Hackett improved by 32% to 55% in 6 counties but only 3% in Hamilton?

[lostnfound]

I don't know what this means, but I asked myself this question:

For each county, how did the pie get sliced for Bush (2004) compared to what went to Schmidt, and for Kerry compared to Hackett..

For example, in Claremont, Kerry got 29% of the pie (to Bush's 71%) but Hackett got 42% (to Schmidt's 58%)...Hackett's showing was 42%/29% better than Kerry's showing = 1.44 = an improvement of 44%.

In a similar manner, the results of calculations for each county shows that Hackett outperformed Kerry by 32%/36%/46%/51%/55%/44% in 6 counties..but only 3% in Hamilton?
County Schmitt Hackett
Name v Bush v Kerry
Clarem. -18% +44%
Brown -31% +55%
Hamilt. -3% +3%
Warren -20% +51%
Adams -26% +46%
Scioto -33% +36%
Pike -29% +32%

Adding another column to see how turnout compared, we see that there was slightly less turnout proportionally for Hamilton, but not that much different:
County Schmitt Hackett Total
Name v Bush v Kerry Votes
Clarem. -18% +44% -66%
Brown -31% +55% -64%
Hamilt. -3% +3% -88%
Warren -20% +51% -86%
Adams -26% +46% -66%
Scioto -33% +36% -78%
Pike -29% +32% -66%

...thus Hamilton dropped by 88%, a little more than Warren's drop, considerably more of a drop than some of the other counties.


The above percentages are based on this data:
County Bush Kerry Schmidt Hackett
Clarem. 61694 25318 17320 12439
Brown 12480 7058 3100 3950
Hamilt. 215639 190956 25011 23597
Warren 66523 25399 7556 5420
Adams 7480 4189 1911 2101
Scioto 17938 16438 2638 4925
Pike 6385 5865 1559 2659
388139 275223 59095 55091

yielding this "pie"
County Bush Kerry Schmidt Hackett
Clarem. 71% 29% 58% 42%
Brown 64% 36% 44% 56%
Hamilt. 53% 47% 51% 49%
Warren 72% 28% 58% 42%
Adams 64% 36% 48% 52%
Scioto 52% 48% 35% 65%
Pike 52% 48% 37% 63%

[FreedomAngel82]

1. People do change their minds over time

Remember it's been a little while since November. A lot has happened since then with Bush. Terri Schavio to Valerie Wilson.

[GetTheRightVote]

2. Sounds odd ??

:kick:

[1932]

3. It probably means Schmidt knew exactly where her voters were and

worked that one county to death rather than spread out her resources throughout the district.

One thing money buys is the data required to make the best strategic decisions and the media required to execute that strategy.

[In Truth We Trust]

5. Yeah right.....thats the ticket. That explains this statistical IMPOSSIBIL

ity!

[1932]

7. It's not statistically impossible. If her entire GOTV and media effort

was concentrated in those precincts, then it isn't impossible. (Also, if she was a state legislator for a district in Hamilton County, that also would explain the difference.)

If those things didn't happen, then I agree that it's improbable.

But my bet is that she knew where to concentrate her efforts.

[Old and In the Way]

12. Or......

Republicans focused their electioneering in Hamilton.

Those stats look mighty suspicious to me.

Seems to me that the more you'd see Schmidt, the less you'd like her. So, what is/are the differentiating variable(s) that make Hamilton Co. unique?

Is it the water?
Is it the weather?
Is it the schools?
Is it demographics?
Is it the news coverage?
Is it the voting system?
Is it the BOE personnel?

There's gotta be a reason why Hamilton skews so far from the Norm. Personally, I think they knew that there would be a high level scrutiny in this election. Trying to game multiple districts would significantly increase their chances of getting caught. But if you could pick one place and have a plan, maybe you could pull it off.

Problem is, not fixing the other counties makes the one that is fixed stick out like a sore thumb.

I know what it is....all the "values" voters live in Hamilton! I'll bet Bill Schaeffer at CNN is sifting through the data now...

[lostnfound]

16. Seems Carpetbagger has a good explanation.

It's not ALL of Hamilton county in this election; only the suburbs (Repub) of Cincinati.

[Old and In the Way]

18. How are those Republicans different from the rest in the district?

Are there more Republican "values" voters there? Or do they have a different diet? Perhaps there's a logical reason and I'll be following the story with great interest.

[theHandpuppet]

27. The Cincinnati area is conservatively Catholic and wealthier

Schmidt is a rabid foe of reproductive rights and plays that card for votes. In some areas of the country where Catholic congregations are more liberal there is much less of a tendency for any candidate to draw one-issue voters to the polls. (Note: the anti-choice issue is also strong among the area's fundamentalist, evangelical Protestant congregations, which are also very conservative.) These one-issue voters can effectively cancel out traditionally Dem voters among the Cincy area's more populous minority voters.

The four easternmost counties of the district, which went for Hackett, are just as heavily Protestant, rural and much poorer, with very small minority populations. Culturally, they are what is considered among the state's Appalachian counties. Schmidt's anti-choice platform doesn't play as well in these counties, where economic distress directs voters towards broader priorities and one-issue, anti-choice votes are unlikely to sway an election.

Breakdown of religious denominations and income for "red counties"

Hamilton County:
http://www.thearda.com/FR_Index.html?/RCMS/2000/County/39061.htm
In 2002, the per capita personal income in Hamilton County was $35,883. This was an increase of 22.1% from 1997. The 2002 figure was 116% of the national per capita income, which was $30,906.

Clermont County:
http://www.thearda.com/FR_Index.html?/RCMS/2000/County/39025.htm
In 2002, the per capita personal income in Clermont County was $29,638. This was an increase of 25.3% from 1997. The 2002 figure was 96% of the national per capita income, which was $30,906.

Warren County:
http://www.thearda.com/FR_Index.html?/RCMS/2000/County/39165.htm
In 2002, the per capita personal income in Warren County was $30,955. This was an increase of 15.8% from 1997. The 2002 figure was 100% of the national per capita income, which was $30,906.

Compare the above statistics with those for the four "blue" counties:

Scioto County:
http://www.thearda.com/FR_Index.html?/RCMS/2000/County/39145.htm
In 2002, the per capita personal income in Scioto County was $20,914. This was an increase of 17.9% from 1997. The 2002 figure was 68% of the national per capita income, which was $30,906.

Pike County:
http://www.thearda.com/FR_Index.html?/RCMS/2000/County/39131.htm
In 2002, the per capita personal income in Pike County was $20,845. This was an increase of 15.9% from 1997. The 2002 figure was 67% of the national per capita income, which was $30,906.

Adams County:
http://www.thearda.com/FR_Index.html?/RCMS/2000/County/39001.htm
In 2002, the per capita personal income in Adams County was $19,660. This was an increase of 21.4% from 1997. The 2002 figure was 64% of the national per capita income, which was $30,906.

Brown County:
http://www.thearda.com/FR_Index.html?/RCMS/2000/County/39015.htm
In 2002, the per capita personal income in Brown County was $22,815. This was an increase of 15.3% from 1997. The 2002 figure was 74% of the national per capita income, which was $30,906.

As you can see, Ohio's 2nd District is very polarized.

[Land Shark]

19. Virtually ANY reason will do to justify the results

even though data and analysis are NEVER disclosed (i.e. ballots and trade secret counting software are never disclosed).

Under conditions of utter secrecy as to process, one can not accept any plausible excuse. At least not if one wishes to avoid having one's democracy corrupted.

[Raksha]

22. But what would a "values voter" see in Schmidt anyway?

Re >>I know what it is....all the "values" voters live in Hamilton!<<

With her BDSM campaign manager and her ties to Noe, and running against an Iraq war vet? But then what the hell do I know...I never could figure out Republican "values" anyway.

[Old and In the Way]

25. That was CNN/Bill Schaeffer's reasoning to explain Bush's 2004 "win"

My brain exploded trying to ken that concept. "Values" voters carried the day for Bush? Values like disregarding the warnings of an imminent attack on 9/11, liquidating a $500BB surplus into a$400BB deficit, and lying about the causus belli to fight an immoral war in Iraq? Those kind of values?

So I guess, Bill will see Schmidt's win as a validation of his theory. :eyes:

[iconoclastNYC]

9. Most money is spent on TV ads

and i dont think you can target that on a county basis.

[1932]

20. Four color door knockers with polling place and hours can be expensive.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if she did well in the precincts she represented in her previous jobs.

Anyone know if she has represented hamilton county in previous jobs?

[In Truth We Trust]

4. kick for truth-Nail `em

[bleever]

6. Because Schmidt is from Hamilton Co.? No.

Must be another reason.

Kick.

[aquart]

8. Is that where the polls were found closed?

[lostnfound]

10. I've got a graph; where can I upload it (i.e., free hosting site?) nt

[Richard Steele]

11. Do you have Photobucket? It's free, easy and fast.

[lostnfound]

13. Thanks! Here's a graph:

The diagonal line represents where the bubbles would lie if Hackett got the same fraction of the vote as Kerry (i.e., consistent voting pattern).

Hamilton hardly budged, but Hackett was incredibly successful in outperforming Schmidt in the other counties. WHY??

[carpetbagger]

14. OH-2 is only in a small, republican part of Hamilton Co.

The only part of Hamilton Co. that went to the polls were the eastern suburbs. Ain't no way Kerry got 47% in that part of the county.

