candidate. Of the 14 Democratic winning cycles in VIRGINIA, this puts Obama roughly in the middle of the standings. That 4th largest partisan-shift, by the way, is larger than Johnson's from 1964. You have to go back to 1912 to find a Democratic partisan shift in VA larger than this one. The dynamics of President Obama's win in VIRGINIA are very, very different than in the other two states (IN, OH); this information is critical and has far reaching ramifications for both the Democrats and the GOP in future elections. For this reason, I've done such an analysis.

*Partisan Value = the difference between the state partisan shift and the national partisan shift. For instance, the partisan shift in Virginia was +14.50%, while the national partisan shift was +9.73%, which means that Virginia was +4.77% stronger than the national pull toward the democratic party in 2008.

I've divided the information into three parts. It is easier to link out to the report at GOOGLE DOCS than to reprint it here as the wysiwyg editor here does not always work well with tables and graphics, and this analysis is the most graphic intensive to date.

In Part I, there is important background information on Virginia, including details on the 14 DEM election cycles where a democratic candidate won the state. Also in Part I is the general overview of the county-wide results. You can link via Google Docs.

Part II contains a very large, detailed and enhanced (in comparison to the analyses of INDIANA and OHIO) table of the 134 counties/independent cities in Virginia, first by descending partisan shift and an analysis of the partisan shift ranges, and then by county size (% of the 2008 statewide popular vote), descending. Harrisburg (independent city), Fairfax and Buchanan counties are used as a prime examples of how Obama won Virginia, even through counties where he lost. We also see statistical proof of the "appalachian phenomenon" in the southwest part of the state. You can link via Google Docs.

Part III is an analysis of the democratic pick-up counties and also of the "tipping-point" counties, including some colorful maps. The conclusion draws pointed differences between Obama's historic win in Virginia and his wins in Indiana and Ohio (quoted also below). You can link via Google Docs.

Auxiliary sources:

I took the county-wide raw data for the entire state for both 2008 and 2004 and plugged it into an excel spreadsheet, which you can find here. Subsidiary data for all 134 counties/independent cities in VIRGINIA can be found here. Should you have difficulty calling up the spreadsheet, if you email me, I can send you a copy.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here a full quote from the conclusion:

"In INDIANA, every single county trended more or less democratic, without exception – there was a blue shift that moved the entire state and those overwhelmingly white, rural counties contributed greatly to Obama's narrow win here – yes, the counties that he still lost to McCain. This shows a large level of GOP defection to Obama in 2008. Here, Obama gained 405,028 raw votes over Kerry from 2004, while McCain lost 133,790 raw votes over Bush from 2004, an uneven shift. Indiana's PV growth rate over 2004 was 11.47%. And Obama won by +1.03%.

In OHIO, not every county trended democratic (11 trended GOP), but there were no GOP county pick-ups. Also, in Ohio, the largest cities, all five of them, played the crucial role in moving the state into the democratic column and those overwhelmingly white, rural counties contributed very little to Obama's narrow win, in contrast to INDIANA. Surely there were some moderate GOP defections, but there were also a moderate amount of newly registered voters. Here, Obama gained 198,877 raw votes over Kerry's total from 2004, while McCain lost 181,948 raw votes over Bush's total from 2004, a moderate mirror image shift. Ohio's PV growth rate over 2004 was a nominal 1.36%, way under the national PV growth rate of 7.46%. And Obama won by +4.58%.

However, in VIRGINIA, there was real resistance to Obama, but this resistance occured in counties that are „emptying out“, so to speak. We see a large poli-demographic shift in VA, with the north and the southeast gaining greatly in political strength for the democratic party. Here there were obviously far fewer GOP defections, if at all (McCain scored more raw votes in VA than Bush from 2004), but far more newly registered and democratic dedicated voters. This poses a far larger problem for the GOP than either Indiana or Ohio, for Obama's +1.03% margin in Indiana can be overcome and Ohio is expected to be a battleground state in virtually every cycle, but the addition of more then 500,000 voters to the democratic rolls in just one cycle is much harder for the opposition to overcome. The best case scenario for the GOP is that VIRGINIA becomes a bitter battleground state. However, +6.30% is hardly a battleground margin. It is a better margin than Obama scored in OHIO, FLORIDA, INDIANA and NORTH CAROLINA. It is a lean winning margin, but a comfortable one and will require a minimum 12.60% shift back in order for the GOP to regain the state; I doubt that this shift will come from those 500,000 new voters. The worst case scenario for the GOP is that Obama cements VIRGINIA into the democratic column in his first term, adding the state to core democratic territory and thus making the electoral math for the GOP more difficult."

