« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Coal policy could swing the election

By: Neil Stevens (Diary)  |  March 27th, 2012 at 03:00 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Obama

Forgive me for venturing out from strict horserace poll analysis, but given the the administration’s recent moves on coal power, I couldn’t help but wonder how that might affect the President in swing states, should prices rise in coal-burning states.

A check I made this morning suggests that the answer is yes, if coal is an issue in this election, it could swing close states.

Here’s a simple chart of the closeness of a state’s 2008 Presidential election result vs the state’s coal use as a percentage. Source for coal use: the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, but they also cite their sources too if you’d like to dig in. Election margin source: the final column of the Wikipedia chart.

Coal and the 2008 election

I asked OpenOffice to throw in the trend line. Additionally, the Pearson coefficient is -0.37. That means that the correlation is not small, and not strong, but medium, according to common Pearson interpretations.

Considering I’m not in any way predicting that coal use caused the 2008 gap, that’s an interesting finding. By chance, the closer a state was in 2008, the more coal it uses, on average. Of the states at 5% or less of a 2008 gap, only Florida doesn’t get a majority of its electricity from coal.

Again, I must stress the modesty of this find. I’m not predicting that the administration’s policies necessarily will cause shifts in coal energy prices soon enough or large enough to swing votes in coal-burning states. Nor am I predicting that the issue would necessarily be decisive of people’s votes.

I’m merely checking that if both of those things do happen, whether they would be happening in states where it would make a difference. The answer to that question is yes. Unluckily for the President as it may be.

Crossposted from Unlikely Voter

Tags: , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • rebelandsaint

    but that scatter plot really doesn’t prove much statistically. The data points are all over the place and the negative relationship is extremely shaky. Hopefully, your predicted result will occur, but that data doesn’t show much.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Or do you simply not click links to find out what one is?

  • acat

    but – as I just posted under streiff’s coal diary coal-fired plants in Chicago Metro are shutting down while coal-gassification plants are firing up downstate…

    This is .. to say the least .. interesting. It’s a long-term trend to watch.

    Mew

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

  • rebelandsaint

    I am not challenging Microsoft Excel’s ability to perform a calculation of coefficient correlation. I am also not challenging your veracity in numbers. I am stating that you are using complex calculation rather randomly. A simple correlation coefficient doesn’t tell you that much. It only measures the basic “fit” of a series of points onto the trend line. The calculation of correlation coefficient is essentially to minimize the sum of the distance from the mean (best fit line).

    For example. if I have a set of points that is basically a straight line at Y=1 and another set of points at Y=3, then the best fit line will go through the points at line Y=2. But we can all agree that that line does a poor job of describing the data.

    This is what a good scatter correlation would look like.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Correlation_range_dependence.svg

  • unclefred

    Ohio – 82% from coal
    Iowa – 81% from coal
    Missouri – 81% from coal
    New Mexico – 71% from coal
    Colorado – 68% from coal
    Wisconsin – 63% from coal
    Michigan – 59% from coal
    Pennsylvania – 48% from coal

    If Obama loses the swing states that get 63% or more from coal along with NH, he loses the election. Using the states listed as swing states on 270towin.com.

    Given its history I don’t hold out much hope for NM but Wisc has been close in the past and 2010 was quite the wake up call.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Shorter version of your post “Math is hard, dude, let me just eyeball it.”

    Now shoo. Grownups are talking.

  • rebelandsaint

    The correct shorter version of my post would have been

    “You need to know how to use daddy’s chainsaw works before you pull it off the wall and start chopping things down”

  • gekster

    …

  • johnt

    old clothes, the EPA is on the march. But when are they not?
    Tighten regulations, again? What is it about the 16th century that so enamors the left? Was that a good time for masochism, because certainly they don’t see themselves in any downside, probably because they anticipate having a few serfs handy to rob rocks and make heat for them. Conservative serfs.

  • rebelandsaint

    That was a mistake.

    Basically, I was trying to say that the relationship between the 2008 Presidential Election Gap and Coal Use % is not described by linear equation … and that to over rely on the calculation of coefficient correlation is a mistake

  • acat

    Living a pampered, true ivory-tower life, when scholars were truly appreciated, and without the bother of putting up with the commoners….

