andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2010 andrew_gelman_stats-2010-237 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: They write : How many House seats will the Republicans gain in 2010? . . . Our methodology replicates that for our ultimately successful forecast of the 2006 midterm. Two weeks before Election Day in 2006, we posted a prediction that the Democrats would gain 32 seats and recapture the House majority. The Democrats gained 30 seats in 2006. Our current forecast for 2010 shows that the Republicans are likely to regain the House majority. . . . the most likely scenario is a Republican majority in the neighborhood of 229 seats versus 206 for the Democrats for a 50-seat loss for the Democrats . How do they do it? First, they predict the national two-party vote using the generic polls (asking voters which party they plan to vote for in the November congressional elections). Then they apply the national vote swing on a district-by-district level to predict the outcome in each district. They account for uncertainty in their predictions (I assume by using a model similar to what Gar
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 They write : How many House seats will the Republicans gain in 2010? [sent-1, score-0.591]
2 Our methodology replicates that for our ultimately successful forecast of the 2006 midterm. [sent-5, score-0.597]
3 Two weeks before Election Day in 2006, we posted a prediction that the Democrats would gain 32 seats and recapture the House majority. [sent-6, score-0.738]
4 Our current forecast for 2010 shows that the Republicans are likely to regain the House majority. [sent-8, score-0.502]
5 the most likely scenario is a Republican majority in the neighborhood of 229 seats versus 206 for the Democrats for a 50-seat loss for the Democrats . [sent-12, score-0.963]
6 First, they predict the national two-party vote using the generic polls (asking voters which party they plan to vote for in the November congressional elections). [sent-14, score-1.185]
7 Then they apply the national vote swing on a district-by-district level to predict the outcome in each district. [sent-15, score-0.682]
8 They account for uncertainty in their predictions (I assume by using a model similar to what Gary King and I did in 1994), which induces a probabilistic forecast of the number of districts won by each party. [sent-16, score-0.744]
9 Way back in September, 2009 –over eleven months ago–we used an earlier version of the Bafumi/Erikson/Wlezien model to predict a Republican House takeover in 2010. [sent-18, score-0.601]
10 As I wrote several months ago , it feels good for once to be ahead of the story. [sent-19, score-0.371]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('seats', 0.421), ('democrats', 0.297), ('house', 0.296), ('forecast', 0.261), ('predict', 0.205), ('vote', 0.195), ('gain', 0.17), ('republicans', 0.15), ('regain', 0.147), ('republican', 0.142), ('eleven', 0.139), ('induces', 0.139), ('months', 0.129), ('takeover', 0.128), ('national', 0.118), ('replicates', 0.11), ('neighborhood', 0.108), ('districts', 0.108), ('gained', 0.107), ('swing', 0.095), ('september', 0.095), ('likely', 0.094), ('scenario', 0.094), ('probabilistic', 0.092), ('november', 0.092), ('king', 0.089), ('generic', 0.088), ('congressional', 0.088), ('gary', 0.087), ('versus', 0.085), ('methodology', 0.084), ('ago', 0.084), ('feels', 0.083), ('polls', 0.082), ('loss', 0.082), ('majority', 0.079), ('successful', 0.076), ('voters', 0.076), ('weeks', 0.076), ('ahead', 0.075), ('regular', 0.075), ('elections', 0.075), ('account', 0.073), ('predictions', 0.071), ('prediction', 0.071), ('plan', 0.07), ('asking', 0.07), ('outcome', 0.069), ('party', 0.068), ('ultimately', 0.066)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.99999994 237 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-27-Bafumi-Erikson-Wlezien predict a 50-seat loss for Democrats in November
Introduction: They write : How many House seats will the Republicans gain in 2010? . . . Our methodology replicates that for our ultimately successful forecast of the 2006 midterm. Two weeks before Election Day in 2006, we posted a prediction that the Democrats would gain 32 seats and recapture the House majority. The Democrats gained 30 seats in 2006. Our current forecast for 2010 shows that the Republicans are likely to regain the House majority. . . . the most likely scenario is a Republican majority in the neighborhood of 229 seats versus 206 for the Democrats for a 50-seat loss for the Democrats . How do they do it? First, they predict the national two-party vote using the generic polls (asking voters which party they plan to vote for in the November congressional elections). Then they apply the national vote swing on a district-by-district level to predict the outcome in each district. They account for uncertainty in their predictions (I assume by using a model similar to what Gar
2 0.42265201 292 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-23-Doug Hibbs on the fundamentals in 2010
