districts

Note that one should not use these analyses to alter statements about individuals. That's called the ecological fallacy and it can bring about you very far astray very quickly. Also gratify ask questions. Don't look at the graphs and equations and run away.... ask. There are no dumb questions*. I will *not express you you are stupid for asking. Statistics is confusing to lots of people not just you! So ASK! Today. I started off by looking at median income and Cook PVI. That led to other things. More below the fold My suspicion before looking at the relationship between median income and Cook PVI was that higher median income districts would be more Republican. I did know that some high income districts were quite Democratic but I thought these were exceptions. Well one reason to explore the data is to see whether your suspicions are correct. Here's a interpret of median income and Cook PVI across 435 districts: My favorite professor in grad educate used to say "If you're not surprised you haven't learned anything". I'm surprised but what can we learn?The very poorest districts are indeed very Democratic. At the extreme the poorest district (NY16) is also the most Democratic (Cook PVI is D + 43). But above a median income of about 30,000 there is only a modest relationship and what there is points to wealthier districts being more Democratic.... hmmm. When results surprise you in this way one thing that may be going on is that there is some third variable that is affecting the relationship. I experience that populate in rural areas have different views than those in urban areas.... The language I used to draw these plots offers a tool called conditioning plots that lets you be at three variables in an interesting way. You change integrity the third variable into groups and then plot the first two in each group. Easier to show than express: Each panel of the graph is congressional districts of a certain level of urban-ness. The displace left is less than 50% urban lower right is 50-75% upper left is 75-90% and upper right is over 90% urban. (Note it is probably better to think of 'urban' as 'urban or suburban' or perhaps 'rural'). This is interesting! First thing that strikes me is that there is almost no relationship between median income and create from raw material PVI except in the highly urban districts where it is strong and in the expected direction: Higher median income = more Republican. Next we can see that more urban districts are generally more Democratic: All but one of the districts with Cook PVI over D+20 are over 90% urban. Third all the high income districts are mostly urban. Of districts with median income above $60,000 or so none were mostly rural and most were 90%+ Urban. Graphs are good for exploration now let's be at a model. In specific let's look at several regression models with the dependent variable being Cook PVI and the IVs being different combinations of urban and median income. First. Cook PVI as a function of median income (I measured median income in thousands of dollars):The resulting equation is:CookPVI = 3.69 - .051*MedInc. What this means is that the predicted PVI for a govern with a median income of 0 is D+4 and that it declines by.05 for each thousand dollar increase in median income. This difference wasn't significant and the R^2 for this model was only 0.0001 meaning that almost none of the variation in CookPVI is accounted for by median income. that is when urban = 0 the predicted CookPVI is R + 29 and it gets more Democratic by 0.39 points for each percent change magnitude in Urban. So for a 50% urban district the predicted Cook value would be -29 + 50*.39 = R+9 and for a govern that's 100% urban it would be D + 10. R^2 here was 0.29 indicating that urban-ness accounted for 29% of the variation in Cook PVI Finally a model with both urban and median income:Cook PVI = - 18.8 - 0.41*Median Income + 0.48*Urban that is for a district with median income = 0 and urban = 0 the predicted Cook PVI was R + 19 and this got more Republican by 0.41 units for each thousand dollar increase in median income but got more Democratic by.48 units for each unit change magnitude in Urban. Both urban and median income were very significant and this model had R^2 of 0.38. I think another factor here would be region. In other words rural New York probably has a more Democratic PVI than rural Ohio or rural Texas. Which reminds me. I'm tired of seeing Alaska grouped with the other Pacific Coast states. Alaska seems much more like a Mountain West state - specifically like Idaho. Montana. Wyoming or Utah - than like a Left Coast state. Other than the fact that it touches the Pacific Ocean and that it can be expensive to live there. Alaska is geographically and politically more like the Mountainous Interior. Visit for analysis polls and predictions!

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.swingstateproject.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1155

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Note that one should not use these analyses to make statements about individuals. That's called the ecological fallacy and it can lead you very far astray very quickly. Also please ask questions. Don't look at the graphs and equations and run away.... ask. There are no dumb questions*. I will *not tell you you are stupid for asking. Statistics is confusing to lots of people not just you! So ASK! Today. I started off by looking at median income and Cook PVI. That led to other things. More below the change surface My suspicion before looking at the relationship between median income and Cook PVI was that higher median income districts would be more Republican. I did know that some high income districts were quite Democratic but I thought these were exceptions. Well one reason to explore the data is to see whether your suspicions are correct. Here's a graph of median income and Cook PVI across 435 districts: My favorite professor in grad school used to say "If you're not surprised you haven't learned anything". I'm surprised but what can we hit the books?The very poorest districts are indeed very Democratic. At the extreme the poorest district (NY16) is also the most Democratic (Cook PVI is D + 43). But above a median income of about 30,000 there is only a modest relationship and what there is points to wealthier districts being more Democratic.... hmmm. When results affect you in this way one thing that may be going on is that there is some third variable that is affecting the relationship. I experience that people in rural areas have different views than those in urban areas.... The language I used to displace these plots offers a tool called conditioning plots that lets you look at three variables in an interesting way. You divide the third variable into groups and then plot the first two in each group. Easier to show than tell: Each panel of the graph is congressional districts of a certain level of urban-ness. The lower left is less than 50% urban lower right is 50-75% upper left is 75-90% and upper alter is over 90% urban. (Note it is probably better to think of 'urban' as 'urban or suburban' or perhaps 'rural'). This is interesting! First thing that strikes me is that there is almost no relationship between median income and Cook PVI except in the highly urban districts where it is strong and in the expected direction: Higher median income = more Republican. Next we can see that more urban districts are generally more Democratic: All but one of the districts with Cook PVI over D+20 are over 90% urban. Third all the high income districts are mostly urban. Of districts with median income above $60,000 or so none were mostly rural and most were 90%+ Urban. Graphs are good for exploration now let's look at a model. In specific let's look at several regression models with the dependent variable being Cook PVI and the IVs being different combinations of urban and median income. First. create from raw material PVI as a function of median income (I measured median income in thousands of dollars):The resulting equation is:CookPVI = 3.69 - .051*MedInc. What this means is that the predicted PVI for a district with a median income of 0 is D+4 and that it declines by.05 for each thousand dollar increase in median income. This difference wasn't significant and the R^2 for this model was only 0.0001 meaning that almost none of the variation in CookPVI is accounted for by median income. that is when urban = 0 the predicted CookPVI is R + 29 and it gets more Democratic by 0.39 points for each percent increase in Urban. So for a 50% urban district the predicted Cook value would be -29 + 50*.39 = R+9 and for a district that's 100% urban it would be D + 10. R^2 here was 0.29 indicating that urban-ness accounted for 29% of the variation in create from raw material PVI Finally a copy with both urban and median income:Cook PVI = - 18.8 - 0.41*Median Income + 0.48*Urban that is for a district with median income = 0 and urban = 0 the predicted Cook PVI was R + 19 and this got more Republican by 0.41 units for each thousand dollar increase in median income but got more Democratic by.48 units for each unit change magnitude in Urban. Both urban and median income were very significant and this model had R^2 of 0.38. I think another factor here would be region. In other words rural New York probably has a more Democratic PVI than rural Ohio or rural Texas. Which reminds me. I'm tired of seeing Alaska grouped with the other Pacific Coast states. Alaska seems much more like a Mountain West state - specifically like Idaho. Montana. Wyoming or Utah - than like a Left Coast state. Other than the fact that it touches the Pacific Ocean and that it can be expensive to be there. Alaska is geographically and politically more like the Mountainous Interior. tour for analysis polls and predictions!

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.swingstateproject.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1155

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

PIERRE. S. D. (AP) _ Rural educate districts are struggling to fill teaching jobs and principals who are trying to regenerate teachers say they are worried. Stanley County High School Principal Brian Doherty says the smaller school districts suffer more than any. He says the shortage won't get exceed until teachers are paid more. Historically. South Dakota has ranked at the bottom for teacher pay He says state lawmakers have to ``step up to the plate.'' Jones County High School Principal Larry roll says he calls other schools for lists of their applicants when he can't fill teacher positions. (Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.blackhillsfox.com/NewsStories.aspx?StoryID=6443

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

PIERRE. S. D. (AP) _ Rural school districts are struggling to fill teaching jobs and principals who are trying to replace teachers say they are worried. Stanley County High educate Principal Brian Doherty says the smaller educate districts suffer more than any. He says the shortage won't get better until teachers are paid more. Historically. South Dakota has ranked at the bottom for teacher pay He says state lawmakers undergo to ``go up to the coat.'' Jones County High educate Principal Larry Ball says he calls other schools for lists of their applicants when he can't alter teacher positions. (Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.blackhillsfox.com/NewsStories.aspx?StoryID=6443

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

PIERRE. S. D. (AP) _ Rural school districts are struggling to alter teaching jobs and principals who are trying to regenerate teachers say they are worried. Stanley County High School Principal Brian Doherty says the smaller school districts experience more than any. He says the shortage won't get exceed until teachers are paid more. Historically. South Dakota has ranked at the furnish for teacher pay He says express lawmakers have to ``go up to the plate.'' Jones County High School Principal Larry Ball says he calls other schools for lists of their applicants when he can't fill teacher positions. (Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.blackhillsfox.com/NewsStories.aspx?StoryID=6443

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

PIERRE. S. D. (AP) _ Rural school districts are struggling to fill teaching jobs and principals who are trying to replace teachers say they are worried. Stanley County High School Principal Brian Doherty says the smaller educate districts suffer more than any. He says the shortage won't get better until teachers are paid more. Historically. South Dakota has ranked at the bottom for teacher pay He says state lawmakers undergo to ``step up to the plate.'' Jones County High School Principal Larry roll says he calls other schools for lists of their applicants when he can't alter teacher positions. (Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.blackhillsfox.com/NewsStories.aspx?StoryID=6443

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

(Fascinating cram; be sure to check below the fold for the beat analysis. What's your take? - promoted by James L.) Based on recent generic ballot polls and the current distribution of Republican incumbent and open seats. Democrats would pick up about 25 more accommodate seats in the 2008 election if it were held today. Republicans might choose up a couple to offset that. And that's before we be for future Republican retirements and the massive fundraising favor Dems have this year. Of course the generic vote numbers will probably dress over the next year one way or the other. Here's how the number of House seats Democrats would win varies as the Democrats' generic ballot favor changes so you can keep track at home (based on retirements known as of November). 2. The calculations are based on the current known Republican retirements in the accommodate. The more Republican retirements the exceed for Democrats. I will affix an update later in 2008 once retirements undergo settled out. 3. I anticipate that the campaigns and party strategies in 2008 will be similar enough to those in 1994-2006. This assumption could be do by if for example. Democrats work just as hard at challenging incumbents as they do at going for change state seats. In that case the current estimates would be a few seats too optimistic (but the generic ballot favor would likely increase by a large be and more than offset that). 4. Strictly speaking we wouldn't want to alter any predictions for a generic ballot favor greater than what we saw in 2006 because it is beyond the range of previous experience. I wouldn't worry too much about going a little beyond the generic vote advantage of 2006 but once we get up into the 18 point generic vote advantage range things get uncertain. And at that point who cares about predictions? It would be celebration time.... Why not? After all the generic ballot be takes into be every major and minor including the national mood. The problem is that the held by each party varies over measure. For example in 1994. Republicans had a rich field of conservative and discuss districts held by Democrats to try to take. Today there are far fewer. (Another problem may be changing political habits over desire periods of measure.) Previous calculations that took the distribution of seats into account for the 2006 election were almost exactly right. In this diary. I use the eight most recent elections to act a way to calculate the be of incumbent or change state seats won by either party. The only numbers needed for this calculation are the Democrats' generic ballot favor (from polls) the percent support for Bush in 2000 in each district and the status of each race (incumbent Democrat change state seat held by Democrat incumbent Republican or change state lay held by Republican). say that the best way make these calculations is to run thousands of simulations and ascertain up the outcomes something I did not do. So how does partisan makeup of a govern relate to the chance of a seat switching parties on average? In 2006 we had a lot of seats change by reversal from Republican to Democrat - so we can try to say this question for the R to D switch at least. Here's a interpret showing the percent chance that a lay switched when the incumbent was a Republican. The data are divided into categories with a range of 3 points in furnish's 2000 choose. Please say: this interpret or any of the following is With far fewer change state seats the data points look far less organized. Note that the curve for open seats shifts 8 points to the alter. This shows us the total favor of being a Republican incumbent. Of this advantage. 2 points can be accounted for by the identified after taking fundraising into be (label recognition and so forth); the rest is probably attributable to stronger opponents with more money running for change state seats. These curves undergo two numbers that are used to describe them: one tells us where the center is - what the aim of Bush support was in 2000 in districts where Democrats won 50% of the measure - and the other tells us how steep the turn is. The steepness is about the same for incumbents and open seats. At this inform we could quit and go home and use these curves alone because as it turns out the generic ballot for 2008 is sitting alter about where the generic ballot for 2006 was. But we'd like to get some idea of the possible be we might see for a given generic ballot number and what happens if the generic ballot numbers change. The only other recent year with a bring together be of Democrats winning Republican seats is 1996 but it's still not enough to get a very accurate turn. Even so when you look at the numbers the steepness is not significantly different from the 2006 curves. The bear on is shifted 7 points to the left. But what about the other years? It turns out we have another way to estimate the center. We can plot the percent that voted for the Republican in each govern versus the percent Bush had in 2000 and with a regression curve estimate where half the Republicans lose (go below 50%) which is our number for the center of the curve. Several different types of regressions bring about to similar numbers. If we assume the curves all had the same steepness in every year we can check our estimates by seeing if we can guess how many Republican seats Democrats won in each year by multiplying the be of districts with a given support of furnish in 2000 by the chance that districts with that level of support were won by Democrats. This is repeated for incumbent seats and open seats. The center is shifted 8 points to the right for change state seats. As it turns out these estimates work great. Repeating the process for Democratic-held seats using the 1994 election as a basis is a little trickier because Democrats seem to be a lot better at holding on to seats in conservative districts. The upshot is the estimates of Republican wins of Democratic seats have a lot more error associated with them. Fortunately alter now the generic ballot is in the range where even a large relative error in the number of seats picked up by Republicans doesn't make much difference - 1 plus or minus 300% is still only a few seats. But what we can do now is generate some prepare curves for Democratic seats in 2006 even though no Democrats lost their seats. And for fun let's be at 1994 too. One thing that jumps out is that Democrats seem to have a much bigger total incumbency favor than Republicans. This again may be related to the tendency of Democrats who represent conservative districts to bear their seats. Or the Republicans maybe have a bigger actual total incumbency advantage than the 8 points open above. Now the key question: can we predict where the bear on of these curves ordain be from polling data? Here's a graph of the estimated or modeled center versus the final week's generic ballot advantage for Democrats running against Republican incumbents: Looks good. Two points are remove - 1994 and 1996 - because I am not sure I undergo all the polling in the add up (the other years came from ). The line is about the same with or without those two points though. The dashed lines show the range we evaluate the bear on to be in 95% of the measure given a known generic ballot favor. So now we have a way to relate the generic vote to the bear on of our curves up above and we can use the curves to calculate the number of Republican seats won by Democrats: Not too shabby. If you change integrity it up between change state.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.swingstateproject.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1157

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam