I remain surprised that the general public has no idea of the depths of this financial crisis and how it will affect everyday life. Nor am I going to spend any time discussing it beyond posing one question: Do you have to pay money for long term loans such as a car or mortgage or are you using a credit card and not paying it off in full every month? If the answer is yes to either of those questions, then you are going to have to start thinking about long term savings.
I write simply express my disgust with how bad our economy has become and wish out loud that the rest of the world economy doesn't get too far sucked down the tubes along with us. Have you ever tried to catch a falling knife? Hopefully President Bush simply creates an executive order to stop this insanity. If your money is still in the market in anything, get it out now!
Regardless of how my voice counts for nothing in all of this, as Delawareans, our lone representative, Mike Castle, certainly is one incumbent who put country above individual partisan politics and voted yes for the bailout bill. So, in one respect, Delaware did its part to try and bandage this national wound. Unfortunately, we needed the other 49 states to step up as well, and without the requisite support, the rest of the world is going to have to step back and think about this a little while longer.
Unfortunately also for every American who is not a Congressional member in Washington, the failure to put out a recovery plan today only means that tomorrow (and at least the rest of the week) will be another rough day for Wall Street. How will this affect "main street"? Just wait until the next time you need money.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Monday, September 22, 2008
Behind the scenes of the Lobby House revealed in a tell-all lawsuit ripe for a made-for-tv movie
This headline in the News Journal jumped out at me, particular since I frequent the Lobby House often for lunch. The article speaks for itself, and as noted, the jury agreed with the former worker and awarded $1,500 in compensatory damages and $100,000 in punitive damages.
I disagree that its business will be "destroyed" by this lawsuit anymore than Wal-Mart is ruining our economy by failing to unionize. People need a place to go to eat and it's one of the more affordable places with ambiance in Dover. For its location and pricing, frankly I'm surprised the Lobby House isn't more successful. It's menu is decent, and while the service is a little slow, it is on par with the rest of the city. If their business is "destroyed," it certainly is not because of this lawsuit. Personally, I would blame NASA, Canada, and the invention of the biplane. And polar bears.
For me anyway, this piece of news is just that; I highly doubt it will make me more or less inclined to keep going there. Further, this took place at least two years ago, and one would think that even assuming there used to be problems such as those that have come to light, they have since been fixed. Trust me, there are much bigger problems to worry about than how one small business chooses to deal with its employees or if it chooses to continue to operate privately after it has closed. One need only look at the turmoil in the financial markets to recognize this latter point.
Nonetheless, this article is an interesting piece of news for those familiar with it:
Legislative Hangout Has a Lurid Side, Lawsuit Alleges
By Sean O'Sullivan and Ginger Gibson, Wilmington News Journal, Sept. 21, 2008
With its red-brick exterior and patio overlooking Silver Lake, the Lobby House appears to be as staid and conservative as a lobbyist in a Brooks Brothers suit haunting the hallways of nearby Legislative Hall.
Inside, servers in khaki pants and blue polo shirts serve burgers and the occasional beer to the sound of ESPN from several TVs. The Rotary Club meets there Mondays, families enjoy half-price sandwiches on Tuesdays and Team Trivia plays there Wednesdays.
Former state representative-turned-lobbyist Wayne A. Smith said the eatery, which is where Delaware Democrats nominated Lt. Gov. John Carney to run for governor, is "neat, clean and close to Legislative Hall."
But in federal court this month, a different picture emerged that made the Lobby House after hours sound more like the movie "Animal House."
Former bartender Shannon Laymon charged in a lawsuit and testimony in U.S. District Court that wild parties happened regularly – mostly after closing – with waitresses serving shots off their bodies, one offering "lap dances," managers serving liquor from their crotch areas and encouraging, or at least ignoring, waitresses going topless or flashing others.
All of this, Laymon's attorney Noel E. Primos said, created a hostile work environment and amounted to sexual harassment. He said Laymon was fired after she hired an attorney to pursue a workers' compensation claim and complained to a manager about an inappropriate comment by the owner.
After four days of testimony, a federal jury of eight agreed with Laymon.
It unanimously ruled that the Lobby House failed to take corrective action and retaliated against Laymon (who has married since she filed the lawsuit in 2007 and is now known as Laymon-Pecoraro).
She was awarded $1,500 in compensatory damages and $100,000 in punitive damages. At trial and afterward, operators of the Lobby House and their attorney, Ronald Poliquin, disputed Laymon's claims.
Owner Ken Caudill, who used to run KC's in Middletown, said last week he remains stunned. "What she said, it just didn't happen." He said the amount of the jury award is not a problem but believes the negative publicity will "destroy" the restaurant and 30 to 35 people will lose their jobs.
Attorney Poliquin said after the trial he would seek to have the jury award and verdict tossed out.
Primos said Friday that both sides had the opportunity to present their cases at trial. "There were numerous witnesses by both sides, many more by the defendant ... and the jury made its decision."
Legislative officials who frequent the restaurant were surprised by the details that emerged from the trial.
"You've got to be kidding me, it must be after 10 [p.m.]," said Smith, the former lawmaker, when told of the allegations.
