I Can See Your Vote from Here!
By: Zev Winicur
Tags: Elections, Politics, African American, Farming, Mississippi

If the urban/rural battleground no longer applies in Mississippi, what exactly drives their presidential politics? Instead of historically or sociologically, perhaps we can tease out an answer mathematically. The Pearson Correlation Coefficient can be used to calculate linear correlations between demographic, economic, and political variables. More specifically, a correlation analysis of demographic and economic factors of all the counties in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain (plus Georgia, which is in the Black Belt but not near the Mississippi River) shows what actually drives populations to vote more Democratic (blue) or Republican (red).

A rule of thumb for interpreting the correlation coefficient is:

0.9 to 1.0 (−0.9 to −1.0) = Very high positive (negative) correlation

0.7 to 0.9 (−0.7 to −0.9) = High positive (negative) correlation

0.5 to 0.7 (−0.5 to −0.7) = Moderate positive (negative) correlation

0.0 to 0.5 (−0.3 to −0.5) = Low positive (negative) correlation

0.0 to 0.3 (0.0 to −0.3) = Negligible correlation

To be sure, there are caveats to this methodology. First, the analysis looks at each county as a variable, not each voter. Second, as every scientist ever will tell you, CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION. Having said that, the table below is pretty illuminating.

Each correlation coefficient (and its associated shade of blue or red) indicate the likelihood that the variable in the Y-axis relates to increased Democratic votes in the 2020 presidential election for that state. I tested four categories of variables:

Correlation coefficients related to Likelihood to Vote Democratic 2020

All states showed that a higher African American population correlated with more Democratic votes, and a higher White population with more Republican votes, particularly in highly segregated Louisiana and Mississippi. Hispanic/Latino populations had a low to moderate Democratic correlation in Tennessee, Kentucky, and Illinois. Old folks and veterans typically skewed Republican.

Higher Bachelor’s degrees correlated with Democratic votes in Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri, Kentucky, and Illinois, but not in Louisiana, Mississippi, or Georgia. Higher poverty levels trended Democratic in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Arkansas, but trended Republican in Missouri and Kentucky. And in nearly all the states, having more women-owned firms, minority-owned firms, and black-owned farms correlated with more Democratic votes.

But the wildest trend related to Mississippi geography. Increased farmland corresponded to more Democratic votes, but increased population density (urban centers) had no relation to Democratic votes. This was the exact opposite of the other states where high density urban centers skewed blue. As my son pointed out, in Mississippi, farmland goes blue not red.

This means that any future Democratic politician hoping to turn Mississippi into the next Georgia swing state will have to use a completely different playbook. Democratic politicians can’t speak to Mississippi Democrats like they are all from Atlanta. Strangely enough, they might have to speak to them like they are from the middle of Illinois.