andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2010 andrew_gelman_stats-2010-201 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: So asks James Ledbetter in Slate. And the answer is . . . No! Here’s what happened in 2008: OK, that’s how people vote. How bout party identification and ideology? Check these out : (Click on image to see larger version.) And here it is, sliced a different way : Of, if you want to see it in map form, check out this article (with Daniel and Yair). P.S. A skeptic might comment that the above graphs, which are based on national poll data, only break down incomes to the top 5% or so. What about the truly rich. Here are my thoughts on the political attitudes of the super-rich. P.P.S. Ledbetter actually makes some good points in his article, which is about the campaign contributions of rich Americans. The article relies on a recent book by David Callahan, which seems to echo the work of Tom Ferguson (cited in the above-linked blog entry), who’s tracked campaign contributions by industry over many years. I think that Ferguson (and Callahan) a
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 Ledbetter actually makes some good points in his article, which is about the campaign contributions of rich Americans. [sent-18, score-0.548]
2 The article relies on a recent book by David Callahan, which seems to echo the work of Tom Ferguson (cited in the above-linked blog entry), who’s tracked campaign contributions by industry over many years. [sent-19, score-0.311]
3 I just think his headline is silly and unhelpful. [sent-21, score-0.139]
4 And the fact that it got out there at all–I assume Ledbetter didn’t write the headline himself–is evidence that there is still a lot of confusion about income and voting in the news media. [sent-22, score-0.351]
5 Campaign financing is hugely important, and I agree that it’s important to look at contributions from different industries. [sent-30, score-0.249]
6 But I’m bothered by his headline, and even more by the sub-headline that answers “Sort of” to the question “Are all rich people liberals? [sent-31, score-0.476]
7 It’s no coincidence that your article mentions rich people in California, Connecticut, and New York: These are states where there is essentially zero correlation between income and how people vote. [sent-35, score-0.623]
8 There are a lot of other rich people in the country, though. [sent-36, score-0.379]
9 And, in aggregate, all the evidence I’ve seen suggests that richer people are more likely to be conservative Republicans. [sent-38, score-0.274]
10 The top row is self-declared ideology and bottom two rows are economic and social ideology, each computed by averaging a bunch of issue questions from a survey. [sent-41, score-0.219]
11 Unsuprisingly, income is more correlated with conservatism for economic than for social ideology. [sent-42, score-0.186]
12 In either case, it’s not at all the case that rich people are liberal. [sent-43, score-0.379]
13 But the first claim, “that America’s rich now tilt politically left,” is not supported by the evidence I’ve seen. [sent-47, score-0.6]
14 Rich people are an increasingly important source of funding for the Democratic Party 2. [sent-49, score-0.229]
15 The Republican party is even more pro-rich-people than the Democrats are. [sent-52, score-0.159]
16 I was bothered by Ledbetter’s headline for the same reason I was bothered by Wall Street Journal reporter Robert Frank’s credulity toward a P. [sent-56, score-0.333]
17 man’s claim about the opinions of the super-rich: The claim of “billiionaires for Obama” is often the first step in a pseudo-populist argument about partisan support. [sent-58, score-0.219]
18 If Ledbetter wants to argue that the Democratic Party has been captured by Wall Street–or if his counterpart on the other side of the fence wants to argue that the Republican Party is fighting for middle-class Americans–that’s fine. [sent-60, score-0.223]
19 I’m sympathetic to Ledbetter’s point about Democratic economic policies, and I think he weakens his own argument when he ties it to a statistical misconception that rich people are liberal. [sent-62, score-0.517]
20 In chapter 9 of Red State, Blue State we discuss some of the political implications of different patterns of income, ideology, and voting in different states. [sent-63, score-0.227]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('ledbetter', 0.627), ('rich', 0.293), ('callahan', 0.188), ('party', 0.159), ('tilt', 0.155), ('headline', 0.139), ('ideology', 0.135), ('campaign', 0.134), ('democratic', 0.125), ('contributions', 0.121), ('income', 0.102), ('politically', 0.097), ('bothered', 0.097), ('barone', 0.09), ('democrats', 0.087), ('people', 0.086), ('economic', 0.084), ('republican', 0.083), ('claim', 0.079), ('richer', 0.077), ('state', 0.076), ('ferguson', 0.073), ('important', 0.072), ('funding', 0.071), ('frank', 0.069), ('wall', 0.068), ('liberal', 0.063), ('policies', 0.062), ('opinions', 0.061), ('street', 0.06), ('implications', 0.06), ('counterpart', 0.057), ('instinctive', 0.057), ('propositions', 0.057), ('reams', 0.057), ('different', 0.056), ('wants', 0.056), ('blue', 0.056), ('conservative', 0.056), ('article', 0.056), ('america', 0.055), ('obama', 0.055), ('voting', 0.055), ('evidence', 0.055), ('arguments', 0.054), ('officeholders', 0.054), ('fence', 0.054), ('misconception', 0.054), ('skeptic', 0.054), ('surge', 0.054)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0 201 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-12-Are all rich people now liberals?
