the SNOB
Friday, February 08, 2008
Data Mining Clinton's Victory, or, the Brown and the Black
I decided to take a scalpel, or at least a box-cutter, to the election results by town for the Democratic primary this past Tuesday. Depending on who you ask, Clinton's victory was either proof of her ability to go all the way, or a case of Obama exceeding expectations. I wanted to look at it with a demographic twist. Massachusetts is an unusual state in that it is significantly whiter, wealthier, and bluer than average. It is also fairly segregated geographically, so I thought it might be possible to tease some things out without too much work. The picture that emerges is flattering to neither candidate.
Hillary carried five cities with a combined population of ~300k by a margin of 48% or greater. All five were demographically interesting. If you look at the top ten cities for Hillary, they have a combined population of a little over 600k, or about the size of Boston. Her smallest margin in these cities was 37%, in Quincy. These are blowouts, not close contests.
1. The city is significantly whiter than average. While an 80% white city may not seem like much in an 86% white state, most cities are significantly less white than the state as a whole.
2. The city is significantly more hispanic than average. Everett, Lawrence, New Bedford, Chelsea, and Lynn are all representin' for Hillary.
3. The city is significantly less black than average. The inverse of #1 applies here.
4. In every case where the city is blacker than the statewide average, it is more hispanic than it is black. See Lynn and Chelsea.
OK, so let's take a look at cities that went the other way. Fewer did, so I included all the cities Obama won, plus two where he broke more or less even with Hillary. Obama did about the same in Brookline as he did in Boston, but my guess is that the demographics of Brookline look more like Newton or Cambridge than Boston or Springfield.
Somerville, in fact, is the only large city which defies all of the racial stereotypes, being more hispanic and less white, and still going for Obama. This is where precinct-level results would get really interesting, because Somerville (and Cambridge and Boston) has a very diverse socioeconomic mix, from lunchpail Democrats like you'd find in Michigan, to Tufts professors and such. I'd bet that these folks turned out overwhelmingly for Obama, which could have made the difference. In a similar vein I'd really like to compare the Back Bay and Beacon Hill to Eastie, JP, Roxbury, and Mattapan.
Bad news for Obama. Worse for the Democrats.
If ethnic allegiances are still driving this campaign, it's safe to say the dynamics aren't going to shift anytime soon. Obama is, in fact, the "Black Candidate," with strong crossover appeal to wealthy whites. Wherever working-class whites or hispanics predominate, Obama loses, in some cases very badly. Fall River, New Bedford, and Worcester are better bellwethers for Pennsylvania and Ohio than Northampton or Cambridge. The odds of either candidate achieving a decisive victory--the sort needed to avoid the dreaded/eagerly-anticipated "brokered convention" scenario--seem to be slim.
As for the general election, the prognosis is no less problematic for the party. If Obama wins without ever building strong inroads into working-class whites, then Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, New Hampshire, perhaps Maine and Wisconsin, are all very much in play for McCain. With Florida and Texas likely to remain strongly in the Republican camp, these are critical states for the Dems.
Meanwhile, Hillary has her own host of different but no less severe problems. If black voters feel cheated by her victory in the primaries (however she manages it), then depressed turnout becomes a real threat. Likewise, she will be soundly beaten by McCain among white men of any economic group in any battleground state.
As for my liberal friends who think that conservatives will have a hard time voting for the apostate McCain, well, you picked the two best candidates to remind us why we're Republicans. ¶ 5:28 PM 0 Comments
I decided to take a scalpel, or at least a box-cutter, to the election results by town for the Democratic primary this past Tuesday. Depending on who you ask, Clinton's victory was either proof of her ability to go all the way, or a case of Obama exceeding expectations. I wanted to look at it with a demographic twist. Massachusetts is an unusual state in that it is significantly whiter, wealthier, and bluer than average. It is also fairly segregated geographically, so I thought it might be possible to tease some things out without too much work. The picture that emerges is flattering to neither candidate.
