Showing posts with label 2014 Election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2014 Election. Show all posts

Monday, November 19, 2018

Voter Turnout Reflects change in Voting Patterns in 2018 Cambria County (PA)

A report was released today by Keystone Crossroads showing how voter turnout increased from 43% in 2014 (the last midterm election) to 58% this year.  These numbers are for the percentage of registered voters who voted.  For my county, 50,184 voters out of 83,338 registrants voted for a turnout of 60.22%.  If one considers the total eligible voting age population of 107,485 (2017 estimate), the turnout rate was 46.7% which is still high for a midterm election.  The turnout for the 2016 election (63,072) was 58.2% in Cambria County by this measure (108,400 elegible voters in 2016).

Before the election I wrote about how voter registration patterns have changed since 2014 for Cambria and Somerset Counties.  The colors in the above map show how voter turnout changed since 2014 with counties having a larger increase having a darker color green.  Blair County having the largest increase in turnout of those registered.  The Keystone Crossroads article does not state what the 2014 numbers were for each county but it does state that there was an increase for each of the state's 67 counties.  

The lighter colors for Cambria and Somerset counties suggest that the increases for there were not as large as for other counties but does not say exactly by how much.  Looking at the county results, Sen. Casey and Gov. Wolf lost these counties while winning the state.  For Cambria County, Republicans picked up one state house seat while and almost won two while Democrats gained statewide.  The increases in voter registration for Republicans in Cambria County coupled with a lower increase in voter turnout suggest that there is a shift in voting patterns among voters there.  

**Related Posts**

Losses in Registered Democrats have Accelerated Since 2016 for Cambria and Somerset Counties (PA)

Thursday, November 3, 2016

Bradley Effect for Trump?

In 1982, the popular African American mayor of Los Angeles, Tom Bradley, was running for Governor of California.  In the month prior to the election, polls were showing him ahead of his Republican opponent by 5%.  When the votes were counted he lost by 1% of the vote.  The exit polls predicted that he would win.  Looking for an explanation as to why this was so social scientists theorized that a small segment of mostly white voters did not want to admit to pollsters that they did not want to admit to pollsters that they did not want to vote for an African American.  They termed this phenomenon The Bradley Effect.  Similar polling discrepancies were seen in large races with African American Candidates.  This effect was not seen in the presidential elections of Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 and in other more recent elections with African American Candidates.  The polls were accurate both times.  

For this election cycle, it has been speculated that a similar effect may happen in elections where there is no African American on the ballot.  With Donald Trump warning of a rigged election and a "Reverse Bradley Effect."  Some political bloggers and talk show hosts have fanned the flames of this theory. 

Blogger and right wing talk show host Douglas V. Gibbs has fanned the flames of this theory at his blog The Political Pistachio.  He states that he has spoken with Trump supporters who are afraid to put Trump bumper stickers on their cars for fear of vandalism.  This is the only evidence he presents in support of his theory.  He does claim that there is evidence from the Podesta emails that Democrats are over sampled in polls and that polls are only targeting likely voters but these are issues with polling and sampling methodology not with the survey respondents as in the Bradley effect.  There is little evidence of this effect in the primaries when Trump won handily.  
The Gap Between Poll Numbers and Election Results for African American Candidates Over Time

There were fears among Democrats that the Bradley effect would come into play in the 2008.  As I stated before that didn't happen.  The effect is thought by some to be a thing of the past which may or may not be true.  The effect may be minimized with more advanced polling methodologies such as online surveys or phone surveys with automated rather than live questioners.  It may be more comfortable for respondents to speak openly to a machine than to a human being.

Of course it may be just wishful thinking on the part of Trump and Gibbs for a reverse Bradley effect.  No one really knows until the votes are counted.  The general election is a different beast than the primaries.  I haven't heard any discussion of this effect when there is a woman on the ballot.  The reverse Bradley effect refers to voters not being willing to tell pollsters that they support a candidate who is openly supported by white supremacist leaders like David Duke.  Time will tell.

**Related Posts**

More Hate Groups in States Where Trump and Clinton Win (and in DC Where He Lost)


SPLC Hate Group Update: Washington, DC has an Increase in Activity


A Wave of Hate Groups in California? No in Washington, DC


Terrorism Boost for Trump

Saturday, November 15, 2014

Health Care and the 2014 Election in Pennsylvania

Gov. Corbett has conceded defeat in this years gubernatorial race with 55% of the vote as of this posting.  The NBC exit poll asked voters a variety of questions which showed Governor Elect Tom Wolf winning almost every demographic in the state: males, females, young, middle age.  Corbett and Wolf evenly split the 65+ age group.  Of most interest for Healthcare for All PA is the question on voters opinion of the Affordable Care Act as can be seen below.  47% thought it “went too far”, 23% thought it “Was about right”, and 27% thought it “did not go far enough”.  If you add the those who said “Did not go far enough” to those who thought it “Was about right” there is a 50% majority for universal health care with more than half of those wanting a better bill.

Did not go far enough27%82%18%
Was about right23%89%11%
Went too far47%27%73%

These results are consistent with the exit poll for Pennsylvania from 2012 as well as national polls on the Affordable Care Act as can be seen in the related posts below.

Saturday, November 1, 2014

Am I being defrauded by Facebook? And Rothfus?