Kate Bailey, a spokeswoman for Gov. Ruth Ann Minner, said she has eaten there a half-dozen times and never suspected such behavior.
"It’s not too exciting [at the Lobby House]," she said. "It's a place to eat."
"Holy cow," said state Sen. Karen Peterson, who described the Lobby House as "a handy place to meet people" and a regular destination for her end-of-session staff lunch.
Laymon, 24, began work at the Lobby House in August 2005, a college student in need of a flexible, good-paying job.
Primos told the jury that during Laymon's seven months there, female employees were advised by management to wear more revealing clothes to get better tips – one was advised to stuff her bra – and Laymon said a manager took her into the men's room to see her breasts.
Laymon and an ex-waitress testified there were regular wild parties after closing, including New Year's Eve 2005. That night, a 19-year-old waitress, who Laymon said had been drinking, stripped down to a G-string and bra and danced on the bar.
Managers did nothing to stop the display, according to testimony, and it was Laymon and another female employee who got the woman to get down and put her clothes back on.
"The Lobby House was a place where perverted behavior was commonplace," Primos told the jury in closing arguments. "Where female employees felt free to run around topless and flash their breasts."
Other witnesses disputed Laymon's claims.
One former waitress and a current waitress denied there were regular wild parties, and told the jury that the New Year's Eve incident was an anomaly.
Both also testified that they had flashed their breasts while working at the Lobby House. One bristled at the suggestion that she showed her breasts in exchange for beer, saying she did it because she felt like it.
Laymon also joined in the flashing, they said, showing off a piercing in a private area to two employees in the kitchen one night.
One who saw it claimed Laymon proudly, willingly showed off the piercing. Laymon testified that she felt pressured by a male co-worker to show it.
Primos said his client kept her mouth shut about the situation for months because she worried that if she complained, she would be fired.
Within two weeks of complaining to a manager about hearing an inappropriate remark by the owner, Primos said, Laymon was fired March 17, 2006.
Primos charged managers also were upset with Laymon for hiring an attorney several weeks earlier to pursue a workers' compensation claim for medical bills related to an on-the-job injury in October 2005.
Attorney Poliquin, in his closing statement, began with, "Wow." He told jurors if they believed Primos, everyone who worked at or went to the Lobby House "is a perverted sicko."
Poliquin and Caudill noted that Laymon had been diagnosed with depression before she went to work at the Lobby House – something Laymon acknowledged – and some Lobby House employees claimed Laymon acted erratically.
The case, in Poliquin's view, was about the right of a small restaurant to fire an employee who was hurting the business. He described Laymon as a "know-it-all" chronic complainer with an attitude problem who was bad-mouthing the establishment to customers as she served them.
"The business of the Lobby House is fun," Poliquin said, and Laymon "was miserable to be around in a place that sells fun."
As for New Year's Eve and some of the other incidents, Poliquin told the jury, "It's a bar and a nightclub. Not a corporation. Not a church."
I disagree that its business will be "destroyed" by this lawsuit anymore than Wal-Mart is ruining our economy by failing to unionize. People need a place to go to eat and it's one of the more affordable places with ambiance in Dover. For its location and pricing, frankly I'm surprised the Lobby House isn't more successful. It's menu is decent, and while the service is a little slow, it is on par with the rest of the city. If their business is "destroyed," it certainly is not because of this lawsuit. Personally, I would blame NASA, Canada, and the invention of the biplane. And polar bears.
For me anyway, this piece of news is just that; I highly doubt it will make me more or less inclined to keep going there. Further, this took place at least two years ago, and one would think that even assuming there used to be problems such as those that have come to light, they have since been fixed. Trust me, there are much bigger problems to worry about than how one small business chooses to deal with its employees or if it chooses to continue to operate privately after it has closed. One need only look at the turmoil in the financial markets to recognize this latter point.
Nonetheless, this article is an interesting piece of news for those familiar with it:
Legislative Hangout Has a Lurid Side, Lawsuit Alleges
By Sean O'Sullivan and Ginger Gibson, Wilmington News Journal, Sept. 21, 2008
With its red-brick exterior and patio overlooking Silver Lake, the Lobby House appears to be as staid and conservative as a lobbyist in a Brooks Brothers suit haunting the hallways of nearby Legislative Hall.
Inside, servers in khaki pants and blue polo shirts serve burgers and the occasional beer to the sound of ESPN from several TVs. The Rotary Club meets there Mondays, families enjoy half-price sandwiches on Tuesdays and Team Trivia plays there Wednesdays.
Former state representative-turned-lobbyist Wayne A. Smith said the eatery, which is where Delaware Democrats nominated Lt. Gov. John Carney to run for governor, is "neat, clean and close to Legislative Hall."
But in federal court this month, a different picture emerged that made the Lobby House after hours sound more like the movie "Animal House."
Former bartender Shannon Laymon charged in a lawsuit and testimony in U.S. District Court that wild parties happened regularly – mostly after closing – with waitresses serving shots off their bodies, one offering "lap dances," managers serving liquor from their crotch areas and encouraging, or at least ignoring, waitresses going topless or flashing others.
