meet the needs of most patients in most circumstances. The The members who recused themselves from voting are indicated in the list. For endorsements, see List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements, This is a list of notable persons and groups who formally endorsed or voiced support for .. Madeleine Bordallo (D-GU) (non-voting Delegate) We Know; Garrison Keillor, Grammy Award-winning author and radio personality. Anderson et al UA/NSTEMI Guideline: Update Incorporated e .. The guidelines attempt to define practices that meet the and must be approved by a consensus of the voting members. ment of global risk in patients with suspected ACS. Fesmire FM, Percy RF, Wears RL, MacMath TL.
The average swing of 5. Let's look at what happened state by state. Here I'm plotting the swing in average district vote in each state, comparing the congressional elections of to those ofordering the states by Kerry's share in The horizontal blue line shows the average swing of 5. The Democrats gained in nearly every state, with, unsurprisingly, some big swings in some of the small states that have only one or two congressional districts.
Now let's compare this to the state-by-state swing in the presidential vote: Obama beat Kerry nearly everywhere, fairly uniformly with only a few exceptions-- we knew that --but my point here is that Obama's swings weren't quite as large, on average, as the state congressional delegations'. If you want, you can look at both swings at once: In the states in the upper left of this graph, the Democrats improved more in the congressional than in the presidential vote; the states in the lower right are those where the Obama-Kerry swing was greater than the Democrats' swing in House races.
There are a lot more states in the upper left than in the lower right. Each state has its own story--for example, I wouldn't attribute Don Young's squeaker in Alaska to Barack Obama's coattails--but given the graphs above, I think it's hard to make the case that, overall, the voters were saying No to the Democrats in Congress. Here's the story in a map: For some historical perspective, here are the Democrats' two-party vote share in presidential elections and average two-party vote in congressional elections since Presidential voting has been much more volatile than congressional voting incumbency and all that.
This makes the Democrats' 5.
Summary I think Charlie Cook was closer to the mark when he wrote, "The political environment and momentum that Democrats seemed to have in recent months may have led to an unrealistic set of expectations. In this, perhaps we pundits share some blame. The data demolish the idea that voters in were pulling the lever for Barack but not for the Dems overall not for "Nancy Pelosi," if you will.
I thank John Kastellec and Jared Lander for gathering the data and sharing their thoughts. We use average district vote rather than total vote because congressional vote totals vary a lot, and we're trying to assess national public opinion as judged, for example, in Kaus's quote above.
Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science: Political Science Archives
The Democrats won resoundingly; this means that the voters preferred them to the alternative; it does not necessarily mean the voters want the specific policies proposed by the Democrats. Recall the Democrats' surprising lack of popular success after and the Republicans' struggles after their sweep. I'm talking about public opinion here, not campaign strategy. I'm sure that Democratic leaders were disappointed in their party's performance in key congressional races, especially given their immense financial resources this year.
At the level of public opinion, though, the Democrats in Congress outperformed Obama overall and in 38 states--and their swing beat Obama's overall and in 32 states--so I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that the voters were balancing toward the Republicans in congressional voting.
This is not to say that the voters have given the Democrats a blank check, but it really was a Democratic swing, not an Obama swing.
5 Things To Know About Vermont's 2016 General Election Results
Actually, I don't have county population right here either and so I used total number of votes in the county in Many of the large-population counties are urban such as Los Angeles, the largest ; others are major suburban counties.
Anyway, here's what we see: The blue line is the lowess curve fit to the data. There's a lot of variation--county size is not such a good predictor of swing--but there is indeed a pattern of bigger Obama swings in larger counties.
The counties are already ordered by size so there's no need to use larger circles to indicate larger counties as I did in the plots of county income posted earlier. To understand this better, let's break up the data by region of the country.
Also, since we're at it, let's look at swings in the past couple of elections as well. Here are the swings broken up by region of the country for the past few elections.
What do we see? Part of the issue here is that Obama had almost no room for improvement in these places. The pattern of Democrats improving more in large-population counties is not unique to Gore did relatively well in big counties in all regions in What happened in each lower, middle-income, and rich America? Obama did better than Kerry in all three graphs, but he did most uniformly better in the rich counties.
In this and subsequent graphs, the area of the circle is proportional to the number of voters in that county in It turns out that Obama did the worst, compared to Kerry, in low-population poor counties, so the graphs actually look a bit different if you plot all counties with equal-sized circles.
These patterns are new to The next step is to break things up by region of the country. Here's what we see: In the midwest and west, Obama outperformed Kerry in all sorts of counties. In the northeast, Obama did just a bit better than Kerry who had that northeastern home-state advantage.
In the south, Obama did almost uniformly better in rich counties, also did well in middle-income counties although less so in Republican-leaning areasand basically showed no improvement from Kerry in poor counties. So, region and income are both part of the story here.
As we already know from those maps of vote swing by county. These scatterplots are another way to look at it. What happened in the two previous elections? Let's take a look at the swings from to Bernie Sanders' role in the results was 'huge. Bernie Sanders is also a big part of what made different than He received the most write-in votes of any presidential candidate since the state began tracking those results in Ralph Nader, seen here announcing his bid for president, was the last candidate outside the two major parties to earn such a significant percentage of the Vermont vote.
Part of the reason Sanders did so well was due to an organized, last-minute effort encouraging people in Vermont to write him in, Dickinson says. There were other candidates besides Stein and Johnson on the ballotas well as those who received write-in support.
5 Things To Know About Vermont's General Election Results | Vermont Public Radio
As a result, the town-by-town map is a little misleading. At first look, the town-by-town map is clearly a lot redder than the version. But this year, 61 towns, many of which are in Essex and Orleans county, went red. A town-by-town look at the and presidential results. Inonly two towns in Vermont went for Republican candidate Mitt Romney.
Almost 100,000 Vermonters Voted For Donald Trump. Why?
Vermont Secretary Of State; Illustration: What are the fears that people have, and what are we going to do to make sure that nobody gets left behind? Trump won 61 Vermont towns this year. InRepublian Mitt Romney won just two. While it might seem that Trump fared much better than Romney, in fact, he only got about 2, more votes than the former Massachusetts governor. The short answer is that lots of Vermont voters cast their ballots outside of the two major parties this year, including for Sen.
That allowed Trump to win in towns he might have otherwise lost, had all the Sanders and third-party votes gone to Clinton, said Middlebury College political science professor Matt Dickinson. Trump only won 18 towns with 50 percent or more of the vote; he won 44 with a plurality, of 50 percent or less.