17 April 2009

NY-20 Update - April 17, 2009

Murphy is now up by 178 votes.

Current totals:

Murphy: 79,452 (50.06%)
Tedesco: 79,274 (49.94%)

Total: 158,726 (100.00%)

Margin: Murphy +178 (0.12%)


"The only ballots that have not been counted are those challenged by each candidate’s lawyers, and while Tedisco’s office has said the challenges are roughly evenly split between the two camps, Columbia County lawyers for Murphy have only challenged 22 ballots, while Tedisco’s have challenged 258."

That makes 280 ballots. Assuming that all of these ballots will be counted and are valid, that would bring the total to 159,006. In order for Tedesco to win, he would need to get 230 (82.14%) of those 280 ballots, bringing him one vote over 50% out of a total of 159,006.
0.12% was McCain's winning margin in the state of Missouri, btw...

14 April 2009

The Hand of God?


Wow. Wow. Wow.
Indescribable.

This pulsar, currently cataloged as PSR B1509-58, is young and was photographed by the CHANDRA X-Ray Observatory.

"A small, dense object only twelve miles in diameter is responsible for this beautiful X-ray nebula that spans 150 light years.
At the center of this image made by NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory is a very young and powerful pulsar, known as PSR B1509-58, or B1509 for short. The pulsar is a rapidly spinning neutron star which is spewing energy out into the space around it to create complex and intriguing structures, including one that resembles a large cosmic hand. In this image, the lowest energy X-rays that Chandra detects are colored red, the medium range is green, and the most energetic ones are blue. Astronomers think that B1509 is about 1700 years old as measured in Earth's time-frame (referring to when events are observable at Earth) and is located about 17,000 light years away."

WOW.

08 April 2009

OHIO - county for county

I have done an even more intensive county by county analysis study of the state of OHIO vis-a-vis the presidential election from 2008.

The document is in three parts and published at GOOGLE DOCS.

Part I
Part II
Part III
The excel spreadsheet with all the raw data

As was the case with INDIANA, the study of
OHIO was fascinating and provides much thought provoking information.

The advantage of GOOGLE DOCS is that I can continue to update and correct a document and it will be automatically republished without the link changing. So, until I am absolutely sure that all the bugs are out, I will not publish the text here at my blog. Rather, just go to the links provided up above.


Next state for intensive county by county study: VIRGINIA

04 April 2009

Indiana 2008 – County by County - Part III

Indiana 2008 – County by County - Part III


Part I is here.

Part II is here.


Here the table again, resorted in descending order of county size, based on % of statewide PV in 2008:



County

% of 2008 PV

% of 2004 PV

% shift

Partisan shift

Marion

13.81%

13.00%

+0.80%

+26.40%

Lake

7.59%

7.62%

-0.03%

+11.45%

Allen

5.46%

5.25%

+0.21%

-22.89%

Hamilton

4.70%

4.25%

-0.45%

-26.89%

St. Joseph

4.30%

4.40%

-0.10%

+19.47%

Vanderburgh

2.82%

2.86%

-0.04%

+20.43%

Porter

2.68%

2.63%

+0.05%

+15.53%

Elkhardt

2.60%

2.49%

+0.11%

-29.54%

Tippecanoe

2.49%

2.12%

+0.37%

+30.85%

Hendricks

2.36%

2.12%

+0.24%

-24.24%

Monroe

2.30%

2.04%

+0.26%

+23.98%

Johnson

2.14%

2.08%

+0.06%

-22.70%

Madison

2.08%

2.22%

-0.14%

+25.94%

Delaware

1.82%

1.94%

-0.13%

+28.77

Clark

1.73%

1.72%

+0.01%

-9.11%

LaPorte

1.70%

1.73%

-0.03%

+22.50%

Vigo

1.59%

1.61%

-0.02%

+22.28%

Howard

1.40%

1.50%

-0.10%

-22.79%

Floyd

1.33%

1.37%

-0.04%

-7.65%

Hancock

1.24%

1.13%

-0.11%

-20.15%

Bartholomew

1.13%

1.16%

-0.03%

-23.68%

Kosciuosko

1.09%

1.15%

-0.06%

-19.64%

Morgan

1.05%

1.05%

0.00%

-21.13%

Warrick

1.04%

1.05%

-0.01%

-17.70%

Wayne

1.04%

1.12%

-0.08%

-17.17%

Boone

0.97%

0.93%

-0.04%

-24.13%

Grant

0.96%

1.11%

-0.15%

-24.30%

Dearborn

0.81%

0.85%

-0.04%

-1.46%

Henry

0.77%

0.83%

-0.06%

-25.15%

Dubois

0.67%

0.69%

-0.03%

-33.99%

Marshall

0.67%

0.72%

-0.05%

+22.81%

Lawrence

0.67%

0.72%

-0.05%

-18.21%

Harrison

0.66%

0.70%

-0.04%

-9.95%

Shelby

0.64%

0.65%

-0.01%

-23.88%

Jackson

0.63%

0.66%

-0.03%

-23.08%

Noble

0.62%

0.64%

-0.02%

-23.89%

DeKalb

0.62%

0.62%

0.00%

-21.54%

Knox

0.60%

0.64%

-0.04%

-21.05%

Huntington

0.59%

0.63%

-0.04%

-22.34%

Cass

0.57%

0.56%

+0.01%

-28.55%

Montgomery

0.56%

0.59%

-0.03%

-30.69%

Whitley

0.55%

0.55%

0.00%

-20.30%

Gibson

0.55%

0.59%

-0.04%

-12.48%

Putnam

0.53%

0.53%

0.00

-24.62%

Miami

0.51%

0.55%

-0.04%

-22.46%

Steuben

0.51%

0.52%

-0.01%

-21.85%

Wabash

0.50%

0.55%

-0.05%

-21.75%

Greene

0.50%

0.54%

-0.04%

-15.44%

Adams

0.49%

0.54%

-0.05%

-20.92%

Jefferson

0.49%

0.53%

-0.04%

-14.48%

Wells

0.47%

0.50%

-0.03%

-17.65%

Jasper

0.47%

0.48%

-0.01%

-16.58%

Posey

0.46%

0.49%

-0.03%

-23.63%

Clinton

0.45%

0.48%

-0.03%

-30.23%

Ripley

0.44%

0.48%

-0.04%

-10.24%

Jennings

0.43%

0.43%

0.00%

-23.61%

Clay

0.41%

0.44%

-0.03%

-25.83%

Washington

0.41%

0.43%

-0.02%

-10.59%

White

0.39%

0.42%

-0.03%

-27.38%

Randolph

0.39%

0.45%

-0.06%

-21.51%

Franklin

0.39%

0.40%

-0.01%

-6.49%

Decatur

0.38%

0.41%

-0.03%

+23.45%

Spencer

0.37%

0.40%

-0.03%

+20.67%

Daviess

0.38%

0.43%

-0.05%

-15.38%

LaGrange

0.34%

0.36%

-0.02%

-21.91%

Fayette

0.34%

0.38%

-0.04%

-16.97%

Starke

0.34%

0.36%

-0.02%

+12.83%

Fulton

0.33%

0.35%

-0.02%

-23.25%

Caroll

0.32%

0.35%

-0.03%

-23.96%

Sullivan

0.32%

0.34%

-0.02%

-19.08%

Scott

0.32%

0.35%

-0.03%

-9.23%

Perry

0.31%

0.34%

-0.03%

+22.91%

Jay

0.30%

0.33%

-0.03%

-24.79%

Owen

0.30%

0.31%

-0.01%

-22.06%

Brown

0.29%

0.30%

-0.01%

-21.75%

Orange

0.29%

0.35%

-0.06%

-18.17%

Rush

0.28%

0.30%

-0.02%

-31.66%

Tipton

0.28%

0.32%

-0.04%

-28.04%

Fountain

0.27%

0.32%

+0.05%

-21.30%

Vermillion

0.26%

0.28%

-0.02%

+15.51%

Parke

0.25%

0.28%

-0.03%

-17.24%

Pulaski

0.22%

0.23%

-0.01%

-21.00%

Newton

0.22%

0.24%

-0.02%

-18.31%

Pike

0.22%

0.25%

-0.03%

-12.72%

Blackford

0.20%

0.22%

-0.02%

-28.46%

Martin

0.18%

0.20%

-0.02%

-8.99%

Crawford

0.17%

0.19%

-0.02%

-12.55%

Warren

0.15%

0.16%

0.01%

-20.25%

Benton

0.14%

0.16%

-0.02%

-25.38%

Switzerland

0.13%

0.15%

-0.02%

-10.28%

Union

0.12%

0.14%

-0.02%

-11.51%

Ohio

0.11%

0.12%

-0.01%

-3.19%


The table above indicates that 11 of Obama's winning counties are within the top 17 largest counties in Indiana. The other 4 counties are very small counties. Those 11 large counties carry disproportionate electoral power due to their size: those 11 counties make for 11.92% of 92 counties (numberically) but these 11 counties that went for Obama accounted for 42.38% of the total PV in INDIANA. Even so, had Obama carried these counties with 100% of the vote, that would not have been enough to win. This also disproves that myth that Obama only won all the big counties. He did not. McCain also won 6 of the 17 largest counties in INDIANA.