Introduction: Hibbs, one of the original economy-and-elections guys, writes : The number of House seats won by the presidents party at midterm elections is well explained by three pre-determined or exogenous variables: (1) the number of House seats won by the in-party at the previous on-year election, (2) the vote margin of the in-partys candidate at the previous presidential election, and (3) the average growth rate of per capita real disposable personal income during the congressional term. Given the partisan division of House seats following the 2008 on-year election, President Obamas margin of victory in 2008, and the weak growth of per capita real income during the rst 6 quarters of the 111th Congress, the Democrats chances of holding on to a House majority by winning at least 218 seats at the 2010 midterm election will depend on real income growth in the 3rd quarter of 2010. The data available at this writing indicate the that Democrats will win 211 seats, a loss of 45 from the 2008 o
3 0.35425332 210 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-16-What I learned from those tough 538 commenters
Introduction: Some recent blog comments made me rethink how to express disagreement when I write. I’ll first display my original blog entry, then some of the comments, then my reaction, and finally my new approach. As usual with negative comments, my first reaction was to be upset, but once the hurt feelings went away, I realized that these dudes had a point. Act 1 A few days I ago, I posted the following on 538: Self-described “ political operative ” Les Francis, with real-world experience as former executive director of the Democratic National Committee: I don’t need any polls to tell me that Republicans will do well in November. The “out” party almost always shows significant gains in the first midterm election of a new President. Political scientists Joe Bafumi, Bob Erikson, and Chris Wlezien, from elite, out-of-touch, ivory-tower institutions Dartmouth, Columbia, and Temple Universities: Game over. Act 2 After posting, I typically check the comments because so
4 0.34093544 270 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-12-Comparison of forecasts for the 2010 congressional elections
Introduction: Yesterday at the sister blog , Nate Silver forecast that the Republicans have a two-thirds chance of regaining the House of Representatives in the upcoming election, with an expected gain of 45 House seats. Last month, Bafumi, Erikson, and Wlezien released their forecast that gives the Republicans an 80% chance of takeover and an expected gain of 50 seats. As all the above writers emphasize, these forecasts are full of uncertainty, so I treat the two predictions–a 45-seat swing or a 50-seat swing–as essentially identical at the national level. And, as regular readers know, as far back as a year ago , the generic Congressional ballot (those questions of the form, “Which party do you plan to vote for in November?”) was also pointing to big Republican gains. As Bafumi et al. point out, early generic polls are strongly predictive of the election outcome, but they need to be interpreted carefully. The polls move in a generally predictable manner during the year leading up to an
5 0.33838853 286 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-20-Are the Democrats avoiding a national campaign?
Introduction: Bob Erikson, one of my colleagues at Columbia who knows much more about American politics than I do, sent in the following screed. I’ll post Bob’s note, followed by my comments. Bob writes: Monday morning many of us were startled by the following headline: White House strenuously denies NYT report that it is considering getting aggressive about winning the midterm elections. At first I [Bob] thought I was reading the Onion, but no, it was a sarcastic comment on the blog Talking Points Memo. But the gist of the headline appears to be correct. Indeed, the New York Times reported that White House advisers denied that a national ad campaign was being planned. ‘There’s been no discussion of such a thing at the White House’ What do we make of this? Is there some hidden downside to actually running a national campaign? Of course, money spent nationally is not spent on targeted local campaigns. But that is always the case. What explains the Democrats’ trepidation abou
6 0.23078002 394 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-05-2010: What happened?
8 0.20195295 2255 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-19-How Americans vote
9 0.2009082 384 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-31-Two stories about the election that I don’t believe
10 0.19566035 369 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-25-Misunderstanding of divided government
11 0.1698474 312 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-02-“Regression to the mean” is fine. But what’s the “mean”?
12 0.16535725 377 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-28-The incoming moderate Republican congressmembers
13 0.15949091 1544 andrew gelman stats-2012-10-22-Is it meaningful to talk about a probability of “65.7%” that Obama will win the election?