Hillary carried five cities with a combined population of ~300k by a margin of 48% or greater. All five were demographically interesting. If you look at the top ten cities for Hillary, they have a combined population of a little over 600k, or about the size of Boston. Her smallest margin in these cities was 37%, in Quincy. These are blowouts, not close contests.
Looking across the list, you'll see that one or more of the following rules holds true in every case:
Margin White Hispanic Black Pop
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fall River 60% 91.2 3.3 2.5 91938
Everett 53% 79.7 9.5 6.3 37540
Lawrence 51% 48.6 59.7 4.9 72043
Revere 49% 84.4 9.4 2.9 47283
Taunton 48% 91.7 3.9 2.7 55976
Peabody 48% 93.9 3.4 1.0 48129
New Bedford 44% 78.9 10.2 4.4 94112
Chelsea 42% 57.9 48.4 7.3 35080
Methuen 41% 89.4 9.6 1.3 43789
Lynn 40% 67.9 18.4 10.5 89571
Woburn 38% 90.6 3.1 1.9 37809
Quincy 37% 79.6 2.1 2.2 89059
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statewide 16% 86.5 7.9 6.9 6000000
1. The city is significantly whiter than average. While an 80% white city may not seem like much in an 86% white state, most cities are significantly less white than the state as a whole.
2. The city is significantly more hispanic than average. Everett, Lawrence, New Bedford, Chelsea, and Lynn are all representin' for Hillary.
3. The city is significantly less black than average. The inverse of #1 applies here.
4. In every case where the city is blacker than the statewide average, it is more hispanic than it is black. See Lynn and Chelsea.
OK, so let's take a look at cities that went the other way. Fewer did, so I included all the cities Obama won, plus two where he broke more or less even with Hillary. Obama did about the same in Brookline as he did in Boston, but my guess is that the demographics of Brookline look more like Newton or Cambridge than Boston or Springfield.
Once again, the racial trends are in strong evidence. Springfield is home to more hispanics than Lynn and New Bedford combined, but also has a larger black population than all of the top ten Hillary-voting cities put together. The only larger cities going strongly for Obama (Boston and Cambridge) are significantly blacker than they are hispanic.
Margin White Hispanic Black Pop
----------------------------------------------------------------
Springfield -3% 56.1 27.2 21 152082
Newton 0% 88.1 2.5 2 83829
Somerville 5% 77 8 6.5 77478
Boston 9% 54.5 14.4 25.3 589141
Northampton 19% 90 5.2 2.1 29287
Cambridge 29% 68.1 7.4 11.9 101355
Somerville, in fact, is the only large city which defies all of the racial stereotypes, being more hispanic and less white, and still going for Obama. This is where precinct-level results would get really interesting, because Somerville (and Cambridge and Boston) has a very diverse socioeconomic mix, from lunchpail Democrats like you'd find in Michigan, to Tufts professors and such. I'd bet that these folks turned out overwhelmingly for Obama, which could have made the difference. In a similar vein I'd really like to compare the Back Bay and Beacon Hill to Eastie, JP, Roxbury, and Mattapan.
Bad news for Obama. Worse for the Democrats.
If ethnic allegiances are still driving this campaign, it's safe to say the dynamics aren't going to shift anytime soon. Obama is, in fact, the "Black Candidate," with strong crossover appeal to wealthy whites. Wherever working-class whites or hispanics predominate, Obama loses, in some cases very badly. Fall River, New Bedford, and Worcester are better bellwethers for Pennsylvania and Ohio than Northampton or Cambridge. The odds of either candidate achieving a decisive victory--the sort needed to avoid the dreaded/eagerly-anticipated "brokered convention" scenario--seem to be slim.
As for the general election, the prognosis is no less problematic for the party. If Obama wins without ever building strong inroads into working-class whites, then Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, New Hampshire, perhaps Maine and Wisconsin, are all very much in play for McCain. With Florida and Texas likely to remain strongly in the Republican camp, these are critical states for the Dems.
Meanwhile, Hillary has her own host of different but no less severe problems. If black voters feel cheated by her victory in the primaries (however she manages it), then depressed turnout becomes a real threat. Likewise, she will be soundly beaten by McCain among white men of any economic group in any battleground state.