[lostnfound]

15. Ahhh.. That makes sense. Thanks. nt

[Land Shark]

21. According to a thread in 2004 elections, all but a small part of

hamilton is in the second cong district. (originally one person was thinking that there were over 5000 undervotes but that was then agreed to be ballots without a 2nd congressional district choice within Hamilton county)

OK, but then i found on edit this 2d map, looks like a bit less than half of hamilton is in the second.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_Second_Congressional_District_Election,_2005>

[theHandpuppet]

17. Just an observation...

The GOP's deck was stacked because this election was held in mid-summer.

Cincinnati is home to several universities, including the University of Cincinnati and Xavier University; UC alone has an enrollment of 35,000 students. Considering how close this election turned out to be, even a meager student vote would probably have resulted in a Hackett victory.

Just some food for thought. The next time there is a midsummer election in the 2nd District, the Dems really need to push for absentee ballots for those students who are registered in Hamilton County but are away for the summer.

[me b zola]

23. A possible reason for the skew

Is that you are using the official numbers attributed to Kerry in '04.

Try using Kerry's exit poll numbers if you want to see what discrepancies there may be.

[blm]

30. I think Bush's vote totals were padded to counter the increased number of

Dem voters in Ohio.

Really, if you compare the 2000 and 2004 tallies, you see an unusual increase in Bush votes in 2004 - especially odd since he won Ohio in 2000 by 3%. How do they explain how they got MANY MORE votes than in 2000, while at the same time, Kerry increased his numbers sharply over Gore's total there?

[me b zola]

32. I think that many techniques were used

I don't remember off of the top of my head which precincts showed indications (or were down right caught) of using which techniques.

Padding was certainly used. This would be at the tabulator level as well as the machines that began the day with thousands of bush votes already "cast".

Vote flipping was also used. Many people reported casting their votes for Kerry, but the screen showed that they bush received the vote. This would be a zero sum ratio, were an "extra" B vote means minus one vote for Kerry.

Not counting absentee or provisional ballots in heavily Democratic precincts also occurred. Thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of Democratic votes were never counted.

Then of course there is the voter disenfranchisement & voter intimidation that occurred. Once again, how many thousands of Democratic votes were lost is not known.


2004 was not the first year that the rethugs used any of these techniques, it just looks like they used these methods more widely than they have in any previous sElection. Right now, particularly in Florida & Ohio (although I believe that vote padding occurred in many other states to ensure a *win* of the popular vote) that the raw exit poll numbers are the best way to analyze the real outcome of the (any)election.

Even though Kerry's official numbers sharply increased over Gore's numbers four years previous, I believe Kerry's numbers increased more than 3%--but then again, how many of these techniques were used against Gore in 2000?. Record numbers of people were motivated to vote in '04. When have Americans ever been motivated to wait in line for hours to cast their ballot? I believe that there was a popular mandate to oust the lying turd who pummeled the economy, gave away our jobs, and illegally invaded another country in the most foolish of manners.


I am not saying that there was no hanky-panky used against Paul Hackett. I'm just saying that the rethugs have been adjusting the official numbers for so long and in so many ways that to compare Hackett's numbers with previous sElection results may not be the most accurate way to show a skew.

[blm]

34. I'm definitely with you on that assessment.

.

[blm]

35. I'm definitely with you on that assessment.

.

[kodi]

24. Hackett appeared to make strong inroads in rural areas

the suburbs still went heavily for schmidt (they have felt less the economic impact of bushevik policies) but in rural, poorer areas, those more inclined to bear a libertarian streak instead of a traditional conservative one shifted to Hackett.

two things are evident, democratic candidates can increase their support in rural areas if the candidate supports 2nd amendment issues, and the rural areas are hurting so bad that the residents are willing to change the basis upon which they vote, viz., from cultural to economic issues.

this is evidence that what howard dean was talking about over a year ago about what the democratic party must emphasize is true.

the dems have to push gun control back to the state and local level, reach out and exploit the libertarian streak in the rural population by emphasizing how much bigger government control over their lives has occurred under the republicans, ie., the patriot act, and provide assistance for job growth.

[Old and In the Way]

26. Totally agree.

Gun control must be a state and local issue. The needs of New York City and the needs of rural America on gun control are totally divergent. Both have a valid basis for their positions and those that don't like the laws in their immediate environment can vote with their feet. I think that Hackett has proven that there are no "one size fits all" Democrats. We're not going to find any candidate that can shoe-horned into a generic Democratic mold.

It's kind of interesting actually....I think this criminal administration has forced those on the left-of-center and those on the right-of-center to rethink/compromise their politics and give ground back to the middle. I believe people are realizing that the Republicans have exploited single issue politics to divide an electorate who actually share many common values.

[Connie_Corleone]

28. Only part of Hamilton county is District 2.

The other part is District 1. District 1 has more Democrats.

[TNOE]

33. Correct

Not all of Hamilton County got to vote.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

29. The only thing I hate more than statistics...

...is amateur statistics.

[lostnfound]

31. Aren't you sweet.

You happen to add your two cents on a day when I was already feeling pretty worthless; thanks for erasing any doubts.