    I say, if they want to buy out the rest of the Californians and set up a system like that, fine .. but if they don’t keep their hands off my wallet, they’ll taste my steel! (those that live by the historical re-enactment…)

    Mew

  • BuckeyeTexan

    ;p

  • rebelandsaint

    You must have had help from Terrelle Pryor

    Go Bucks

    http://www.ohiochatter.com/forum/showthread.php?22237-Terrelle-Pryor-s-Research-Paper

  • papabear

    I highly recommend long distance lead poisoning as the first option. Pointy sticks w/feathers when lead is in short supply.

  • BuckeyeTexan

    thus the wink and smile.

  • rebelandsaint

    I apologize. Sorry about that. Bringing up TP was a low blow. Too soon. Too soon. Although, Meyer seems to be doing a really good job.

  • BuckeyeTexan

    daughter says in jest to her friends when they misspeak. I don’t know anything about TP, except that he’s apparently an “expert” on research. ;p

    Perhaps we should put him on opposition research. Wonder what he’d come up with?

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    like West Virginia, I am not really sure that their livelihood would be enough to pry them away from their union bosses and the party of big brother.

  • tcgeol

    Although the unions have a chokehold on the state and pretty much control state and local politics, they have lost a lot of control over the presidential elections over the last number of years. The states that need to be informed are Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, maybe New Mexico.

    Don’t get me wrong, we have a horrible Dem control here in WV, but for the presidency, we are usually good.

  • garfieldjl

    This helps Rick Santorum in the general, no question about it. Newt Gingrich can probably use this against Obama as well.

    I don’t think Romney can use this very well, given his record as Governor.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    But nobody takes you seriously but other idiot bots.

  • aesthete

    Arguably, this is why social science isn’t particularly respected by those in the physical science and mathematics, but there you go. IIRC (and I’m not gonna check :) ), 0.37 is somewhere right above the correlation level that you can be at with a sample size of 50.

    My Q is: what does this data actually tell us? Is there a strong causal interpretation of the data? I’m not sure. I would like to see examples other than the 2008 election (for example, the 2004 Presidential election, or perhaps the 2006 and 2010 midterms) to look at how this correlation looks over time, or in non-Presidential elections. Getting down to the nitty-gritty, I would also like a breakdown of county results/energy usage, to get a better sample size. Like Neil said, it’s interesting but modest.

  • aesthete

    Like Neil said, Pearon’s correlation coefficient is pretty standard for just the issue you raise (i.e., whether the data is a good “fit” for the trendline). Even “eyeballing” the data, one can see a definite (but weakish) correlation.

  • aesthete

    That is to say, Republican and Democrat candidates might not be fungible. The Dem in this case (Obama) can be assumed to be somewhat fungible, barring changes over time in terms of voter perception. The Republican? Maybe not.

    Again, I’d like to see whether there is a consistent trend in all recent elections, not just 2008.

  • garfieldjl

    I really don’t know why you seem to have a personal problem with me, but apparently you seem to.

    Anyways, to break down why I made the statement I made and why I made it, actually has to do with Romney’s past record combined with him being compared to an “etch-a-sketch.”

    [quote]As governor of Massachusetts, Romney supported a carbon-trading pact among Northeastern states that, like his health care bill, served as a potential model for a national version. Romney even said of the plan, ?I am convinced it is good for business.? Of carbon emissions in general, Romney said, ?These carbon-emissions limits will provide real and immediate progress.?[/quote]
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/eco-nomics/2011/06/03/mitt-romneys-environmental-record/
    To be fair, Newt also once supported climate change legislation and like Newt, Romney later reversed his position, however Newt isn’t the one that is associated with being an “etch-a-sketch.”

    So I made an honest observation, Santorum from Pennsylvania, which gets much of its energy from coal, benefits from this becoming a campaign issue. For Newt, I don’t really see this hurting him, because of his testimony bashing cap & trade, and Obama can’t really attack him from the left on this issue.

    Romney on the other hand is getting hammered by Obama, whom is pointing out a lot of their policy positions are similar, the left wing sites are suggesting that Romney still secretly supports cap & tax, whether or not that is true is up for debate. However, if Obama can present the idea that Romney is very similar to him, then Obama likely wins the general. It wasn’t something I expected the Saul Alinsky radical in the White House to pull (I expected the class warfare, which he probably will play), but it is devasting to Romney in the general if the base feels that Romney is just like Obama.