14 0.14684801 250 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-02-Blending results from two relatively independent multi-level models
15 0.14519137 389 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-01-Why it can be rational to vote
16 0.14519137 1565 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-06-Why it can be rational to vote
17 0.13921513 551 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-02-Obama and Reagan, sitting in a tree, etc.
18 0.12663832 1570 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-08-Poll aggregation and election forecasting
19 0.12639043 162 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-25-Darn that Lindsey Graham! (or, “Mr. P Predicts the Kagan vote”)
20 0.12420806 391 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-03-Some thoughts on election forecasting
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.12), (1, -0.057), (2, 0.239), (3, 0.169), (4, -0.117), (5, 0.029), (6, -0.111), (7, -0.098), (8, 0.005), (9, -0.057), (10, 0.128), (11, 0.094), (12, 0.037), (13, -0.145), (14, -0.061), (15, 0.005), (16, -0.011), (17, 0.018), (18, -0.03), (19, 0.045), (20, -0.075), (21, 0.09), (22, 0.038), (23, -0.008), (24, 0.018), (25, 0.047), (26, -0.008), (27, -0.005), (28, 0.015), (29, 0.048), (30, -0.026), (31, 0.039), (32, -0.036), (33, 0.024), (34, 0.01), (35, 0.004), (36, -0.033), (37, -0.008), (38, 0.021), (39, -0.015), (40, -0.097), (41, 0.024), (42, 0.054), (43, 0.034), (44, 0.036), (45, -0.005), (46, -0.023), (47, -0.053), (48, 0.039), (49, 0.04)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.98674214 237 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-27-Bafumi-Erikson-Wlezien predict a 50-seat loss for Democrats in November
Introduction: They write : How many House seats will the Republicans gain in 2010? . . . Our methodology replicates that for our ultimately successful forecast of the 2006 midterm. Two weeks before Election Day in 2006, we posted a prediction that the Democrats would gain 32 seats and recapture the House majority. The Democrats gained 30 seats in 2006. Our current forecast for 2010 shows that the Republicans are likely to regain the House majority. . . . the most likely scenario is a Republican majority in the neighborhood of 229 seats versus 206 for the Democrats for a 50-seat loss for the Democrats . How do they do it? First, they predict the national two-party vote using the generic polls (asking voters which party they plan to vote for in the November congressional elections). Then they apply the national vote swing on a district-by-district level to predict the outcome in each district. They account for uncertainty in their predictions (I assume by using a model similar to what Gar
2 0.90694869 292 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-23-Doug Hibbs on the fundamentals in 2010
Introduction: Hibbs, one of the original economy-and-elections guys, writes : The number of House seats won by the presidents party at midterm elections is well explained by three pre-determined or exogenous variables: (1) the number of House seats won by the in-party at the previous on-year election, (2) the vote margin of the in-partys candidate at the previous presidential election, and (3) the average growth rate of per capita real disposable personal income during the congressional term. Given the partisan division of House seats following the 2008 on-year election, President Obamas margin of victory in 2008, and the weak growth of per capita real income during the rst 6 quarters of the 111th Congress, the Democrats chances of holding on to a House majority by winning at least 218 seats at the 2010 midterm election will depend on real income growth in the 3rd quarter of 2010. The data available at this writing indicate the that Democrats will win 211 seats, a loss of 45 from the 2008 o
3 0.81762129 270 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-12-Comparison of forecasts for the 2010 congressional elections
Introduction: Yesterday at the sister blog , Nate Silver forecast that the Republicans have a two-thirds chance of regaining the House of Representatives in the upcoming election, with an expected gain of 45 House seats. Last month, Bafumi, Erikson, and Wlezien released their forecast that gives the Republicans an 80% chance of takeover and an expected gain of 50 seats. As all the above writers emphasize, these forecasts are full of uncertainty, so I treat the two predictions–a 45-seat swing or a 50-seat swing–as essentially identical at the national level. And, as regular readers know, as far back as a year ago , the generic Congressional ballot (those questions of the form, “Which party do you plan to vote for in November?”) was also pointing to big Republican gains. As Bafumi et al. point out, early generic polls are strongly predictive of the election outcome, but they need to be interpreted carefully. The polls move in a generally predictable manner during the year leading up to an
4 0.79716688 1000 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-10-Forecasting 2012: How much does ideology matter?
