Yesterday I pointed out that in the South Carolina Republican primaries this year where Huckabee did well Romney did badly, and vice versa, on a county by county basis. The tendency also seemed in line with the proportion of evangelicals within a county. I did the same analysis with Michigan....
| Correlation between candidate proportion and evangelical proportion by county | |||
| Huck | McCain | Romney | |
| Evanglical proportion | 0.12 | -0.20 | 0.05 |
| Correlation between candidate proportions by county | |||
| McCain | Huck | Romney | |
| McCain | - | 0.05 | -0.58 |
| Huck | - | - | -0.01 |
| Romney | - | - | - |
As you see the correlations are very low (do the coefficient of determination to get a sense of the variance relationships). The only thing that jumps out is that McCain counties tended to not be Romney counties, and vice versa. Probably one can account for this based upon the appeal of Romney's economic message to the eastern part of the state. In any case, South Carolina was quite different.
Note: Data file.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Not that interested in politics myself, but I was curious about the South Carolina primary. You can see the exit polls here; seems like Mike Huckabee won evangelicals while McCain won non-conservatives. Nothing too surprising. As someone who has generally been of the opinion that evangelical…
One "urban legend" which is in common circulation among my friends is that liberals are smarter than conservatives. From my own personal experience this seems plausible, and I doubt I'm the only one as evidenced by the furious speed at which the "Bush voting states have lower IQs" meme spread…
In the comments to my post, Why brown people are midgets, a reader pointed me to this paper, which tabulates and analyzes some data from the 1960s for males. There isn't anything too surprising in the data set; Punjabis are tall compared to non-Punjabis, higher castes are taller than lower castes…
I've been getting a lot of mail from people asking for my take on
the news about the Washington GOP primary. Most have wanted me to
debunk rumours about vote fixing there, the way that I tried to debunk the
rumours about the Democratic votes back in New Hampshire.
Well, sorry to disappoint those…
I suspect that "evangelical" is too broad a category, and that it's fundamentalist evangelicals who don't like Romney. And I think that fundamentalist evangelicals are especially common in the South.
"Evangelical", as I understand, means having a commitment to outreach and mission work to the point that you try to turn every contact with the unsaved into a conversion opportunity. Whereas "fundamentalist" means people strongly committed to specific theological and other doctrines. If I'm not mistaken, some evangelicals are not fundamentalist, for example a lot of the "new churches" and "prosperity gospel" churches My guess is that these would be less anti-Mormon, and perhaps they are commoner in Michigan.
I was going to say that I think that fundamentalism is especially Anglo-Saxon, whereas evangelism is non-ethnic. According to me theory, Catholics and Lutherans might become eveangelical, but are less likely to become fundamentalist.