All of this, Laymon's attorney Noel E. Primos said, created a hostile work environment and amounted to sexual harassment. He said Laymon was fired after she hired an attorney to pursue a workers' compensation claim and complained to a manager about an inappropriate comment by the owner.
After four days of testimony, a federal jury of eight agreed with Laymon.
It unanimously ruled that the Lobby House failed to take corrective action and retaliated against Laymon (who has married since she filed the lawsuit in 2007 and is now known as Laymon-Pecoraro).
She was awarded $1,500 in compensatory damages and $100,000 in punitive damages. At trial and afterward, operators of the Lobby House and their attorney, Ronald Poliquin, disputed Laymon's claims.
Owner Ken Caudill, who used to run KC's in Middletown, said last week he remains stunned. "What she said, it just didn't happen." He said the amount of the jury award is not a problem but believes the negative publicity will "destroy" the restaurant and 30 to 35 people will lose their jobs.
Attorney Poliquin said after the trial he would seek to have the jury award and verdict tossed out.
Primos said Friday that both sides had the opportunity to present their cases at trial. "There were numerous witnesses by both sides, many more by the defendant ... and the jury made its decision."
Legislative officials who frequent the restaurant were surprised by the details that emerged from the trial.
"You've got to be kidding me, it must be after 10 [p.m.]," said Smith, the former lawmaker, when told of the allegations.
Kate Bailey, a spokeswoman for Gov. Ruth Ann Minner, said she has eaten there a half-dozen times and never suspected such behavior.
"It’s not too exciting [at the Lobby House]," she said. "It's a place to eat."
"Holy cow," said state Sen. Karen Peterson, who described the Lobby House as "a handy place to meet people" and a regular destination for her end-of-session staff lunch.
Laymon, 24, began work at the Lobby House in August 2005, a college student in need of a flexible, good-paying job.
Primos told the jury that during Laymon's seven months there, female employees were advised by management to wear more revealing clothes to get better tips – one was advised to stuff her bra – and Laymon said a manager took her into the men's room to see her breasts.
Laymon and an ex-waitress testified there were regular wild parties after closing, including New Year's Eve 2005. That night, a 19-year-old waitress, who Laymon said had been drinking, stripped down to a G-string and bra and danced on the bar.
Managers did nothing to stop the display, according to testimony, and it was Laymon and another female employee who got the woman to get down and put her clothes back on.
"The Lobby House was a place where perverted behavior was commonplace," Primos told the jury in closing arguments. "Where female employees felt free to run around topless and flash their breasts."
Other witnesses disputed Laymon's claims.
One former waitress and a current waitress denied there were regular wild parties, and told the jury that the New Year's Eve incident was an anomaly.
Both also testified that they had flashed their breasts while working at the Lobby House. One bristled at the suggestion that she showed her breasts in exchange for beer, saying she did it because she felt like it.
Laymon also joined in the flashing, they said, showing off a piercing in a private area to two employees in the kitchen one night.
One who saw it claimed Laymon proudly, willingly showed off the piercing. Laymon testified that she felt pressured by a male co-worker to show it.
Primos said his client kept her mouth shut about the situation for months because she worried that if she complained, she would be fired.
Within two weeks of complaining to a manager about hearing an inappropriate remark by the owner, Primos said, Laymon was fired March 17, 2006.
Primos charged managers also were upset with Laymon for hiring an attorney several weeks earlier to pursue a workers' compensation claim for medical bills related to an on-the-job injury in October 2005.
Attorney Poliquin, in his closing statement, began with, "Wow." He told jurors if they believed Primos, everyone who worked at or went to the Lobby House "is a perverted sicko."
Poliquin and Caudill noted that Laymon had been diagnosed with depression before she went to work at the Lobby House – something Laymon acknowledged – and some Lobby House employees claimed Laymon acted erratically.
The case, in Poliquin's view, was about the right of a small restaurant to fire an employee who was hurting the business. He described Laymon as a "know-it-all" chronic complainer with an attitude problem who was bad-mouthing the establishment to customers as she served them.
"The business of the Lobby House is fun," Poliquin said, and Laymon "was miserable to be around in a place that sells fun."
As for New Year's Eve and some of the other incidents, Poliquin told the jury, "It's a bar and a nightclub. Not a corporation. Not a church."
Tags:
Sunday, September 21, 2008
2008 Delaware primary and general election prediction
This is the last of my three part series on predictions on election turnout and voting breakdowns for the 2008 general election. I have already given a background on the current Delaware population and the 2004 primary and general election data.
There are two things I left off of the 2004 data. The first is the percentage of Delaware voters voting Democratic in the 2004 general election. As the world is well-aware, Delaware has turned a deep shade of blue, contrary to its previous reddish hue in the eighties and early nineties. The total percentage voting "D" in the 2004 general election was 53.3%; in New Castle, the percentage was 60.5%, in Kent, 42.6%, and in Sussex, 38.7%. Keep those percentages in mind.
Another chart necessary for comparison is the percentage of total vote each candidate received in the 2004 general election. That chart is here:
With the foundation set, here is the 2008 data (compiled from CNN's primary data and related sites).