  • acat

    to go read this article ovar at Ace of Ace of Spades and tell me what you think.

    If Willard is playing that deep a game …

    Mew

  • garfieldjl

    He won’t be allowed to get away with the fact his superPAC and his campaign use the same consulting firm in the General Election.

    The stuff that isn’t being covered right now is definately coming out in the general.

    It’s easy for him to get away with what he is doing when the press is actively falling all over themselves to cover for him.

    I know Mitt is acting like Mr. Nice guy, but it isn’t hard for even me to see that it’s an act.

  • greyeagle

    The EPA has been after TX for awhile. They have some coal plants, but not all. They also have some here in Florida too.

  • http://MichaelHarrington.org Michael Harrington

    The cause of the voting pattern does not need be because of coal.

    Indeed by looking at different information one could draw up other reasons.

    However one can quickly dissolve this argument.

    Leftist States tend to be more ‘unknind’ to coal, which could lead to the skew in question. Now if the dots were identified as left leaning or right leaning and we applied seperate measures to each, we could find other factors.

    The problem with Statistics is that sometimes people rush a ‘fact’ out without checking to se if other issues could have also impacted the results as well.

    Not trying to be rude, but I am a math hobbyist and Statistics is my true pleasure.

  • carolina

    BO may get away with this EPA ruling for now. This is easy sop for the enviro-wackos.
    It is my understanding that this rule only affects new coal plants. If it does impact existing coal plants, then there will be heck to pay.

  • acat

    Look, we both dislike the guy, we both find him slimy, but we’re also political junkies… our opinions are different than Joe or Jane Sixpack.

    The first question is whether – as Ace’s article puts it – the “He’s a nice guy, but” argument will let enough of the “history!” and “change!” voters off the hook.. free them up to vote Romney.

    The second question is whether a dirty-tricks scoundrel like Romney is actually the best we’ve got left – as sad as that is – at taking the fight to Obama. You know Obama’s going to be throwing every dirty trick and proxy-hit-job he can at our nominee .. Romney uses very similar tactics.

    Mew

  • garfieldjl

    The Dirty Tricks won’t be as effective when the media is shilling for Obama in the General.

    They will give Obama a pass but rake Romney over the coals for doing the very same thing that Obama is doing.

    So what Romney is doing right now, will not work in the general.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    When you foul a perfectly good thread about Obama with your petty infighting, you’re a candibot.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    If I tried I could steepen that slope of the trend line quite a bit.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    There’s no left-right skew indicated in the chart, so you need to read more closely.

  • davesinsanantonio

    the more modern type where they have grad assistants to do all the real research and writing for them, and they just get to put their names on the final product.
    In fact, all leftists want to live off the work of others while they sit on their fat keisters and eat bon bons, and make up new rules for everyone else.
    Oops, those would be tofu bon bons, not chocolate ones, heaven forbid.
    Oops, again. That would be Gaia forbid.

  • funwithknives

    *The Loyal Opposition* might say this was created by ” the special interests” to lessen/weaken the effect of the EPA in this scenario. But it’s more than real and decisions have consequences.

    How many times in the last 3.5 years have we heard this Adminisrtation say that what ever resulting outcome created by them to “fix” something, “was not anticipated” by them? Often enough that it becomes a Mantra in this house. Like a college drinking game,where you watch a favorite TV program on a Friday night , when it is uttered, I go get a drink.

    I cannot get over the creeping, crawling feeling that Barry and Associates see so many effects of their less-than cognitive decisions as so much ” Tough S–t, Chew Harder ” shrugging. That the American people are mere lab rats and subjects to be pushed, shoved and ultimately disdained. Yet,… Barry took an oath to” …protect the American People…”,and does the opposite.
    Not by word, but by actions that speak Oh-So much louder, does he work The Dialectic. Experimenting on You and Me.

    Time for a change…, NO?

  • funwithknives

    Apollo Acolytes, Ayers,and so many others are in his backround do you think this is a stopping point?

    This is just a step on a ladder. The Dialectic is The Plan and do not ever forget it. New plants are easy meat. Plus, an Example is now established to work from.

