You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #75: OK [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is locked.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-16-07 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #47
75. OK
Can you explain in layman's terms what might have caused the discrepancy between the exit poll estimation of the size of the urban vote and the actual urban vote as declared?

Hard to say, since AFAIK no one knows yet what the actual big-city vote share was. But 13% does look high. I think Febble's idea is plausible: some of the few dozen big-city precincts in the national subsample may have had large actual or apparent turnout changes, and that could have thrown off the estimate. I will underscore again that NEP pegged the big-city vote share at 13% even before it reweighted from Kerry +3 to Bush +3 -- so whatever happened, it seems to have happened early, not late.

(Aren't the NEP statisticians supposed to be professionals)

I would conjecture that if they had expected someone to be looking at that table for insight into the big-city proportion of the total vote, they would have built the model differently.

Can you explain how bush managed to pull off a massive increase in his total vote among suburban, small city and urban voters? (note this requires 3 answers)

Actually, it requires no answers, because you haven't established the premise. As far as I can tell, you are relying upon the results of an exit poll table that the OP argues is implausible. That seems strange, doesn't it?

Pending further evidence, my impression is that Bush pulled off (at least in the official returns) a moderate increase in his total vote in big cities, medium cities, small cities, suburbs, and rural areas alike. I will try to do some county-level analysis to see whether that account broadly seems to hold up.

And can you explain in particular how he did so in urban areas without the benefit of any substantial urban GOTV campaign and at the same time?

I'm mystified, because when I pointed out in particular that Bush did not pull off a "massive increase" in the official returns from New York or Chicago, you just got mad. This contributes to my confusion about what you think your argument actually is.

This point is really quite basic. Absent evidence that Bush actually had a "massive increase" in official big-city returns, what on earth are we talking about? Essentially the same question that L Coyote posed on GD, back when I was trying to ignore this whole thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC