Where TO Evaluates Data From the Last Two Presidential Elections

According to the data, it would appear that the typical Republican voter is from the western or southern states with median household incomes below those of states that vote heavily Democratic. The typical Republican voter appears to vote in rough proportion to the “white only” percentage of the state. The typical Republican voter appears to come from states with lower educational achievement than the voters from states that vote heavily Democratic. Since the table uses educational achievement as a proxy for white color employment, it would also appear the Republican voters come from states with less white collar employments and proportionately fewer residents in urban environments. To sum up, according to the data, it appears that the typical Republican voter is relatively rural, less educated, more likely to be white, with a lower median income than the typical Democrat voter.

It would appear that the typical Democratic voter is from the northeastern states with relatively high household incomes. The typical Democratic voter appears to vote in higher percentages for the Democrat the higher the percentage of all residents who live in urban settings. More research is needed to determine why heavily Democratic Vermont is such an outlier in the percentage of urban dwellers. Democrats in states with strong ties to the Democrat candidate tend to vote in high percentages for the Democrat. States with very high percentages of minorities appear to vote in large numbers for the Democrat, but the inverse does not appear to be true, as low minority population in Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Vermont nonetheless vote heavily Democratic. The typical Democrat tends to come from states with high levels of educational achievement. Since the table uses educational achievement as a proxy for white collar employment, it would appear from the data that Democratic voters come from states with more white-collar employment. To sum up, according to the data the typical Democratic voter is relatively urban, from the Northeast or from States where minorities represent the majority of the population. Further, the typical Democratic voter is more educated and with higher levels of income than the typical Republican voter.

There were two different criticisms of my analysis of the Presidential election. One criticism is that I did not address whether the electorate has become more liberal. Since that question was not asked in the packet or in the assignment, I did not think to attempt to glean an answer from the data sets. Had I been challenged to do so, I would not have been able to determine if the population of the US had become more liberal. None of the data sets that we were required to evaluate serve as a valid proxy for political attitudes. If having the political attitude of being “liberal” is equated with voting for the Democratic candidate, then the word “liberal” loses all meaning. A case study would be West Virginia voters who elect Democratic senators, to include a former Klu Klux Klansman, but nonetheless voted for the Republican candidate. Another case study would be Maine, a state the reliably votes for the Democratic presidential candidate but has two Republican senators. California voted overwhelmingly for the Democratic presidential candidate, but passed a constitutional restriction on same-sex marriage, something that would be unthinkable in a truly liberal electorate. The data appears to show that voting patterns are a poor proxy for determining whether a population has a “liberal” attitude. Since Census data is comprised of objectively quantifiable attributes, until someone can make the case that there is an objective measure that correlates directly to a subjective attitude, then any assessment from this data about whether the electorate has become more “liberal” would be pure speculation.

The second criticism was regarding the technical observation that the District of Columbia is not a state and should not be included in the data collection exercise. I actually debated whether to include DC in the assessment for exactly that reason, that DC is technically not a state. Eventually, I decided to include DC since it has 1) the exact same weight in the Presidential election as seven actual states (Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming) two of which are the home states of individuals on the tickets for the major parties. 2) The population of DC is actually larger than Wyoming, a state that appeared in the exercise. 3) For the purposes of the Electoral College, DC is a state so it was valid to include its characteristics in an assessment of voting patterns.
This criticism: “With DC, there is a minority population factor that can affect the ‘outcome’ of your assessment” was particularly puzzling. The data appears to show that people from areas with high numbers of urban residents vote for the Democratic candidate. The data appears to show that States and Districts with electoral votes where minorities are in the majority in the population, such as in Hawaii and DC, vote for the Democratic candidate. That is an interesting trend and a valid outcome for the analysis. I remain unclear regarding the “factor” about DC’s minority population would otherwise affect the outcome of the analysis. DC is virtually a control subject for both these population characteristics in the data collection exercise.