Display:
Thanks. This means the following: there are three statistically significant effects. In order of decreasing significance:
  • percentage holding bachelor's degrees - with a coefficient in favour of Obama of 46±6 e-4. Assuming the percentage is expressed from 0 to 100 and not from 0 to 1, each 10% increase in the proportion of people with bachelor's degrees results in a 4.6%±0.6% change in the vote percentage difference in favour of Obama. This is consistent with the fact that this variable explains 22% of the variance as per the ANOVA table, which would not be the case assuming the variable is expressed from 0 to 1. This is an extremely significant effect.

  • machines - the presence of machines results in an 8.8%±3.5% swing towards Clinton. This effect is significant to 98% and explains 13% of the variance.

  • unemployment rate - with a coefficient in favour of Obama of 5±2 e-4. That is, a 10% increase in the unemployment rate translates into a 0.5%±0.2% change in the vote percentage difference in favour of Obama. This is significant to 95% and explains 5% of the variance.

Note that it statistical significance and explanatory power correlate, but it is possible to have statistically significant coefficients not explaining much, and it is possible to have coefficients not significantly different from zero esplaining large fractions of the variance.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jan 16th, 2008 at 05:57:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Did anyone run gender?
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Wed Jan 16th, 2008 at 06:27:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Apparently that one is missing, as is race. At least they're missing from continuation's regression.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jan 16th, 2008 at 06:50:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
From what I've read elsewhere, it seems there was a significant female swing toward Clinton in NH.  The assumption in leaving it out of these regressions may be that gender wouldn't correlate with geographical distribution, but I'm not sure that would turn out to be true.

Race may not be a huge factor in NH because my anecdotal impression (I've never been there) is that it's pretty darn overwhelmingly white.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Wed Jan 16th, 2008 at 07:24:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The CNN exit polls showed a 57% female/43% male distribution, as pointed out by Dataguy in his BooTrib diary.

That won't necessarily show up on census data, will it? Though it is worth getting the data just in case a 1% shift in the gender ratio from town to town actually explains something.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jan 16th, 2008 at 07:29:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It is not unusual for the gender balance in small towns, rural areas and inner cities to skew in one direction or another.  I'm not sure about NH, though.  But it could also be interesting to see if the exit polls break down gender turnout by region, i.e. to see if urban women were more likely to vote than rural or small-town women, or something like that.
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Wed Jan 16th, 2008 at 07:33:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series