« Ron Paul: The elephant in the room | Main | NY Post's "Clinton Alamo" graphic »

February 20, 2008


I'm just eyeballing your plots here, but it seems like "Obama support by Democratic presidential vote" is pretty much flat for primary states (even excluding DC).

Similarly, you see a trend in "Obama support by state education" - but again it looks pretty flat for primary states (excluding DC), strongly positive for caucuses.

I think you're contaminating your sample here. After all, you've already demonstrated that there's a big separation between caucus and primary election results.


Given that Obama seems to improve in a state the more he campaigns, does/should that diminish the weight of the Super Tuesday data, or at least impact our interpretation of them? For example, if they re-held Massachusetts today would the numbers be the same? And would does that tell your analysis?

(forgive weak logic: I am not a wonk)

Keep up the good work, Brendan!

Thanks for these analyses Brendan. I don't deal with data like these much, but I had two questions.

1) You exclude IL, AR, and NY. Perhaps HI and KS should be excluded for similar reasons?

2) Picking up on T_Porter's point, I wonder if there are publicly-available data you might add to your model to factor in the effect of time a candidate spends in a state in the month prior to the vote?

A model with a factor for money spent on advertising would be interesting too, but I wonder where you could possibly get such data.

The comments to this entry are closed.