Introduction: So asks James Ledbetter in Slate. And the answer is . . . No! Here’s what happened in 2008: OK, that’s how people vote. How bout party identification and ideology? Check these out : (Click on image to see larger version.) And here it is, sliced a different way : Of, if you want to see it in map form, check out this article (with Daniel and Yair). P.S. A skeptic might comment that the above graphs, which are based on national poll data, only break down incomes to the top 5% or so. What about the truly rich. Here are my thoughts on the political attitudes of the super-rich. P.P.S. Ledbetter actually makes some good points in his article, which is about the campaign contributions of rich Americans. The article relies on a recent book by David Callahan, which seems to echo the work of Tom Ferguson (cited in the above-linked blog entry), who’s tracked campaign contributions by industry over many years. I think that Ferguson (and Callahan) a
Introduction: Charles Murray wrote a much-discussed new book, “Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010.” David Frum quotes Murray as writing, in an echo of now-forgotten TV personality Tucker Carlson , that the top 5% of incomes “tends to be liberal—right? There’s no getting around it. Every way of answering this question produces a yes.” [I’ve interjected a “perhaps” into the title of this blog post to indicate that I don’t have the exact Murray quote here so I’m relying on David Frum’s interpretation.] Frum does me the favor of citing Red State Blue State as evidence, and I’d like to back this up with some graphs. Frum writes: Say “top 5%” to Murray, and his imagination conjures up everything he dislikes: coastal liberals listening to NPR in their Lexus hybrid SUVs. He sees that image so intensely that no mere number can force him to remember that the top 5% also includes the evangelical Christian assistant coach of a state university football team. . . . To put it i
3 0.25444219 1577 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-14-Richer people continue to vote Republican
Introduction: From the exit polls: This is all pretty obvious but it seemed worth posting because some people still don’t seem to get it. For example, Jay Cost, writing in the Weekly Standard: The Democratic party now dominates the Upper East Side of Manhattan, as well as the wealthiest neighborhoods in the most powerful cities. And yet Republicans are still effectively castigated as the party of the rich. They are not — at least not any more than the Democratic party is. Arguably, both the Democrats and the Republicans are “the party of the rich.” But Republicans more so than Democrats (see above graph, also consider the debates over the estate tax and upper-income tax rates). Cost writes: Sure, the GOP favors tax rate reductions to generate economic growth, but the Democratic party has proven itself ready, willing, and able to dole out benefits to the well-heeled rent-seekers who swarm Washington, D.C. looking for favors from Uncle Sam. But he’s missing the point. The par
Introduction: Matthew Yglesias noticed something interesting in a political story today that reminds me of one of our arguments in Red State, Blue State. I have the feeling that most readers of this blog are less fascinated than I am by U.S. politics, so I’ll put the rest below the fold. Yglesias quotes a Washington Post article on Blanche Lincoln returning to the U.S. Senate after surviving a primary challenge from a candidate supported by organized labor: Lincoln was embraced by her colleagues . . . Sen. Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) held up two fists and said of her primary campaign: “Fighting Wall Street with one hand, unions with the other.” Yglesias points out a fundamental asymmetry here: Schumer, who’s become something of a national leader among Senate Democrats, celebrates this ideal [of governing in a manner that's equidistant from rival interest groups], but there’s not a single member of the Republican Party–much less a leader–who’d say anything remotely similar. Schumer is basi
5 0.22466248 2255 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-19-How Americans vote
Introduction: An interview with me from 2012 : You’re a statistician and wrote a book, Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State , looking at why Americans vote the way they do. In an election year I think it would be a good time to revisit that question, not just for people in the US, but anyone around the world who wants to understand the realities – rather than the stereotypes – of how Americans vote. I regret the title I gave my book. I was too greedy. I wanted it to be an airport bestseller because I figured there were millions of people who are interested in politics and some subset of them are always looking at the statistics. It’s got a very grabby title and as a result people underestimated the content. They thought it was a popularisation of my work, or, at best, an expansion of an article we’d written. But it had tons of original material. If I’d given it a more serious, political science-y title, then all sorts of people would have wanted to read it, because they would
6 0.16802233 286 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-20-Are the Democrats avoiding a national campaign?