Introduction: Brendan Nyhan and Jacob Montgomery talk sense here . I am perhaps too influenced by Steven Rosenstone’s 1983 book, Forecasting Presidential Elections, which is the first thing I read on the topic. In any case, I agree with Nyhan and Montgomery that the difference in vote, comparing a centrist candidate to an extreme candidate, is probably on the order of 1-2%, not the 4% that has been posited by some. Among other things, ideological differences between candidates of the same party might seem big in the primaries, but then when the general election comes along, party ID becomes more important. I also disagree with the model in which presidential elections are like votes for high school prom king .
5 0.79400456 1512 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-27-A Non-random Walk Down Campaign Street
Introduction: Political campaigns are commonly understood as random walks, during which, at any point in time, the level of support for any party or candidate is equally likely to go up or down. Each shift in the polls is then interpreted as the result of some combination of news and campaign strategies. A completely different story of campaigns is the mean reversion model in which the elections are determined by fundamental factors of the economy and partisanship; the role of the campaign is to give voters a chance to reach their predetermined positions. The popularity of the random walk model for polls may be partially explained via analogy to the widespread idea that stock prices reflect all available information, as popularized in Burton Malkiel’s book, A Random Walk Down Wall Street. Once the idea has sunk in that short-term changes in the stock market are inherently unpredictable, it is natural for journalists to think the same of polls. For example, political analyst Nate Silver wrote
6 0.77778286 286 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-20-Are the Democrats avoiding a national campaign?
8 0.75290602 210 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-16-What I learned from those tough 538 commenters
9 0.7452839 377 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-28-The incoming moderate Republican congressmembers
10 0.72082388 1556 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-01-Recently in the sister blogs: special pre-election edition!
11 0.70260167 1407 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-06-Statistical inference and the secret ballot
12 0.70237881 1570 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-08-Poll aggregation and election forecasting
13 0.69625396 934 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-30-Nooooooooooooooooooo!
14 0.69469732 162 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-25-Darn that Lindsey Graham! (or, “Mr. P Predicts the Kagan vote”)
15 0.69045115 312 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-02-“Regression to the mean” is fine. But what’s the “mean”?
16 0.68763596 1574 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-12-How to Lie With Statistics example number 12,498,122
17 0.68734229 369 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-25-Misunderstanding of divided government
18 0.68234569 43 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-19-What do Tuesday’s elections tell us about November?
19 0.67631948 1027 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-25-Note to student journalists: Google is your friend
20 0.66164154 394 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-05-2010: What happened?
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.015), (2, 0.019), (9, 0.025), (16, 0.105), (21, 0.03), (24, 0.055), (31, 0.014), (34, 0.101), (53, 0.163), (63, 0.012), (73, 0.012), (86, 0.094), (93, 0.012), (95, 0.013), (99, 0.228)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.95567822 237 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-27-Bafumi-Erikson-Wlezien predict a 50-seat loss for Democrats in November
Introduction: They write : How many House seats will the Republicans gain in 2010? . . . Our methodology replicates that for our ultimately successful forecast of the 2006 midterm. Two weeks before Election Day in 2006, we posted a prediction that the Democrats would gain 32 seats and recapture the House majority. The Democrats gained 30 seats in 2006. Our current forecast for 2010 shows that the Republicans are likely to regain the House majority. . . . the most likely scenario is a Republican majority in the neighborhood of 229 seats versus 206 for the Democrats for a 50-seat loss for the Democrats . How do they do it? First, they predict the national two-party vote using the generic polls (asking voters which party they plan to vote for in the November congressional elections). Then they apply the national vote swing on a district-by-district level to predict the outcome in each district. They account for uncertainty in their predictions (I assume by using a model similar to what Gar
2 0.88956261 46 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-21-Careers, one-hit wonders, and an offer of a free book
