Maps: Exit Polls (and the myths they spawn)

by: dreaminonempty

Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 15:49


( - promoted by Chris Bowers)

We have a wealth of data from exit polls over the last few months.  Staring at tables of data isn't the easiest way to get the big picture, though.  So, seeing as this is my blogosphere niche, I've made some maps.  Here, for instance, is a map of Obama's support among those who made up their minds the day of the election:

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us
Click to enlarge.

The other thing about the exit polls is that it's easy for discussion to degenerate into statements like 'Clinton's voters are white women and Latinos.'

But did you know that without the votes of Latina women, Obama would have lost New Mexico by 12 points?  Didn't hear much about that in the media, didja?

Follow me below as we explore the exit poll data in more detail and bury some of the myths that have caught my attention.

dreaminonempty :: Maps: Exit Polls (and the myths they spawn)
First, some important points:

1. I figured having maps for only one candidate was good enough, as for most states there are only two candidates, and I chose Obama.  My apologies to Clinton supporters.  

2. In some of the states, Edwards had a large amount of support: IA, NH, SC, FL, OK.  Keep this in mind as you look at the maps.

3. The demographic groups are not uniform nationwide.  This is most important for the category of race: for example, while Latinos in one area may be primarily first and second generation Americans with family in South America, in another the community could well-established, going back many generations to before the territory was part of the United States.  

Now, onwards:

Many of the stories I've read about the primaries and the exit polls have been very careful about how they word things.  That's fine, but even accurate wording ('Clinton had strong support from such-and-such a group') could easily be internalized by the casual reader as 'all such-and-suches vote for Clinton.'  Indeed, it seems that this has happened and a number of these statements have become Conventional Wisdom.  These Conventional Wisdom Myths suffer from oversimplification and generalization.  They are sometimes used in destructive and reductive narratives about voting behavior and cultural biases.  But more importantly, they cover up a truly impressive fact: the breadth and diversity of people who are voting for Clinton or Obama.  

Myth: The incumbent rule is in effect, as Clinton is effectively an incumbent.

(See the map in the introduction.)  I've seen this several times, that we should assume undecideds break for Obama because he is essentially a challenger.  This is actually true if you're looking at voters who are undecided several weeks ahead of the election, but in most cases the most recent polls are taken just a day or two before the election.  In this case, we want to know how those who make up their mind at the last minute vote.  And the results say: about an even split between Obama and Clinton, with an advantage for Clinton most of the time.  Some notable exceptions are Arkansas (Clinton's home state), Florida (where Obama did not campaign), and Utah.


Myth:  White women all vote for Clinton.

In most states, large majorities of white women voted for Clinton, but Obama won this category in several exit polls, and, one would assume, many of the states where Obama had a landslide victory, such as Idaho, Alaska, Kansas, etc.  And as the map shows, even if Clinton won this category, you still have about 30% of white women voting for Obama in many states.  That's a lot of votes.

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.usFree Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us
Click to enlarge.

Women have been a crucial part of Obama's coalition.  Not only that, when you look at women altogether, he has actually won more votes from women than Clinton in 9 states with exit polls (and remember, this doesn't count the probable victories among women in WA, NE, KS, MN, ME, ID, AK, CO and ND).

A few interesting tidbits about women's support for Obama:

Without the votes of white women, Obama would have tied Clinton in Alabama.

Without the votes of latina women, Obama would have lost New Mexico by 12 points.

Without the votes of white women older than 60, Obama would have lost Missouri by a few points.

Myth:  Latinos won't vote for Obama, and Blacks won't vote for Clinton.

The narrative out of the Potomac primaries actually did a good job busting  the Latinos won't vote for Obama myth.  However, I would like to emphasize that Clinton still has a substantial amount of African-American support.  It might not sound like much, but when she gets 20%, that's 1 out of 5 people.  You can't dismiss 1 out of 5 people.  Without the votes of Black voters, Clinton would have tied Obama in Tennessee.  Also keep in mind when looking at the map below for white voters, I didn't include the states without exit polls where Obama pulled off overwhelming victories in very melanin-challenged states.  Finally, there is one case where a generalization is almost excusable: Obama won 98% of the vote of African-American men in Illinois.

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.usFree Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.usFree Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us
Click to enlarge.

Myth: Old people vote for Clinton, young people won't.
Well, yes, older people vote for Clinton, but a large number vote for Obama as well - sometimes the majority of them.  And young people vote for Clinton too.  Without the votes of those under age 30, Clinton would have lost California by 6 points.

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.usFree Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us
Click to enlarge.

Myth:  Jewish voters won't vote for Obama.
Actually, even in Clinton's home state of New York, a third of Jewish voters voted for Obama.

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us
Click to enlarge.

Myth:  The working class votes for Clinton; latte sipping elites vote for Obama; or, all the smart people vote for Obama

First, more highly educated does not necessarily mean smarter.  Don't get me started.  

