1

I was looking at the partisanship of black Americans today. The first one really stood out to me. I found this bizarre. Look:

Position                                           % Democratic
Statewide office (after VRA, Senate or governor)     55
Two Party Vote 2016 President                        92
House member 116th Congress                          98

I know the sample size for the first one is small. But, it is not as small as it could be. Why the large deviation in partisanship of statewide officials?

Sources: https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls, https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/why-the-next-black-president-could-be-a-republican/2017/08/03/42a7675a-73a7-11e7-8839-ec48ec4cae25_story.html

  • 1
    Politics SE has a policy of limiting actual questions in a question post to only one. So maybe ask multiple questions instead and split this one up. – theresawalrus Sep 21 at 20:11
  • 3
    I edited it to fix the problem. – Dove Sep 21 at 20:25
  • 1
    At least part of the answer is likely the same as the answer to why very "blue" places like New York City elect more Republicans as mayor than President – divibisan Sep 21 at 20:34
  • 2
    Not so much. NYC mayoral elections have very low turnout because they are in odd numbered years. But, hey what about Charlie Baker in MA? Massachusetts voters are more open to voting for the other party. How do I know? According to 538 MA has one of the highest elasticity. The elasticity of NYC districts is low, in fact some have the lowest in the nation like NY-14. The elasticity of heavily African American districts is low as well, so that could mean the black vote is inelastic. There are other reasons for that. – Dove Sep 21 at 20:37
  • 1
    The table is a little confusing... please unambiguously specify in the question text itself, (don't rely on a URL), what ratio those percentages numbers signify. – agc Sep 23 at 2:27

Browse other questions tagged .