Introduction: J. Robert Lennon writes : At the moment I [Lennon] am simultaneously working on two magazine articles, each requiring me to assess not just a book, but (briefly) a writer’s entire career. The writers in question are both prominent, both widely published, read, and appreciated. And yet neither, I think, enjoys a full appreciation of their career–its real scope, with all its twists and turns, its eccentricities intact. In one case, the writer had one smash hit, and one notorious book everyone hates. In the other, the writer has somehow become known as the author of one really serious book that gets taught a lot in college classes, and a bunch of other stuff generally thought to be a little bit frivolous. But close readings of each (hell, not even that close) reveals these reputations to be woefully inadequate. Both writers are much more interesting than their hits and bombs would suggest. This naturally got me thinking about statisticians. Some statisticians are famous (within
3 0.8886956 1856 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-14-GPstuff: Bayesian Modeling with Gaussian Processes
Introduction: I think it’s part of my duty as a blogger to intersperse, along with the steady flow of jokes, rants, and literary criticism, some material that will actually be useful to you. So here goes. Jarno Vanhatalo, Jaakko Riihimäki, Jouni Hartikainen, Pasi Jylänki, Ville Tolvanen, and Aki Vehtari write : The GPstuff toolbox is a versatile collection of Gaussian process models and computational tools required for Bayesian inference. The tools include, among others, various inference methods, sparse approximations and model assessment methods. We can actually now fit Gaussian processes in Stan . But for big problems (or even moderately-sized problems), full Bayes can be slow. GPstuff uses EP, which is faster. At some point we’d like to implement EP in Stan. (Right now we’re working with Dave Blei to implement VB.) GPstuff really works. I saw Aki use it to fit a nonparametric version of the Bangladesh well-switching example in ARM. He was sitting in his office and just whip
4 0.8831231 1468 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-24-Multilevel modeling and instrumental variables
Introduction: Terence Teo writes: I was wondering if multilevel models can be used as an alternative to 2SLS or IV models to deal with (i) endogeneity and (ii) selection problems. More concretely, I am trying to assess the impact of investment treaties on foreign investment. Aside from the fact that foreign investment is correlated over time, it may be the case that countries that already receive sufficient amounts of foreign investment need not sign treaties, and countries that sign treaties are those that need foreign investment in the first place. Countries thus “select” into treatment; treaty signing is non-random. As such, I argue that to properly estimate the impact of treaties on investment, we must model the determinants of treaty signing. I [Teo] am currently modeling this as two separate models: (1) regress predictors on likelihood of treaty signing, (2) regress treaty (with interactions, etc) on investment (I’ve thought of using propensity score matching for this part of the model)
5 0.88207495 1902 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-17-Job opening at new “big data” consulting firm!
Introduction: David Shor sends along a job announcement for Civis Analytics, which he describes as “basically Obama’s Analytics team reconstituted as a company”: Data Scientist Position Overview Data Scientists are responsible for providing the fundamental data science that powers our work – including predictive analytics, data mining, experimental design and ad-hoc statistical analysis. As a Data Scientist, you will join our Chicago-based data science team, working closely and collaboratively with analysts and engineers to identify, quantify and solve big, meaningful problems. Data Scientists will have the opportunity to dive deeply into big problems and work in a variety of areas. Civis Analytics has opportunities for applicants who are seasoned professionals, brilliant new comers, and anywhere in between. Qualifications · Master’s degree in statistics, machine learning, computer science with heavy quant focus, a related subject, or a Bachelor’s degree and significant work ex
7 0.87182975 1677 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-16-Greenland is one tough town
8 0.87180579 1905 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-18-There are no fat sprinters
9 0.86500227 2022 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-13-You heard it here first: Intense exercise can suppress appetite
10 0.85769713 1802 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-14-Detecting predictability in complex ecosystems
11 0.85477668 1861 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-17-Where do theories come from?
12 0.85466373 733 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-27-Another silly graph
13 0.85246927 991 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-04-Insecure researchers aren’t sharing their data
14 0.85128093 1589 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-25-Life as a blogger: the emails just get weirder and weirder
15 0.84401798 495 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-31-“Threshold earners” and economic inequality
16 0.84200138 108 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-24-Sometimes the raw numbers are better than a percentage
17 0.83826184 1047 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-08-I Am Too Absolutely Heteroskedastic for This Probit Model
18 0.83461261 880 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-30-Annals of spam
20 0.83120251 499 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-03-5 books