7 0.16362548 394 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-05-2010: What happened?
9 0.14937973 125 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-02-The moral of the story is, Don’t look yourself up on Google
10 0.14368743 1385 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-20-Reconciling different claims about working-class voters
11 0.13667449 1079 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-23-Surveys show Americans are populist class warriors, except when they aren’t
12 0.13650617 362 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-22-A redrawing of the Red-Blue map in November 2010?
14 0.12582174 8 andrew gelman stats-2010-04-28-Advice to help the rich get richer
15 0.1197259 2228 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-28-Combining two of my interests
17 0.11756696 1635 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-22-More Pinker Pinker Pinker
18 0.11365752 673 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-20-Upper-income people still don’t realize they’re upper-income
19 0.11173649 636 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-29-The Conservative States of America
20 0.11109578 50 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-25-Looking for Sister Right
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.168), (1, -0.113), (2, 0.165), (3, 0.115), (4, -0.102), (5, -0.025), (6, -0.062), (7, -0.023), (8, -0.016), (9, 0.053), (10, -0.013), (11, 0.0), (12, -0.042), (13, 0.048), (14, 0.102), (15, -0.023), (16, -0.039), (17, -0.024), (18, -0.04), (19, -0.054), (20, 0.05), (21, -0.05), (22, -0.003), (23, -0.075), (24, 0.007), (25, 0.004), (26, -0.021), (27, 0.017), (28, 0.037), (29, 0.008), (30, 0.067), (31, -0.014), (32, 0.018), (33, 0.058), (34, -0.026), (35, 0.009), (36, -0.028), (37, -0.002), (38, -0.047), (39, -0.005), (40, 0.013), (41, 0.008), (42, -0.018), (43, 0.045), (44, 0.025), (45, 0.001), (46, -0.037), (47, -0.04), (48, -0.062), (49, -0.021)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.95496857 201 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-12-Are all rich people now liberals?
Introduction: So asks James Ledbetter in Slate. And the answer is . . . No! Here’s what happened in 2008: OK, that’s how people vote. How bout party identification and ideology? Check these out : (Click on image to see larger version.) And here it is, sliced a different way : Of, if you want to see it in map form, check out this article (with Daniel and Yair). P.S. A skeptic might comment that the above graphs, which are based on national poll data, only break down incomes to the top 5% or so. What about the truly rich. Here are my thoughts on the political attitudes of the super-rich. P.P.S. Ledbetter actually makes some good points in his article, which is about the campaign contributions of rich Americans. The article relies on a recent book by David Callahan, which seems to echo the work of Tom Ferguson (cited in the above-linked blog entry), who’s tracked campaign contributions by industry over many years. I think that Ferguson (and Callahan) a
Introduction: Matthew Yglesias noticed something interesting in a political story today that reminds me of one of our arguments in Red State, Blue State. I have the feeling that most readers of this blog are less fascinated than I am by U.S. politics, so I’ll put the rest below the fold. Yglesias quotes a Washington Post article on Blanche Lincoln returning to the U.S. Senate after surviving a primary challenge from a candidate supported by organized labor: Lincoln was embraced by her colleagues . . . Sen. Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) held up two fists and said of her primary campaign: “Fighting Wall Street with one hand, unions with the other.” Yglesias points out a fundamental asymmetry here: Schumer, who’s become something of a national leader among Senate Democrats, celebrates this ideal [of governing in a manner that's equidistant from rival interest groups], but there’s not a single member of the Republican Party–much less a leader–who’d say anything remotely similar. Schumer is basi
3 0.88320208 362 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-22-A redrawing of the Red-Blue map in November 2010?
