Tuesday, December 14, 2004
Vote %, 2000-2004
Fun with graphs! On the x axis is what % of the vote Bush captured in each of the 50 states in 2000. On the y axis is by what vote share % that Bush improved in each state from 2000 to 2004.
Most states fall within a certain band with an approximate correlation between what % of the people voted for Bush in 2000 and by what % improved his performance in that state in 2004. However, several fall outside this band, most significantly the solid blue states of the Northeast - New York, New Jersey, Connecticutt, Massachusetts and Rhode Island - as well as Hawaii. Bush made his most significant vote share improvements in those states.
Secondarily, Bush also somewhat disproportionately improved upon his 2000 showing in the blue states of California, Illinois, Maryland and Delaware, as well as the red state of Tennessee. Tennessee can be easily explained because of the Gore "favorite son" effect artificially suppressing Bush's vote share in 2000.
On the flip side, there are a number of states in which Bush's 2004 performance was disproportionately worse. Bucking the trend of the rest of the Northeast is Vermont, in which Bush actually did worse in 2004 than in 2000. Bush also had disproportionately poor showings in Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, South Dakota (along with Vermont, the only state where Bush did worse in 2004 than in 2000), and North and South Carolina. North and South Carolina's appearance on this list can be attributed to the presence of John Edwards on the Democratic ticket. As for the other states, I would argue that Bush is slowly losing the libertarian elements of the Republican party. This probably also explains Vermont. Democrats take note.
The red dots correspond to states in which an anti-marriage initiative appeared on the November ballot. As I discussed earlier, the presence of these initiatives did nothing to improve Bush's relative performance in that state.
Finally, to the conspiracy theorists, both Florida and Ohio are soundly in the mass of states that occupy the middle band. I don't see anything that suggests that election fraud occurred on a large enough of a scale to affect Bush's performance in those states. Indeed, in the case of Ohio, if Bush did in fact do worse in 2004 as some conspiracy theorists suggest, that would make Ohio a statistical outlier.
Fun with graphs! On the x axis is what % of the vote Bush captured in each of the 50 states in 2000. On the y axis is by what vote share % that Bush improved in each state from 2000 to 2004.
Most states fall within a certain band with an approximate correlation between what % of the people voted for Bush in 2000 and by what % improved his performance in that state in 2004. However, several fall outside this band, most significantly the solid blue states of the Northeast - New York, New Jersey, Connecticutt, Massachusetts and Rhode Island - as well as Hawaii. Bush made his most significant vote share improvements in those states.
Secondarily, Bush also somewhat disproportionately improved upon his 2000 showing in the blue states of California, Illinois, Maryland and Delaware, as well as the red state of Tennessee. Tennessee can be easily explained because of the Gore "favorite son" effect artificially suppressing Bush's vote share in 2000.
On the flip side, there are a number of states in which Bush's 2004 performance was disproportionately worse. Bucking the trend of the rest of the Northeast is Vermont, in which Bush actually did worse in 2004 than in 2000. Bush also had disproportionately poor showings in Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, South Dakota (along with Vermont, the only state where Bush did worse in 2004 than in 2000), and North and South Carolina. North and South Carolina's appearance on this list can be attributed to the presence of John Edwards on the Democratic ticket. As for the other states, I would argue that Bush is slowly losing the libertarian elements of the Republican party. This probably also explains Vermont. Democrats take note.
The red dots correspond to states in which an anti-marriage initiative appeared on the November ballot. As I discussed earlier, the presence of these initiatives did nothing to improve Bush's relative performance in that state.
Finally, to the conspiracy theorists, both Florida and Ohio are soundly in the mass of states that occupy the middle band. I don't see anything that suggests that election fraud occurred on a large enough of a scale to affect Bush's performance in those states. Indeed, in the case of Ohio, if Bush did in fact do worse in 2004 as some conspiracy theorists suggest, that would make Ohio a statistical outlier.
Comments:
Post a Comment