2008 Delaware Republican primary voter turnout (Feb. 2008):
2008 Democrat Primary voter turnout (Feb. 2008):
Now, this doesn't really mean too much until you look at it broken down by party, and then compare the 2004 data to it. Granted, it's tough to compare exactly because there was no meaningful Republican primary (if there even was one at all) in 2004 because Bush was running for reelection. Nevertheless, nearly 40% of the turnout from the 2004 general election came out to vote in the 2008 primary. That's a huge increase. More interestingly, the turnout of those voting Democrat was statistically increased over the 2004 election. In other words, all three counties "turned blue", so to speak. Most interestingly, however, is the turnout in February 2008 as compared to February 2004. While the population increased only approximately 6% over that time period, the increase in voter turnout represented nearly a 300% increase.
All of this means very little, until you start looking at the population numbers. Using an estimated 1.0137% annual growth rate from July 2007 (which breaks down to a monthly growth rate of 0.061% in New Castle, 0.218% in Kent, and 0.189% in Sussex), and assuming a constant 75% voting population estimate, I derive the following chart (with registered voter data coming from the Department of Elections).
The initial question I had was whether the staggering increase in voter turnout in February would still hold true today. Fortunately for Delaware, the gubernatorial race between Markell and Carney proved worthwhile in a statistical sense, and provides support for my hypothesis that the answer is yes. While the numbers are slightly lower, it still demonstrates that voters continue to be engaged.
Thus, I am left to predict using this data (and my previous data calculations) to derive the turnout in November 2008. Because it is impossible to predict exactly how this election will play out, I will simply combine the data to show what the numbers could be using the 2004 percentages and the 2008 party distribution.
Thus, if Delaware had a similar voting turnout to 2004, Obama will likely carry New Castle County, and carry enough of Kent and Sussex to give him three electoral votes. This is not surprising, and every national poll has Delaware going blue. What I think is more interesting, however, is what happens if Obama (and the Democratic party) is successful in continuing to mobilize this "new" base (as evidenced by the incredible increase in voter turnout in February). Applying those numbers, as the chart indicates, Obama would carry each county, and carry the state with 66% of the vote.
The real question, in my mind, is not whether the February increase in voter turnout will carry over (since the September data results indicates it will), it is a question by how much. If the voter turnout increases from 60% to say, 70%, the numbers statistically favor a Democrat victory.
Now, this is just Delaware. Third party candidates have a statistically insignificant impact, and the population distribution of the state favors the Democrat party. What I find fascinating in this election is whether other states (and I suppose those that are "toss-ups") have similar percentage increases in voter turnout. Assuming for the sake of argument that they do, then that would seem to suggest that the percentages of voters voting Democrat in the various pockets of other states would also increase. My theory concerns that percentage increase in these pockets over those areas that experience a less dramatic increase in voter turnout (a theory that would obviously require analysis of every county in every state, which is simply beyond the scope of my three-part series). In the end, it becomes a simple numbers game. For those states where Democrats come out strong (such as in Virginia, Colorado, and other "toss up" states), the mobilization certainly favors the Democrats.
At this point, the only remaining question, which we will find out in a couple more months, is whether the voter turnout stays the same as in November 2004, or meets or exceeds that of February 2008. For John McCain, the answer to that question may very well depend on a mobilized base, which, in this year of it not being good to be the party in power, probably is a long-shot. Thus, while the election polls are running their regular polling data, and they should, I simply look at this data and conclude that the numbers are not taking into consideration the higher-than-predicted voter turnout. This x-factor certainly will be something all the reporters will be examining more heavily on the day and night of the election.
There are two things I left off of the 2004 data. The first is the percentage of Delaware voters voting Democratic in the 2004 general election. As the world is well-aware, Delaware has turned a deep shade of blue, contrary to its previous reddish hue in the eighties and early nineties. The total percentage voting "D" in the 2004 general election was 53.3%; in New Castle, the percentage was 60.5%, in Kent, 42.6%, and in Sussex, 38.7%. Keep those percentages in mind.
Another chart necessary for comparison is the percentage of total vote each candidate received in the 2004 general election. That chart is here:
| Percentage of total vote | | | | |
| 2004 | Total | New Castle | Kent | Sussex |
| Kerry | 53.3% | 60.5% | 42.6% | 38.7% |
| Bush | 45.8% | 38.5% | 56.4% | 60.5% |
| Nader | 0.57% | 0.55% | 0.65% | 0.58% |
| Other | 0.33% | 0.36% | 0.29% | 0.25% |
| % population casting vote | 45.3% | 46.6% | 40.3% | 45.2% |
| % voting population casting vote | 60.6% | 62.1% | 53.8% | 60.3% |
With the foundation set, here is the 2008 data (compiled from CNN's primary data and related sites).