If we take all 15 counties that Obama won, add them up and take the average percentages and compare those same counties to 2004, we see almost exactly the same partisan shift (+21.82%) as for the state as a whole (+21.71%):



Obama „15“

Obama %

McCain %

Other %

Raw margin

Margin %

2008

60.34%

38.55%

1.11%

+266,707

+21.79%

2004

49.56%

49.59%

0.85%

+277

+0.03%

Diff:

+10.77%

-11.04%

+0.26%

+266,984

+21.82%


The table above is also the last set of calculations in the excel data mentioned above .


Further, the argument that the black vote in Indy stole the election does not hold up. The pattern of a rougly 20% or more shift to the left in the state happened in 58 counties, and 48 of those were overwhelmingly white GOP counties. As a matter of fact, there are less black voters in IN that either OH or PA.


Also, the argument that the chicago media market took control of the upper NW part of the state does not hold: Lake County, which is right in this corner, trended only +11.45% more democratic than in 2004, well under the state trend. Neighboring Porter County had a +15.53% democratic trend, also under the state trend. Neignboring LaPorte, with +22.40% dem trend, was indeed in line with the state trend; St. Joseph with +19.47, was just slightly under the state trend, and directly under St. Joseph, Stark county, with +12.83% dem trend, also well under the state trend. If these counties that are closest to the Chicago media market were to have been controlled so tightly by the Obama team from Illinois, then these counties should have posted partisan shifts well ABOVE the state trend, not below.


As for liberal bastions growing, it is true that Marion County jumped from 13.00% to 13.80% of the state PV take. Likewise, Monroe County (IU) jumped from 2.04% to 2.30% of the state PV take, but this combined increased of 1.06% cannot account for +10.65% percent increase in the state total for Obama over Kerry from 2004. No, those votes must have come from somewhere else as well.


The complaint that Barr ruined it for McCain looks feasable on paper: Barr took 1.06% of the PV in IN, the margin between Obama and McCain was +1.03%. So, if every single Barr voter had gone for McCain, then McCain would have won. The only problem with this is that the Birch society is big in certain counties in IN, and were Barr not on the ballot, then most of those voters would have simply stayed home, either because they are died-in-the-wool libertarians or they were disgruntled republicans who wanted to cast a vote in protest over McCain's nomination in the first place. Had Barr not been on the ballot in IN, ithen the statistics would have shifted slightly, Obama's +28,391 vote margin over McCain would have carried more weight without Barr votes also in the mix and therefore Obama would have surely come over 50%. So, it is more likely than not that the absence of a Barr candidacy in IN would not have shifted the state to McCain, but rather, it would have turned a high minority win for Obama into a lean majority win.


When we look at the data with a discerning eye, then the truth is that a large chunk of the the core of the republican voters abandoned McCain in INDIANA, to some degree in every single county, but by more than the national partisan shift in 85 of 92 counties. Had those rural counties voted for McCain the way they voted for Bush in 2004, then, in spite of massive voter registration on the part of the Obama team and massive gains in the Indianapolis area, McCain would have won INDIANA.


There can be no doubt about it: the rural counties in INDIANA, even though Obama lost most of them, contributed significantly to his win. Lots and lots of little fish add up to one big fish!


Ramifications for the GOP: this is no longer 1932, where IN actually went for FDR by less than the national swing. In 2008, IN lead the pack in having the largest cross-party shift of the cycle. Add to this that the rural counties went for the GOP but with drastically weakened margins leads to the conclusion that the GOP should not take for granted that those rural voters will revert back to the republican party in 2012. More likely is that INDIANA voters will decide whether or not to give Obama four more years based solely on the work he does in the first four years.