    Just as so many Americans forgot { or just let slide} what their responsiblilities as Citizens were and are ,{ I’m thinking now of the responsibility to engage and be heard} always remember that Progressives never forget The Dialectic. Not outwardly discussed but always in mind. They can afford to wait, for as a Founder said:… “it is natural for Freedom to recede and Government to advance.” { Paraphrase} Progressives know this and count on it.
    In other words, many got lazy, {Not Me!} or stopped caring, and we see the result.

    Wasn’t it Ronald Reagan who told us in no uncertain terms that totalitarianism was only One Generation away? The Fight for Freedom and Liberty is Never over, folks. No time-outs, no do-overs, no ribbons “for all the kids”. You want to keep what your Creator handed you? You have to engage, be heard, and get up offin’ it. How you do it, is up to you.
    I’ve no desitre to see any more versions of the above video. Call it incentive. Maybe….Stimulus! Yeah, that’s the ticket…..

  • ariyosef

    Unless the coal industry gets all its guns SIGHTED ON in the critical states, our general public will never see the “hammer” till crushed by extreme energy costs. This “Coal” issue is far too delayed in consequence and too esoteric for the average voter to wake up and see the truth. In contrast, Gasoline for motor vehicles is perceived and directly connected to everyone’s wallet.

    Early in power generation from coal, a fed mandate PREVENTED the use of “ignition enhancement” of coal by using about 20% Natural Gas…

    It made extreme efficiency improvements and burned cleaner overall.
    So, why was it prevented?

    Coal better Man up with major Pac funds? and quick!
    The public education process cannot be done in only a week of ads.
    Explaining such a dire ?trickle down? of increased electricity and huge numbers of jobs lost, is not an instant sell. The economic impact will be devastating but not quickly perceived by most public.

    With Political campaign funds (spending)now projected for the months of Sept.-Oct. 2012 it is going to be difficult to get prime media ads if not reserved NOW… For President or Congress, much less local races.

  • ariyosef

    Unless the coal industry gets all its guns SIGHTED ON in the critical states, our general public will never see the “hammer” till crushed by extreme energy costs. This “Coal” issue is far too delayed in consequence and too esoteric for the average voter to wake up and see the truth. In contrast, Gasoline for motor vehicles is perceived and directly connected to everyone’s wallet.

    Early in power generation from coal, a fed mandate PREVENTED the use of “ignition enhancement” of coal by using about 20% Natural Gas…

    It made extreme efficiency improvements and burned cleaner overall.
    So, why was it prevented?

    Coal better Man up with major Pac funds? and quick!
    The public education process cannot be done in only a week of ads.
    Explaining such a dire ?trickle down? of increased electricity and huge numbers of jobs lost, is not an instant sell. The economic impact will be devastating but not quickly perceived by most public.

    With Political campaign funds (spending)now projected for the months of Sept.-Oct. 2012 it is going to be difficult to get prime media ads if not reserved NOW… For President or Congress, much less local races.

  • Seedyrom

    I’ve seen smoke stacks replaced at Georgia’s Plant Bowen owned by Georgia Power. They were replaced by newer stacks in 2010 I think. If gov can’t regulate health care then a new lawsuit going from the lower courts to scotus will settle what limits potus can limit on energy via DOE mandates.

    While nat gas is cleaner, we can’t expect change overnight because gas supply pipelines are not big enough across the country to provide the demand needed to fuel nat gas plants. In the 90′s the Goodyear power plant used a lot a gas to fire burners. Nearby homes saw reduced flame output do to low pressure so they increased pipe size.. Let Obama tell the nation you’re going to be cold till I replace thousands of miles of pipelines.

  • acat

    because this EPA ruling will have quite an impact (see my post above) on Illinois, one of Obama’s “home states”…

    The arguments “If he’ll trash the Illinois coal industry, he’ll trash yours!” and “Do you want to pay Chicago electricity rates?” should be pretty obvious….

    Mew

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Are you assuming good faith and modest action from Obama regulators?

    That’d be a new one on me.

  • citizenkh

    the 5th Circuit decision on EPA attempts to regulated Texas’ emissions. Talk about a slap down, spanking, then beating the EPA took in that one.

  • citizenkh

    everything.

  • citizenkh

    after the Clinton Administration proved that it was against coal and Al Gore seconded that emphatically.

  • Pingback: hier