Hello There, Guest!  

[ODP] And the next president of the United States...

#10
Hi Emil,

Like you, I didn't paste below again points I think we've reached consensus on (or I assume require no further action on my part).


Quote:2. Actually, it’s about how the states vote in the presidential elections cf. first past the post. The states don’t have to be very skewed politically for this to happen. I’m not sure I completely understand your first point here. I agree it’s the states—via how its residents vote—that are either blue or red. If it helps, here is the dictionary definition of a blue state: A US state that predominantly votes for or supports the Democratic Party. Please let me know if I’m not addressing your concern.

Emil: My point is that a state can be consistently blue/red while the actual voter margin is fairly close to 50%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states...lue_states

Example: Montana is listed as a consistent red state (4/4 last elections to R). However, the average voter margin is only 3-10%, meaning that results like 45-55% and 48.5-51.5% are seen. Quite small difference in actual voter behavior.

This red/blue state terminology is an artifact of the bizarre voting system (FPTP).


I agree that using "blue" or "red" implies an all or none situation. But, in some sense, the labels are just conveniences. One can say "red" versus "a state that had relatively higher percentages of votes cast for Trump" every time a red state is referenced. Note, though, all the analyses here use the full range of percents cast for Trump (i.e., I did regressions, versus first categorize states as red or blue, and then run tests on them).

That said, I tried researching what constitutes a small versus a landslide win in a presidential election. I found very mixed results. For example:

"One generally agreed upon measure of a landslide election is when the winning candidate beats his opponent or opponents by at least 15 percentage points in a popular vote count. Under that scenario a landslide would occur when the winning candidate in a two-way election receives 58 percent of the vote, leaving his opponent with 42 percent.

There are variations of the 15-point landslide definition. The online political news source Politico has defined a landslide election as being on in which the winning candidate beats his opponent by at least 10 percentage points, for example. And the well-known political blogger Nate Silver, of The New York Times, has defined a landslide district as being one in which a presidential vote margin deviated by at least 20 percentage points from the national result."

So, there is at least one definition of "landslide" here that falls within your (high-end) definition of "average voter margin".

Finally, I compared the N = 14 states with 42% or less Trump votes to the 13 with 58% or more. It basically produced the same results as that reported for all 50 states.




Quote:Emil: The dimensionality of political preferences is not very well researched I'm afraid. Some references of interest:

- http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/...6512436995
- http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1...6511434618

US research on the topic is particularly annoying in that it is almost always reduced to a single left-right/liberal-conservative dimension. Another artifact of the FPTP system I guess.


Thank you, I will check these out.




Quote:8. Is this with or without excluding proportions to third parties? It matters in some states. The non-perfect correlation here means that the non-main parties were not excluded. Does it change results if they are? In my data, (100% - %Trump - %Clinton) =
%Third Party votes. Across the 50 states, this mean / residual value was 5.97 (SD = 3.54). But, it cannot be allocated to some unified “independent” vote. In California, for example, although 93.4% of residents voted for either Trump or Clinton, the remaining percentages were scattered across several other, distinct candidates / parties. Specifically, 3.4% voted Libertarian; 2.00% voted Green, 0.28% voted “independent,” and 1.00% of votes were coded as “others” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta...tion,_2016).

In my data, the third party vote correlated nominally with percent Clinton (r = -.28, p = .05). It also correlated strongly with percent Black (r = -.52), and with Health (r = .44). The percent Clinton correlation, however, was attenuated to .11 when controlling for percent Black. Thus, I don’t see much value in adding data about third party votes to my manuscript.



Emil: Maybe add a brief note to a robustness section. Good practice to have a robustness section that briefly summarizes what happens if various alternative method choices. Don't want to end up like this!
http://www.nature.com/news/crowdsourced-...rk-1.18508


Will do-- as mentioned below too.




Quote:14. Why [is well-being the common dimension]? What about reverse causation? What about common cause? Good question, and I now mention these other possibilities in the discussion.

In my thinking, we know that scores on seemingly distinct mental tests nonetheless correlate. We explain this by appeal to a latent trait common to scores on all mental tests. I’ve applied the same idea to the seemingly distinct social, political, and economic variables that nonetheless correlate by state. My explanation appeals to a general factor named well-being. It includes IQ; whereas your S factor does not.

Emil: I think of S as a formative factor, not a reflective one though. It's a useful index of social well-being, but it's not a cause or much of a thing at all.

I guess it's what's causing the intercorrelations among all the different variables that leads me to my view of it.



Quote:15a. A finding that parallels the usual finding of more left-wing politics in cities, and cities are more prosperous. Maybe try a control for population density? Thank you. The correlations for state population density are .07 (IQ), .50 (% Trump), .32 (% White), and -.37 (% Black or Hispanic). However, in a regression with IQ, % White, and population density predicting % Trump, the IQ suppression effect still occurred (i.e., IQ’s Beta was still -.563).


I was going to add a section reporting all this, but when % Black or Hispanic is instead the race variable, the IQ suppression result goes away (IQ’s Beta was -.241, n/s). Given the lack of consistency (and the many additional analyses previous reviewers asked me to add), I chose not to present these data in the revision.

Emil: Seems like it is worth mentioning in a robustness section.


Will do.



Quote:15b. It would be wise to note the effect sizes here are quite tiny. To derive it, you need the standard deviation of state-level IQ, which is quite small: 2.7 IQ. The IQ / voting pattern effect sizes are small only initially, because they are being suppressed by race. When percent White is controlled, for example, the effect size for IQ now predicting percent Trump is -.65.

Emil: Standardized metrics are tricky. A std. beta of .65 at the state level and at the individual level is not the same in terms of IQ at the individual level. It depends on the variance. As I mentioned, the state-level IQ SD is only 2.7 (18% of the individual-level one). When you find a std. beta at the state level of .65, it means that for an .65 decrease in Trump voting (state-level), the IQ of a state goes down by .65*2.7=1.8 IQ. Very small effect size.


I agree 1.8 IQ points is small, assuming the typical SD of 15 for IQ tests.

But, I'm perhaps missing something: wouldn't moving 1.8 IQ points in an IQ distribution with a SD of 2.7 be a large effect? I tried researching whether a standardized beta is a measure of effect size, but got mixed results...
 Reply
 
Messages In This Thread
[ODP] And the next president of the United States... - by bpesta22 - 2017-Jun-10, 03:38:42
RE: [ODP] And the next president of the United States... - by Emil - 2017-Jun-12, 22:27:20
RE: [ODP] And the next president of the United States... - by bpesta22 - 2017-Jun-17, 15:59:51
RE: [ODP] And the next president of the United States... - by Emil - 2017-Jul-03, 04:55:07
RE: [ODP] And the next president of the United States... - by bpesta22 - 2017-Jul-18, 16:10:41
RE: [ODP] And the next president of the United States... - by Emil - 2017-Jul-19, 04:25:39
RE: [ODP] And the next president of the United States... - by bpesta22 - 2017-Aug-13, 02:00:31
RE: [ODP] And the next president of the United States... - by bpesta22 - 2017-Aug-28, 03:26:54
RE: [ODP] And the next president of the United States... - by Emil - 2017-Aug-31, 10:04:55
RE: [ODP] And the next president of the United States... - by bpesta22 - 2017-Sep-04, 17:09:27
RE: [ODP] And the next president of the United States... - by Emil - 2017-Sep-25, 00:58:41
RE: [ODP] And the next president of the United States... - by Peter Frost - 2017-Oct-05, 00:55:49
RE: [ODP] And the next president of the United States... - by bpesta22 - 2017-Oct-09, 18:14:50
RE: [ODP] And the next president of the United States... - by bpesta22 - 2017-Oct-11, 01:59:55
RE: [ODP] And the next president of the United States... - by Emil - 2017-Nov-09, 14:43:05
RE: [ODP] And the next president of the United States... - by Michael Woodley - 2017-Nov-20, 20:27:36
RE: [ODP] And the next president of the United States... - by bpesta22 - 2017-Dec-14, 06:00:39
RE: [ODP] And the next president of the United States... - by Emil - 2017-Dec-16, 07:06:22
 
Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)