As for my liberal friends who think that conservatives will have a hard time voting for the apostate McCain, well, you picked the two best candidates to remind us why we're Republicans. ¶ 5:28 PM 0 Comments
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Go, Hillary, Go!
So I came *really* close to voting for Dr. Ron Paul tonight, but flinched at the last minute and went for McCain on the off chance that it might count for something to whittle down Romney's lead in Mass. In hindsight I also feel that it was a symbolic apology for the mistake I made eight years ago.
I had some fears then that Bush was a lightweight way out of his element but he was the only candidate seriously talking about replacing/supplementing Social Security with private investment accounts, which is one issue that will pretty much get me to put kneepads on for a candidate. Thirty years from now people will look back scornfully on a perfectly good missed opportunity to address the problem when time was still abundant. Still, part of being President is getting congress to go along with your brilliant plans. It's like a salesman complaining that he'd make quota if only the engineers could produce a better product.
But I digress. The far more important thing is the train wreck taking shape on the (D) side of the ticket. A lot of the news you are/will read[ing] about Super Tuesday is a non-story. The Democrats largely ditched winner-take-all primaries after 1968, so when Obama wins 50% of Mass. to HRC's 48%, he may end up with a few more delegates, but that's all. If 2000 was the year of the Dangling Chad, the summer of '08 is going to introduce everyone to Superdelegates, who are basically at-large bon vivants who can throw their support behind whomever they please. A brokered convention is the political geeks' version of the Subway Series. Nightly news and papers will suddenly swell with Visio charts and Powerpoint graphics illustrating how everything can suddenly happen, or not.
And Hillary will win. Before, that is, she loses. ¶ 5:23 PM 1 Comments
So I came *really* close to voting for Dr. Ron Paul tonight, but flinched at the last minute and went for McCain on the off chance that it might count for something to whittle down Romney's lead in Mass. In hindsight I also feel that it was a symbolic apology for the mistake I made eight years ago.
I had some fears then that Bush was a lightweight way out of his element but he was the only candidate seriously talking about replacing/supplementing Social Security with private investment accounts, which is one issue that will pretty much get me to put kneepads on for a candidate. Thirty years from now people will look back scornfully on a perfectly good missed opportunity to address the problem when time was still abundant. Still, part of being President is getting congress to go along with your brilliant plans. It's like a salesman complaining that he'd make quota if only the engineers could produce a better product.
But I digress. The far more important thing is the train wreck taking shape on the (D) side of the ticket. A lot of the news you are/will read[ing] about Super Tuesday is a non-story. The Democrats largely ditched winner-take-all primaries after 1968, so when Obama wins 50% of Mass. to HRC's 48%, he may end up with a few more delegates, but that's all. If 2000 was the year of the Dangling Chad, the summer of '08 is going to introduce everyone to Superdelegates, who are basically at-large bon vivants who can throw their support behind whomever they please. A brokered convention is the political geeks' version of the Subway Series. Nightly news and papers will suddenly swell with Visio charts and Powerpoint graphics illustrating how everything can suddenly happen, or not.
And Hillary will win. Before, that is, she loses. ¶ 5:23 PM 1 Comments
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Curse of the Mumbino
Tom Menino, meet your legacy. Forget about moving City Hall or building a 1000-foot tower. Decades from now, Mumbles will be known as the jinx who screwed up what should have been the greatest season in Boston sports history. Go see No, No Nanette! with your pet billy goat. The last guy to screw the pooch this badly is still living in Idaho over 20 years later. You should call him, maybe he has a cabin you could borrow. ¶ 7:28 PM 0 Comments
Tom Menino, meet your legacy. Forget about moving City Hall or building a 1000-foot tower. Decades from now, Mumbles will be known as the jinx who screwed up what should have been the greatest season in Boston sports history. Go see No, No Nanette! with your pet billy goat. The last guy to screw the pooch this badly is still living in Idaho over 20 years later. You should call him, maybe he has a cabin you could borrow. ¶ 7:28 PM 0 Comments