The Video Blog Veritasium has come up with a clever experiment to show how click factories in places like Bangladesh, Egypt, and China inflate web statistics for Facebook pages and how they defraud users and clients.  I have paid Facebook for advertising in the past with mixed results.  This  site often gets trolled from China but not so much from India, Bangladesh or Egypt.  The engagement on my Facebook page never reaches the level described in the above video.

I haven't posted a lot on this year's election because the race this year between Gov. Tom Corbett and Tom Wolf appears to be all but wrapped up.  Erin McClelland is a good candidate for Congress in the PA 12th district against world squinting champion and Tea Party yes man, Rep. Keith Rothfus (R). 

One wildcard in this election, as it was in the last election, is social media.  The social media giant Facebook has been known to manipulate their users' news feeds in order to produce a desired effect.  Micah Sifry of MotherJones magazine has written on the experimentation Facebook has done to boost turnout in the 2012 election.  They have produced data that shows a 3% increase in turnout in 2012.  It doesn't say if it influenced how they voted.  They haven't said what they are doing in this election but clearly they have been manipulating timelines to tell their users what they want to hear.  Like any tool there is potential for abuse here in misinforming the public but also potential for good in motivating people to take action as the ice bucket challenge shows.  The danger is in not informing their users that this is done.  

Dave Ninehouser at has been doing everything he can to encourage people to vote for Erin McClelland and banter Rothfus.  Is his message getting through?  I couldn't embed a youtube video of Ninehouser confronting Rothfus because it has been "Disabled by Request."  Was it Rothfus' or Ninehouser's request?  You can view the video here.


Dave Ninehouser sent me this video of him confronting Rothfus because I couldn't embed his other video.


**Related Posts**

It's All About The Likes


The Impact of the CSI w/o DB Facebook Page on Visits and Engagement


Online Poll Results on the Blog Title Inconclusive Relative to Visitor Statistics


Saturday, September 20, 2014

Single Payer Alive and Well in Massachusetts

Donald Berwick ran a campaign for governor of Massachusetts (home of Romneycare the model for the Affordable Care Act) on a single payer platform.  Previously he ran the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services in the Department of Health and Human Services.  He ran against better funded candidates State Attorney General Martha Coakley (who had lost the special election for Ted Kennedy's Senate Seat to Scott Brown) and State Treasurer Steven Grossman.  Most polls had Berwick in the teens to the single digits as can be seen in the data tracked by Real Clear Politics.  The final results had him at 21.1% which suggests an upswing of support. 

There was no exit polling to monitor the true impact of Berwick's campaign on the voters.  The pre-election polls restricted their samples to who they thought would be likely voters.  The results suggest that Berwick brought in new voters.  Just because Berwick did not win does not mean he did not have an impact. 

The same day as the Massachusetts primary, Zephyr Teachout ran a primary challenge to New York governor Andrew Cuomo and received 30% of the vote. She discusses her campaign below.  Her campaign received more attention than Berwick's.  But it's at least as impactful.

Polling Data

PollDateSampleCoakley Grossman Berwick Spread
Final Results----42.436.521.1Coakley +5.9
WBUR/MassINC9/2 - 9/7234 LV412012Coakley +21
Boston Globe9/2 - 9/3400 LV472513Coakley +22
UMass Lowell/7News8/25 - 8/31685 LV52209Coakley +32
WBUR/MassINC8/24 - 8/31340 LV47236Coakley +24
Boston Globe8/17 - 8/26347 LV462410Coakley +22
Suffolk/Boston Herald8/21 - 8/24400 LV423016Coakley +12
Boston Globe8/10 - 8/19358 LV452410Coakley +21
Boston Globe8/3 - 8/12357 LV452110Coakley +24
Boston Globe7/27 - 8/5361 LV45189Coakley +27

**Related Posts**

Health Care Law - New Rasmussen Poll Down the Memory Hole 

POLL: Dislike of healthcare law crosses party lines, 1 in 4 Dems want repeal - (But Doesn't Ask Why)

Personal and Medical Bankruptcies: A Follow Up

The Affordable Care Act Having an Impact in Some States but not Pennsylvania

National, State, and County Uninsured Estimates


Sunday, March 30, 2014

Former College Classmate on CNN International on Turkey

Emel Ertas was an IUP (Indiana University of Pennsylvania) classmate of mine.  She was interviewed on her opinions on the upcoming elections in Turkey.  Their politics sounds about as divided as it is in the United States.

Going back to the days of the Alexander the Great, Turkey (then called Asia Minor) has always been at the crossroads between secular Europe and the more traditional Middle East.  The founder of modern Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, worked hard to secularize it after being defeated in World War I.  The reforms he introduced included changing their writing to the Latin alphabet from Arabic script, granting rights to women, and providing education to the masses.  Just like in the US however, these struggles between the old and the new can remain after many reforms are enacted.  

Colbert gives a good summary.  Secularists in Turkey see Ataturk as their Lincoln.

**Related Posts**

Measuring Democracy in the World?

Change at My Alma Mater, IUP (Indiana University of Pennsylvania). Undergrads Getting Squeezed


The Worden Report: Protests in Wisconsin and Bahrain: Similar or Different?


What is Sanity?