2008 Delaware Republican primary voter turnout (Feb. 2008):
| Feb. 2008 Republican | Total | New Castle | Kent | Sussex |
| McCain | 22,628 | 13,227 | 3,598 | 5,803 |
| Romney | 16,344 | 8,758 | 2,806 | 4,780 |
| Huckabee | 7,706 | 3,140 | 1,568 | 2,998 |
| Paul | 2,131 | 1,434 | 289 | 408 |
| Total | 48,809 | 26,559 | 8,261 | 13,989 |
| Population estimate | 871,674 | 530,481 | 154,592 | 186,749 |
| Voting population estimate | 653,756 | 397,861 | 115,944 | 140,062 |
| % population casting vote | 5.6% | 5.0% | 5.3% | 7.5% |
| % voting pop. casting vote | 7.5% | 6.7% | 7.1% | 10.0% |
2008 Democrat Primary voter turnout (Feb. 2008):
| Feb. 2008 | Total | New Castle | Kent | Sussex |
| Obama | 51,148 | 37,818 | 6,736 | 6,594 |
| Clinton | 40,760 | 26,572 | 5,534 | 8,654 |
| Biden | 2,863 | 1,758 | 408 | 670 |
| Edwards | 1,241 | 575 | 273 | 393 |
| Other | 362 | 198 | 64 | 100 |
| Total | 96,374 | 66,948 | 13,015 | 16,411 |
| Population estimate | 871,674 | 530,481 | 154,592 | 186,749 |
| Voting population estimate | 653,756 | 397,861 | 115,944 | 140,062 |
| % population casting vote | 11.1% | 12.6% | 8.4% | 8.8% |
| % voting population casting vote | 14.7% | 16.8% | 11.2% | 11.7% |
Now, this doesn't really mean too much until you look at it broken down by party, and then compare the 2004 data to it. Granted, it's tough to compare exactly because there was no meaningful Republican primary (if there even was one at all) in 2004 because Bush was running for reelection. Nevertheless, nearly 40% of the turnout from the 2004 general election came out to vote in the 2008 primary. That's a huge increase. More interestingly, the turnout of those voting Democrat was statistically increased over the 2004 election. In other words, all three counties "turned blue", so to speak. Most interestingly, however, is the turnout in February 2008 as compared to February 2004. While the population increased only approximately 6% over that time period, the increase in voter turnout represented nearly a 300% increase.
| Feb 2008 | Total | New Castle | Kent | Sussex |
| Democrat | 96,374 | 66,948 | 13,015 | 16,411 |
| Republican | 48,809 | 26,559 | 8,261 | 13,989 |
| Total | 145,183 | 93,507 | 21,276 | 30,400 |
| Population estimate | 871,674 | 530,481 | 154,592 | 186,749 |
| Voting population estimate | 653,756 | 397,861 | 115,944 | 140,062 |
| % population casting vote | 16.7% | 17.6% | 13.8% | 16.3% |
| % voting population casting vote | 22.2% | 23.5% | 18.4% | 21.7% |
| Percentage of 2004 voting numbers | 38.7% | 38.7% | 38.0% | 39.1% |
| Percentage voting Democrat | 66.4% | 71.6% | 61.2% | 54.0% |
All of this means very little, until you start looking at the population numbers. Using an estimated 1.0137% annual growth rate from July 2007 (which breaks down to a monthly growth rate of 0.061% in New Castle, 0.218% in Kent, and 0.189% in Sussex), and assuming a constant 75% voting population estimate, I derive the following chart (with registered voter data coming from the Department of Elections).
| July 2008 Population Data | Total | New Castle | Kent | Sussex |
| Population Estimate | 876,688 | 532,090 | 156,235 | 188,481 |
| Voting population estimate | 657,516 | 399,068 | 117,176 | 141,361 |
| Registered voters | 580,046 | 366,073 | 95,388 | 118,585 |
The initial question I had was whether the staggering increase in voter turnout in February would still hold true today. Fortunately for Delaware, the gubernatorial race between Markell and Carney proved worthwhile in a statistical sense, and provides support for my hypothesis that the answer is yes. While the numbers are slightly lower, it still demonstrates that voters continue to be engaged.
| September 2008 Democrat Governor Primary | Total (including absentee votes) |
| Carney | 36,112 |
| Markell | 37,849 |
| Total | 73,961 |
| Population estimate | 878,565 |
| Voting population estimate | 658,924 |
| % population casting vote | 8.4% |
| % voting population casting vote | 11.2% |
Thus, I am left to predict using this data (and my previous data calculations) to derive the turnout in November 2008. Because it is impossible to predict exactly how this election will play out, I will simply combine the data to show what the numbers could be using the 2004 percentages and the 2008 party distribution.
| November 2008 | Total | New Castle | Kent | Sussex |
| Est. Population | 880,566 | 533,392 | 157,601 | 189,914 |
| Est. Voting population | 660,425 | 400,044 | 118,201 | 142,436 |
| Using 2004 voting percentages | | | | |
| Total | 400,298 | 248,621 | 63,557 | 85,891 |
| Obama | 213,547 | 150,514 | 27,106 | 33,250 |
| McCain | 183,148 | 95,839 | 35,852 | 51,925 |
| Nader | 2,297 | 1,376 | 412 | 502 |
| Barr/Other | 1,307 | 893 | 186 | 214 |
| Using 2008 percentages voting Democrat | | | | |
| Obama | 265,722 | 178,005 | 38,879 | 46,367 |
| McCain | 130,573 | 68,130 | 24,042 | 38,665 |
| Other (1%) | 4,003 | 2,486 | 636 | 859 |
Thus, if Delaware had a similar voting turnout to 2004, Obama will likely carry New Castle County, and carry enough of Kent and Sussex to give him three electoral votes. This is not surprising, and every national poll has Delaware going blue. What I think is more interesting, however, is what happens if Obama (and the Democratic party) is successful in continuing to mobilize this "new" base (as evidenced by the incredible increase in voter turnout in February). Applying those numbers, as the chart indicates, Obama would carry each county, and carry the state with 66% of the vote.
