doingword.com

Big city Barack

November 9th, 2008, by Andrew

This note by Nate inspired me to check the vote swings by county population. I don’t have the urban/suburban/rural status of counties in an easily grabbable form (maybe Boris has these and can send to me) and so as something quick I plotted vote swing vs. county population. Actually, I don’t have county population right here either and so I used total number of votes in the county in 2004. Many of the large-population counties are urban (such as Los Angeles, the largest); others are major suburban counties. Anyway, here’s what we see:

swingspop.png

The blue line is the lowess curve fit to the data. There’s a lot of variation–county size is not such a good predictor of swing–but there is indeed a pattern of bigger Obama swings in larger counties. (The counties are already ordered by size so there’s no need to use larger circles to indicate larger counties as I did in the plots of county income posted earlier.)

To understand this better, let’s break up the data by region of the country. Also, since we’re at it, let’s look at swings in the past couple of elections as well.

Here are the swings broken up by region of the country for the past few elections. The left column shows 1996/2000, the middle column shows 2000/2004, and the right column shows 2004/2008.

swingspop_more.png

What do we see?
1. The large-county/small-county differential in Obama’s gains was particularly strong in the south and did not occur at all in the northeast. For example, Obama won 84% of the two-party vote in Philadelphia–but Kerry got 80% there four years ago. This 4% swing was about the same as Obama’s swing nationally. Part of the issue here is that Obama had almost no room for improvement in these places.

2. The pattern of Democrats improving more in large-population counties is not unique to 2008. Gore did (relatively) well in big counties in all regions in 2000.

Similar Posts:

Email, Print, and Share:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • MySpace
  • Print
  • StumbleUpon
  • TwitThis
  • YahooMyWeb

Entry Filed under: Uncategorized

2 Comments

Add your own

  • 1. Bill Ricker  |  November 9th, 2008 at 11:05 pm

    How does this and your just prior couty analyses fit with The Big Sort thesis? Is there any way to separate the transhumanant component, change in county returns due to population shift / demographic change, from personal or national opinion?

  • 2. bullfighter  |  November 17th, 2008 at 4:29 pm

    County size varies by region, at least as far as counties outside big metro areas are concerned. For example, Midwestern states tend to have a lot of counties and therefore low population per county. This will not affect counties with populations of, say, 250k and up, but it will be important for the points around the middle of your graphs.

    Your breakdown by region is thus an important refinement, but I am not sure that the systematic variation in county size corresponds closely to the four standard geographic regions.


Leave a Comment

Required

Required, hidden

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


"I enjoyed reading this book. I learned a lot about political misconceptions and counterintuitive properties of elections--my view of political data will never be the same."
Nassim Nicholas Taleb

"This book will help people on all sides to see politics more clearly, and it will require all of us to toss many pieces of conventional wisdom into the dustbin."
E. J. Dionne Jr

  • Hardcover: 240 pages
  • Publisher: Princeton University Press
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 069113927X
  • ISBN-13: 978-0691139272

Search


type and hit 'enter'