At 09:44 AM 11/6/2004 -0600 Dan Minette wrote:
>I've got a question about your analysis. The years you didn't mention
>really didn't fit the pattern. Yes, '68 was quite high, but so was '60 and
>'64. In fact, every year in from '52-'68 saw higher turnout higher than
>any year from '32-'44 (max '32-'44= 58.8%; min '52-'68= 59.4%). While
>I won't argue that good times/bad times is not a factor, I think that the
>data suggests it is not the dominent factor.
1960 also benefited from the first televised debates accelerating interest,
as well as a heart-throb candidate in JFK I. And, of course, I am sure
that the anticipated closeness of the result also helped boost turnout.
Personally, I come from the school of thought that Presidential election
analyses by definition have such a small "n" as to make it nearly
impossible to draw any statistical conclusions with much confidence. The
"econometric" modelings of Presidential Election results on economic
factors being the foremost example.
JDG
________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"We have one country, one Constitution, and one future that binds us."
-George W. Bush, 11/3/2004
________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