The real question, in my mind, is not whether the February increase in voter turnout will carry over (since the September data results indicates it will), it is a question by how much. If the voter turnout increases from 60% to say, 70%, the numbers statistically favor a Democrat victory.
Now, this is just Delaware. Third party candidates have a statistically insignificant impact, and the population distribution of the state favors the Democrat party. What I find fascinating in this election is whether other states (and I suppose those that are "toss-ups") have similar percentage increases in voter turnout. Assuming for the sake of argument that they do, then that would seem to suggest that the percentages of voters voting Democrat in the various pockets of other states would also increase. My theory concerns that percentage increase in these pockets over those areas that experience a less dramatic increase in voter turnout (a theory that would obviously require analysis of every county in every state, which is simply beyond the scope of my three-part series). In the end, it becomes a simple numbers game. For those states where Democrats come out strong (such as in Virginia, Colorado, and other "toss up" states), the mobilization certainly favors the Democrats.
At this point, the only remaining question, which we will find out in a couple more months, is whether the voter turnout stays the same as in November 2004, or meets or exceeds that of February 2008. For John McCain, the answer to that question may very well depend on a mobilized base, which, in this year of it not being good to be the party in power, probably is a long-shot. Thus, while the election polls are running their regular polling data, and they should, I simply look at this data and conclude that the numbers are not taking into consideration the higher-than-predicted voter turnout. This x-factor certainly will be something all the reporters will be examining more heavily on the day and night of the election.
Tags:
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
2004 Delaware primary and general election data
This is the second of a three-part discussion in support of my hypothesis that the November election polling numbers are likely underestimated, which could make this election even more interesting (or decisive, as it is). As previously discussed, my estimate of the July 2008 population of Delaware is approximately 875,000. Given this estimate, I set forth the second base for my hypothesis, which involves the 2004 election data.
Approximately 6.35% voted in the primary. Similarly, in the 2004 election, assuming for the sake of argument a stable population, there were 554,194 registered voters, or approximately 60% of the total voting-eligible population. Of those registered voters, 375,190 cast a vote, or 67.7% of the registered-voter population. Combining data from these two sources, I can extrapolate an average population growth of 1.0012% per month per county in 2004, and those estimates are illustrated in Chart A below.
The following charts illustrates the breakdown of Delaware votes in the Democratic primary and in the actual general election.
Chart A. 2004 Delaware Democratic Primary: Feb. 3, 2004 (compiled from CNN reporting data and from estimated census data).
The only thing I am going to draw from this data is that approximately 5-6% of the voting population voted in the 2004 February primary, and that number increased to a little more than 60% of the voting population in November 2004.
In the third entry (hopefully tomorrow, but more likely sometime over the weekend), I will use my extrapolated 2008 population data and the actual primary election data from this past February to posit a couple scenarios of the actual voting distribution 48 days from now. Does this advance any further discussion of anything important? Perhaps not. So why do it, given that Delaware will likely give its three electoral votes to the democratic party? I believe that if Delaware's polling increase is indicative of similar voting increases around the country, and those increases hold come November, the actual popular vote in these so-called "swing states" could be much different than any of the current polls are suggesting.
Approximately 6.35% voted in the primary. Similarly, in the 2004 election, assuming for the sake of argument a stable population, there were 554,194 registered voters, or approximately 60% of the total voting-eligible population. Of those registered voters, 375,190 cast a vote, or 67.7% of the registered-voter population. Combining data from these two sources, I can extrapolate an average population growth of 1.0012% per month per county in 2004, and those estimates are illustrated in Chart A below.
The following charts illustrates the breakdown of Delaware votes in the Democratic primary and in the actual general election.
Chart A. 2004 Delaware Democratic Primary: Feb. 3, 2004 (compiled from CNN reporting data and from estimated census data).
| 2004 Primary | Total | New Castle County | Kent | Sussex |
| Kerry | 16,729 | 11,425 | 1,802 | 3,502 |
| Lieberman | 3,683 | 2,427 | 538 | 718 |
| Edwards | 3,657 | 2,207 | 474 | 976 |
| Dean | 3,439 | 2,554 | 312 | 573 |
| Clark | 3,145 | 2,358 | 357 | 430 |
| Sharpton | 1,885 | 1,622 | 165 | 98 |
| Kucinich | 343 | 265 | 30 | 48 |
| Total | 32,881 | 22,858 | 3,678 | 6,345 |
| Population estimate | 822,717 | 514,241 | 138,000 | 170,476 |
| Voting population estimate | 617,038 | 385,681 | 103,500 | 127,857 |
| Registered voters | 517,742 | |||
| % population casting votes | 4.0% | 4.4% | 2.7% | 3.7% |
| % voting population casting vote | 5.3% | 5.9% | 3.6% | 5.0% |
The 2004 General Election data (Chart B) is compiled from census data and from the 2004 data compilation from Dave Leip’s Atlas of Presidential Elections: National Data, Delaware overall data, New Castle, Kent, and Sussex. I used an average growth rate of 1.0012% per month and a 75% estimate for voting population for the three counties.