Let's take a look at some trivia:

Without the votes of those who earn less than $30,000 a year, Obama would have lost Iowa.

Without the votes of those who earn more than $100,000 a year, Clinton would have lost Massachusetts by 19 points.

Without the votes of those with postgraduate degrees, Clinton would have lost Arizona by 11 points.

Here's the maps:  

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.usFree Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.usFree Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.usFree Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us
Click to enlarge.

Clinton does tend to get more support from those who are poorer and less educated, and Obama does tend to get more support from those who are better off and more educated.  We do have to be careful though: race, income, and education are linked together.  States where large proportions of the Democratic electorate are African-American do not usually show a relationship between income or education and voting tendencies.  This makes it hard to say things like "Obama cut into Clinton's working class support in the Potomac primaries" without first doing a good solid analysis of income and education by race in VA, MD, and previous contests.

There's plenty of interesting things to see in the exit polls, I think, as long as we're extra careful to remember that even when one candidate wins a certain chunk of the voters by a large amount, there's still a substantial and important minority voting for the other candidate.

PS If you like election results maps, see this diary with results by county.  

Cross posted at DailyKos.


Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Awesome Work (0.00 / 0)
Simply Great Stuff - particularly on the late deciding myth.


Hey thanks (0.00 / 0)
I always look forward to reading your work, by the way.

[ Parent ]
Me or you? (0.00 / 0)
Image shack is a dog trying to open your maps.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

[ Parent ]
Great work (0.00 / 0)
I see more crap, accusations claiming some voter will go Hillary because of female or Obama because they are male or this and that and I think the truth of it is, neither one of them is truly a Populist or Progressive.

Myself I'm piece mealing through trade, economic, labor policy positions like someone searching through sand to locate a few grains of diamonds and it's tough, really tough.  I look at this policy, then that vote, then this vote and it's like a seesaw trying to estimate which is the least objectionable candidate.  

On cable, I've never seen such a group of truly stupid people analyzing this race and so very very little on actual positions to help out voters.  

I don't think people are so stupid they are doing identity politics.  I think they are like me, trying to figure out which one would actually represent their real interests and save their financial livelihoods.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist


Lazy reporting makes for a 'good' storyline (4.00 / 1)
It's easy to craft an engaging narrative rife with conflict if you use broad, and often offensive in my opinion, generalizations.

I disagree that people are all like you though - a lot of people simply don't have the time to dig deep into the positions of the candidates.  And so many people, I think, do practice a sort of identity politics - not, 'I'm a woman so I'll vote for the woman' kind of thing, but more of 'I identify with the experiences and life of this candidate; they are similar to mine, and so this candidate is most likely to understand and represent my interests.'  This kind of identity politics can easily cross racial, gender, class, and age lines that the pundits are dividing us by.  For example, if Obama had grown up in Arkansas, and Clinton had never left Illinois, I bet we would see much stronger support for Obama among Southern whites.  We would have to go back in time and rewrite history to find out for sure but that is the sense I get from looking through the data.


[ Parent ]
Open Primaries (0.00 / 0)
Are there any numbers on how many of those who voted in the primaries intend to vote Dem in Nov?  

Could party switchers have a significant effect on your numbers?


No (0.00 / 0)
That would be a very good question for the exit polls to ask.

Party switchers could have a significant effect in some states, but for the most part, very few Republicans voted in the open Democratic primaries, and there are few true Independents - most actually lean pretty strongly towards one party or another.


[ Parent ]
Two observations and a question (0.00 / 0)
Great analysis. From what you've presented, I'd like to offer two observations:
1. Pundits and poll analyzers put way too much stock in demographics as a means of discerning voter preferences. People don't always vote their demographics.
2. Correlation is not causation. Just because you can find a strong correlation of a voter attribute to an election outcome doesn't mean that you've isolated a variable that is truly a determinant of results.
People who are in the marketing business have long known that what matters most in predicting consumer behavior isn't demographics; it's behavior. Of course, this could also apply in politics. Other than looking at voters who who made up their minds the day of the election, what other behaviors did you look at?

Two key observations (0.00 / 0)
They should be tattooed on the back of every pundit's hand.

I just looked through the exit poll data for whatever struck my fancy, really.  They don't have too many behavior-based questions.  Some of the more interesting questions seemed kind of useless to me because they could have multiple interpretations.  For example, the question about how important was the endorsement of Kennedy - well, that's kinda interesting, but what we really want to know is not just how important it was but whether it was a factor that helped Obama or not.  If the endorsement by Kennedy ticked me off and made me lean towards Clinton, I'm still going to say it was important, just as if it made me go misty-eyed with nostalgia and vote for Obama.  Same for questions on importance of race and gender.  The results were kind of meaningless because the questions were lame.


[ Parent ]
Great Job! (0.00 / 0)
I'm living proof that "Jews don't vote for Obama" is a myth!

Then again, I'm also a young person under 30, so...

Then again, these demographics do overlap...


Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search