bryantm3
10-18-2008, 04:03 PM
the time is now— make your presidential election prediction using your own methods, or by filling the states in at http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/calculator/ and take a screenshot of it, and post it here.
my prediction:
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y39/bryantm3/obama.jpg
(by the way, obama wins here)
this is controversial— i know.
what's controversial about my map?
Ohio, North Carolina, West Virginia, Florida, North Dakota, and New Hampshire.
Here are my reasons:
Ohio and West Virginia: Race. Southern Ohio and West Virginia have an extremely small population of blacks, and there are a lot of racists here. This is a prime place for the Bradley effect to take place; they'll tell the pollsters they'll vote for a black man, and when they get to the polls, they'll vote for a white man, even if they agree with the issues. Northern Ohio will be fairly safe for the Democrats, and if there is a high turnout there it may shift for Obama, but I think West Virginia is fairly safe for McCain based on race.
North Carolina: Race again; here, over 20% of the population is black. They will come out in droves to vote for Obama; in addition, the economic conditions here are starting to slow especially in Raleigh-Durham and Burlington, and the white folks there aren't afraid of blacks.
Florida: North Florida. North Florida is a region that is very often ignored and people don't even talk about it when referring to Florida. North Florida is a lot like coastal Virginia— middle class, tropical climate, lots of Christians, and they're swing voters. This election season, there is no candidate that rabidly is against abortion or gay marriage, two issues that are important here. In just about every other issue, the people here agree with the Democrats. So, in theory, they will vote for a Democrat. However, race may play a role here, but I think it will be less likely because there is a fairly high black population here, and people vote with the familiar (ie: they are more likely to vote for a black man because they spend more time around blacks than the folks up in West Virginia). Also, a reverse Bradley effect might be observed here— it should be noted that in studies, the Bradley effect was most common in Western or Northern states because, frankly, people hide their racism there and pretend it doesn't exist. Here, people are expected to be more racist and if they are doing a phone survey with a relative nearby, they may say they will vote for McCain, but when it comes time to get in the booth, many of them will vote for Barack Obama.
North Dakota: First of all, look at hate groups. There is only one hate group in North Dakota, a Neo-Nazi group in Fargo. So blacks aren't their first concern. Now, let's look at income— the per capita income is $4,000 less than the national average. So, we've got a bunch of middle class whites living in the snow. Sounds a lot like Iowa, doesn't it? But we've got another thing going, party identity. Out west, parties are new, and people don't have this "I've got to vote R or D on the ballot" ideology, so I think it's fairly safe to say that most people in this region vote on policy. And in this election cycle, Obama's got the hold on middle class voters. So while there may be some neo-nazis and rich folks who occasionally will vote for McCain, I think North Dakota will go for Obama by a few points.
New Hampshire: One percent black. Average household income here is almost $10,000 more than the national average. Rich whites. They usually vote Democrat probably because of social issues and less because of economic issues, because these people aren't hurting for money. This is also a prime place for the Bradley effect, since people don't want to look racist in such a progressive region of America, but they are. Lastly, McCain won the primary here in 2000 and in 2008. They obviously have a thing for this guy— so that's why I think it will go for McCain by a small margin.
my prediction:
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y39/bryantm3/obama.jpg
(by the way, obama wins here)
this is controversial— i know.
what's controversial about my map?
Ohio, North Carolina, West Virginia, Florida, North Dakota, and New Hampshire.
Here are my reasons:
Ohio and West Virginia: Race. Southern Ohio and West Virginia have an extremely small population of blacks, and there are a lot of racists here. This is a prime place for the Bradley effect to take place; they'll tell the pollsters they'll vote for a black man, and when they get to the polls, they'll vote for a white man, even if they agree with the issues. Northern Ohio will be fairly safe for the Democrats, and if there is a high turnout there it may shift for Obama, but I think West Virginia is fairly safe for McCain based on race.
North Carolina: Race again; here, over 20% of the population is black. They will come out in droves to vote for Obama; in addition, the economic conditions here are starting to slow especially in Raleigh-Durham and Burlington, and the white folks there aren't afraid of blacks.
Florida: North Florida. North Florida is a region that is very often ignored and people don't even talk about it when referring to Florida. North Florida is a lot like coastal Virginia— middle class, tropical climate, lots of Christians, and they're swing voters. This election season, there is no candidate that rabidly is against abortion or gay marriage, two issues that are important here. In just about every other issue, the people here agree with the Democrats. So, in theory, they will vote for a Democrat. However, race may play a role here, but I think it will be less likely because there is a fairly high black population here, and people vote with the familiar (ie: they are more likely to vote for a black man because they spend more time around blacks than the folks up in West Virginia). Also, a reverse Bradley effect might be observed here— it should be noted that in studies, the Bradley effect was most common in Western or Northern states because, frankly, people hide their racism there and pretend it doesn't exist. Here, people are expected to be more racist and if they are doing a phone survey with a relative nearby, they may say they will vote for McCain, but when it comes time to get in the booth, many of them will vote for Barack Obama.
North Dakota: First of all, look at hate groups. There is only one hate group in North Dakota, a Neo-Nazi group in Fargo. So blacks aren't their first concern. Now, let's look at income— the per capita income is $4,000 less than the national average. So, we've got a bunch of middle class whites living in the snow. Sounds a lot like Iowa, doesn't it? But we've got another thing going, party identity. Out west, parties are new, and people don't have this "I've got to vote R or D on the ballot" ideology, so I think it's fairly safe to say that most people in this region vote on policy. And in this election cycle, Obama's got the hold on middle class voters. So while there may be some neo-nazis and rich folks who occasionally will vote for McCain, I think North Dakota will go for Obama by a few points.
New Hampshire: One percent black. Average household income here is almost $10,000 more than the national average. Rich whites. They usually vote Democrat probably because of social issues and less because of economic issues, because these people aren't hurting for money. This is also a prime place for the Bradley effect, since people don't want to look racist in such a progressive region of America, but they are. Lastly, McCain won the primary here in 2000 and in 2008. They obviously have a thing for this guy— so that's why I think it will go for McCain by a small margin.