Chart B. 2004 Delaware General Election Data.
| 2004 Presidential Election | Total | New Castle County | Kent | Sussex |
| Kerry | 200,152 | 146,179 | 23,875 | 30,098 |
| Bush | 171,660 | 93,079 | 31,578 | 47,003 |
| Nader | 2,153 | 1,336 | 363 | 454 |
| Other | 1,225 | 867 | 164 | 194 |
| Total | 375,190 | 241,461 | 55,980 | 77,749 |
| Population estimate | 828,756 | 518,031 | 138,813 | 171,912 |
| Voting population estimate | 619,000 | 388,523 | 104,110 | 128,934 |
| Registered voters | 554,194 | |||
| % population casting vote | 45.3% | 46.6% | 40.3% | 45.2% |
| % voting population casting vote | 60.6% | 62.1% | 53.8% | 60.3% |
The only thing I am going to draw from this data is that approximately 5-6% of the voting population voted in the 2004 February primary, and that number increased to a little more than 60% of the voting population in November 2004.
In the third entry (hopefully tomorrow, but more likely sometime over the weekend), I will use my extrapolated 2008 population data and the actual primary election data from this past February to posit a couple scenarios of the actual voting distribution 48 days from now. Does this advance any further discussion of anything important? Perhaps not. So why do it, given that Delaware will likely give its three electoral votes to the democratic party? I believe that if Delaware's polling increase is indicative of similar voting increases around the country, and those increases hold come November, the actual popular vote in these so-called "swing states" could be much different than any of the current polls are suggesting.
Tags:
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
The Estimated Population of Delaware
I am in the process of researching polling data from the past few elections to posit a hypothesis that the voter turnout in November will be approximately 10-15% higher than in years past, and if that hypothesis is correct, and further assuming that Delaware voting trends are representative of the trends around the country, why the current polling numbers are likely underestimated. I'll get to that in a day or two.
In the meantime, as a means of setting up my theory, I offer the following assumptions, which are based on census population data compiled over the past seven years. Obviously my numbers are going to be slightly lower since I am using an average calculation rather than attempting to figure out the actual exponential growth variable.
The average population growth per year from 2000 to 2007 is 1.013652%, which would make the total state population approximately 876,570 in July 2008. Broken down by county (NCC, Kent, and Sussex, respectively), the average population growth is approximately 1.007%, 1.026%, and 1.023%, respectively, for each county north to south, making the respective populations approximately 532,090 in New Castle, 156,235 in Kent, and 188,481 in Sussex. Because of averages, my numbers don’t exactly add up (876,806 and 876,570), but I can project that the population is somewhere in the middle of that, so I will use the average for the population. Thus, the July 2008 population of Delaware was approximately 876,688 people.
Of course, not all of those people are eligible to vote. According to Dave Leip’s Atlas of Presidential Elections, in 2004, the total voting population (that is, the population over 18) was 619,000, or approximately 74.6%. These numbers are obviously a little skewed because felons can’t vote, people move and do not deregister, etc., but for these purposes, the number is at least as accurate as the numbers used generally.
According to census data, in 2006, the population over 18 is approximately 649,740, or 76.1%. I’ll conservatively estimate that that number has remained constant but will use 75% as the eligible percentage of voters, notwithstanding the fact that it probably still overestimates the actual eligible voting population. Using this number and my July 2008 estimates, my voting population of Delaware in July 2008 was approximately 657,516 (in July 2007, it was approximately 864,764). According to the Delaware elections data, the number of total registered voters is approximately 88% of my estimated voting population. The below chart illustrates my compilation:
July 2008 Total NCC Kent Sussex
Population estimate 876,688 532,090 156,235 188,481
Voting pop. estimate 657,516 399,068 117,176 141,361
Registered voters 580,046 366,073 95,388 118,585
For comparison, the estimated Delaware population in July 2004 was 827,617. Of these, approximately 619,000 were eligible to vote. In the 2004 primary, 517,742 were registered to vote, or approximately 83.6% of the voting-eligible population.
Tomorrow or the next day, I'm going to combine this data with the 2004 primary and general election data, along with the 2008 election data so far, and make a couple predictions as to voter turnout in November.
In the meantime, as a means of setting up my theory, I offer the following assumptions, which are based on census population data compiled over the past seven years. Obviously my numbers are going to be slightly lower since I am using an average calculation rather than attempting to figure out the actual exponential growth variable.
The average population growth per year from 2000 to 2007 is 1.013652%, which would make the total state population approximately 876,570 in July 2008. Broken down by county (NCC, Kent, and Sussex, respectively), the average population growth is approximately 1.007%, 1.026%, and 1.023%, respectively, for each county north to south, making the respective populations approximately 532,090 in New Castle, 156,235 in Kent, and 188,481 in Sussex. Because of averages, my numbers don’t exactly add up (876,806 and 876,570), but I can project that the population is somewhere in the middle of that, so I will use the average for the population. Thus, the July 2008 population of Delaware was approximately 876,688 people.