Introduction: Here are my answers to the following questions asked by Pauline Peretz: 1. Many analysts have emphasized that there was a redrawing of the electoral map in 2008. To what extent will the November midterm elections affect this red-blue map? How long will the newly blue states remain blue? 2. Do you think the predictable loss of the Democrats in November definitely disqualifies the hypothesis that Obama’s election was the beginning of a realignment in American politics, that is a period of dominance for the Democratic party due to favourable demographics? 3. Some analysts consider that voting patterns are best explained by economic factors, others by values. How do you position yourself in the debate on culture wars vs. economic wars? 4. In your book Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State, you renew the ongoing debate on the correlation between income and vote, showing it is much stronger in poor states. In light of this correlation, would you say that there currently is
Introduction: Charles Murray wrote a much-discussed new book, “Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010.” David Frum quotes Murray as writing, in an echo of now-forgotten TV personality Tucker Carlson , that the top 5% of incomes “tends to be liberal—right? There’s no getting around it. Every way of answering this question produces a yes.” [I’ve interjected a “perhaps” into the title of this blog post to indicate that I don’t have the exact Murray quote here so I’m relying on David Frum’s interpretation.] Frum does me the favor of citing Red State Blue State as evidence, and I’d like to back this up with some graphs. Frum writes: Say “top 5%” to Murray, and his imagination conjures up everything he dislikes: coastal liberals listening to NPR in their Lexus hybrid SUVs. He sees that image so intensely that no mere number can force him to remember that the top 5% also includes the evangelical Christian assistant coach of a state university football team. . . . To put it i
5 0.84903419 1385 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-20-Reconciling different claims about working-class voters
Introduction: After our discussions of psychologist Jonathan Haidt’s opinions about working-class voters (see here and here ), a question arose on how to reconcile the analyses of Alan Abramowitz and Tom Edsall (showing an increase in Republican voting among low-education working white southerners), with Larry Bartels’s finding that “there has been no discernible trend in presidential voting behavior among the ‘working white working class.’” Here is my resolution: All the statistics that have been posted seem reasonable to me. Also relevant to the discussion, I believe, are Figures 3.1, 4.2b, 10.1, and 10.2 of Red State Blue State. In short: Republicans continue to do about 20 percentage points better among upper-income voters compared to lower-income, but the compositions of these coalitions have changed over time. As has been noted, low-education white workers have moved toward the Republican party over the past few decades, and at the same time there have been compositional changes
7 0.81556594 1577 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-14-Richer people continue to vote Republican
8 0.81544012 1504 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-20-Could someone please lock this guy and Niall Ferguson in a room together?
11 0.78075212 636 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-29-The Conservative States of America
12 0.77487141 1635 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-22-More Pinker Pinker Pinker
13 0.76942688 1 andrew gelman stats-2010-04-22-Political Belief Networks: Socio-cognitive Heterogeneity in American Public Opinion
14 0.7664786 1169 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-15-Charles Murray on the new upper class
15 0.75622785 1079 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-23-Surveys show Americans are populist class warriors, except when they aren’t
16 0.74395138 666 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-18-American Beliefs about Economic Opportunity and Income Inequality
18 0.74120259 125 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-02-The moral of the story is, Don’t look yourself up on Google
19 0.74110866 1229 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-25-Same old story
topicId topicWeight
[(2, 0.012), (10, 0.016), (15, 0.023), (16, 0.08), (21, 0.024), (24, 0.104), (31, 0.023), (45, 0.037), (47, 0.013), (55, 0.176), (63, 0.036), (79, 0.018), (99, 0.289)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
1 0.95924771 688 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-30-Why it’s so relaxing to think about social issues
Introduction: I was invited by the Columbia University residence halls to speak at an event on gay marriage. (I’ve assisted my colleagues Jeff Lax and Justin Phillips in their research on the topic.) The event sounded fun–unfortunately I’ll be out of town that weekend so can’t make it–but it got me thinking about how gay marriage and other social issues are so relaxing to think about because there’s no need for doubt. About half of Americans support same-sex marriage and about half oppose it. And the funny thing is, you can be absolutely certain in your conviction, from either direction. If you support, it’s a simple matter of human rights, and it’s a bit ridiculous to suppose that if gay marriage is allowed, it will somehow wreck all the straight marriages out there. Conversely, you can oppose on the clear rationale of wanting to keep marriage the same as it’s always been, and suggest that same-sex couples can be free to get together outside of marriage, as they always could. (Hey, it was g
2 0.95595157 333 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-10-Psychiatric drugs and the reduction in crime
Introduction: Cameron McKenzie writes: I ran into the attached paper [by Dave Marcotte and Sara Markowitz] on the social benefits of prescription of psychotropic drugs, relating a drop in crime rate to an increase in psychiatric drug prescriptions. It’s not my area (which is psychophysics) but I do find this kind of thing interesting. Either people know much more than I think they do, or they are pretending to, and either is interesting. My feeling is that it doesn’t pass the sniff test, but I wondered if you might (i) find the paper interesting and/or (ii) perhaps be interested in commenting on it on the blog. It seems to me that if we cumulated all econometric studies of crime rate we would be able to explain well over 100% of the variation therein, but perhaps my skepticism is unwarranted. My reply: I know what you mean. The story seems plausible but the statistical analysis seems like a stretch. I appreciate that the authors included scatterplots of their data, but the patterns they
3 0.9534142 997 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-07-My contribution to the discussion on “Should voting be mandatory?”
Introduction: My short answer (based on the research of Leighley and Nagler): Whether or not mandatory voting is a good idea, I think it’s unlikely to happen at a national level. Even setting aside the practical difficulties of taking a now-voluntary action and making it compulsory, bringing in the other half of the potential electorate would change the political conversation so much that it’s hard for me to see current officeholders supporting such a plan. For the full story, see here .
4 0.9528116 168 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-28-Colorless green, and clueless
Introduction: Faithful readers will know that my ideal alternative career is to be an editor in the Max Perkins mold. If not that, I think I’d enjoy being a literary essayist, someone like Alfred Kazin or Edmund Wilson or Louis Menand, who could write about my favorite authors and books in a forum where others would read and discuss what I wrote. I could occasionally collect my articles into books, and so on. On the other hand, if I actually had such a career, I wouldn’t have much of an option to do statistical research in my spare time, so I think for my own broader goals, I’ve gotten hold of the right side of the stick. As it is, I enjoy writing about literary matters but it never quite seems worth spending the time to do it right. (And, stepping outside myself, I realize that I have a lot more to offer the world as a statistician than literary critic. Criticism is like musicianship–it can be hard to do, and it’s impressive when done well, but a lot of people can do it. Literary criticism
5 0.95007956 1299 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-04-Models, assumptions, and data summaries
Introduction: I saw an analysis recently that I didn’t like. I won’t go into the details, but basically it was a dose-response inference, where a continuous exposure was binned into three broad categories (terciles of the data) and the probability of an adverse event was computed for each tercile. The effect and the sample size was large enough that the terciles were statistically-significantly different from each other in probability of adverse event, with the probabilities increasing from low to mid to high exposure, as one would predict. I didn’t like this analysis because it is equivalent to fitting a step function. There is a tendency for people to interpret the (arbitrary) tercile boundaries as being meaningful thresholds even though the underlying dose-response relation has to be continuous. I’d prefer to start with a linear model and then add nonlinearity from there with a spline or whatever. At this point I stepped back and thought: Hey, the divide-into-three analysis does not lite
6 0.94932961 1463 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-19-It is difficult to convey intonation in typed speech
7 0.94806921 874 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-27-What’s “the definition of a professional career”?
8 0.94800383 269 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-10-R vs. Stata, or, Different ways to estimate multilevel models
9 0.94797313 1896 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-13-Against the myth of the heroic visualization
10 0.94407803 50 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-25-Looking for Sister Right
11 0.93901449 620 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-19-Online James?
12 0.93898302 2019 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-12-Recently in the sister blog
13 0.93735826 1617 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-11-Math Talks :: Action Movies
same-blog 14 0.93640906 201 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-12-Are all rich people now liberals?
15 0.9272908 1406 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-05-Xiao-Li Meng and Xianchao Xie rethink asymptotics
16 0.92535853 1243 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-03-Don’t do the King’s Gambit
17 0.91442329 1520 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-03-Advice that’s so eminently sensible but so difficult to follow
18 0.91205859 706 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-11-The happiness gene: My bottom line (for now)
19 0.90340918 2186 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-26-Infoviz on top of stat graphic on top of spreadsheet
20 0.89756 2163 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-08-How to display multinominal logit results graphically?