Of course, not all of those people are eligible to vote. According to Dave Leip’s Atlas of Presidential Elections, in 2004, the total voting population (that is, the population over 18) was 619,000, or approximately 74.6%. These numbers are obviously a little skewed because felons can’t vote, people move and do not deregister, etc., but for these purposes, the number is at least as accurate as the numbers used generally.
According to census data, in 2006, the population over 18 is approximately 649,740, or 76.1%. I’ll conservatively estimate that that number has remained constant but will use 75% as the eligible percentage of voters, notwithstanding the fact that it probably still overestimates the actual eligible voting population. Using this number and my July 2008 estimates, my voting population of Delaware in July 2008 was approximately 657,516 (in July 2007, it was approximately 864,764). According to the Delaware elections data, the number of total registered voters is approximately 88% of my estimated voting population. The below chart illustrates my compilation:
July 2008 Total NCC Kent Sussex
Population estimate 876,688 532,090 156,235 188,481
Voting pop. estimate 657,516 399,068 117,176 141,361
Registered voters 580,046 366,073 95,388 118,585
For comparison, the estimated Delaware population in July 2004 was 827,617. Of these, approximately 619,000 were eligible to vote. In the 2004 primary, 517,742 were registered to vote, or approximately 83.6% of the voting-eligible population.
Tomorrow or the next day, I'm going to combine this data with the 2004 primary and general election data, along with the 2008 election data so far, and make a couple predictions as to voter turnout in November.
Tags:
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Primary day - And the winner is...?
Once again, the state has held another primary, and while the gubernatorial race for the Republicans is pretty one-sided, for Democrats, it will come down to either Markell or Carney. I still say that given the low primary turnout for what has turned into a three-party race should lead the runner-up (be it Markell or Carney) to continue running for another two months and let the entire state decide who the governor should be.
Given the non-likelihood of that scenario, I simply will speculate on who will be appointed to Sen. Biden's seat if the Democrats take the White House in January. While I initially thought that the runner-up in today's primary would get the nod, or Beau Biden, now I'm thinking it may change depending on who the governor is. Ideally, the Republican Party wants Lee to win in order to change Biden's potentially open seat to a republican one. If Markell emerges as the new governor, I would guess that it would be either Gov. Minner or Carney; if Carney emerges, I think it's more likely to be his predecessor than anyone else, leaving a much more interesting race in 2010.
So, what is my guess for the Democratic Governor winner for today? If I had to break it down by county, I would guess that it's going to be close, but Markell will edge out Carney in all three counties. We'll see what happens.
Given the non-likelihood of that scenario, I simply will speculate on who will be appointed to Sen. Biden's seat if the Democrats take the White House in January. While I initially thought that the runner-up in today's primary would get the nod, or Beau Biden, now I'm thinking it may change depending on who the governor is. Ideally, the Republican Party wants Lee to win in order to change Biden's potentially open seat to a republican one. If Markell emerges as the new governor, I would guess that it would be either Gov. Minner or Carney; if Carney emerges, I think it's more likely to be his predecessor than anyone else, leaving a much more interesting race in 2010.
So, what is my guess for the Democratic Governor winner for today? If I had to break it down by county, I would guess that it's going to be close, but Markell will edge out Carney in all three counties. We'll see what happens.
Tags:
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Is Sarah Palin running for president or is John McCain?
The media and press sure seems to be focused on the vice president and comparing her to Sen. Obama...it's almost to the point that he is running against her and not McCain? It's amazes me how quickly the public can lose focus of the real issues, or how clever the Republican party is at throwing up a lot of smoke and mirrors. Palin's speech was excellent, however.
Nevertheless, I am confused by the conservative message that she brings to the ticket - on one hand, she wants to promote teaching creationism in school and does not wish to teach sex education in school (an abstinence only education, if you will). What follows from this approach is that sex education should be taught through the family and not through the schools. If that is the case, however, doesn't her teenage daughter's pregnancy seem to show that either her approach is incorrect or that her ability to manage her own family is a little off-centered? I'll be anxious to see how she fares once she exposes herself to Meet the Press, Bill O'Reilly and the like.
The Atlantic had a very well-written article about this topic which expresses the concern much better than I could. US News had an interesting op-ed piece as well.
Nevertheless, I am confused by the conservative message that she brings to the ticket - on one hand, she wants to promote teaching creationism in school and does not wish to teach sex education in school (an abstinence only education, if you will). What follows from this approach is that sex education should be taught through the family and not through the schools. If that is the case, however, doesn't her teenage daughter's pregnancy seem to show that either her approach is incorrect or that her ability to manage her own family is a little off-centered? I'll be anxious to see how she fares once she exposes herself to Meet the Press, Bill O'Reilly and the like.
The Atlantic had a very well-written article about this topic which expresses the concern much better than I could. US News had an interesting op-ed piece as well.
Tags:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
