andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2010 andrew_gelman_stats-2010-286 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
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
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 Indeed, the New York Times reported that White House advisers denied that a national ad campaign was being planned. [sent-6, score-0.454]
2 Is there some hidden downside to actually running a national campaign? [sent-8, score-0.209]
3 What explains the Democrats’ trepidation about mounting a campaign and actually trying to woo voters? [sent-11, score-0.265]
4 Could this be the same timidity that prompts congressional Democrats to fear actually voting to retain the Bush tax cuts except for the top 3 percent of income? [sent-12, score-0.196]
5 The fear of campaigning made even more puzzling when you consider the poll data. [sent-17, score-0.194]
6 On the generic ballot, the parties are virtually tied among registered voters. [sent-19, score-0.212]
7 Why not try to enthuse all those unlikely but registered voters who must, by simple arithmetic, be mainly disillusioned Democrats? [sent-21, score-0.283]
8 And when they think about the issue they think fondly of the political party that “owns” the issue. [sent-26, score-0.163]
9 ” For instance, any mention of taxes causes voters to think of taxes and thus stampede to the Republicans who own “taxes. [sent-28, score-0.374]
10 They are not afraid to campaign on their beliefs. [sent-31, score-0.265]
11 But they did not hesitate to run a national campaign, challenging the Democrats’ supposed advantage on economic policy with the slogan “Stay the Course. [sent-34, score-0.171]
12 In 2004, the Democrats thought they had neutralize the Republicans’ advantage on defense issues by nominating war hero John Kerry. [sent-38, score-0.168]
13 What could a national Democratic ad campaign say in this Republican year? [sent-41, score-0.454]
14 Democratic leaders generally believe that Obama’s policies staunched the bleeding from the Bush recession and that the Tea Party plan to starve the federal government would lead to economic disaster. [sent-42, score-0.161]
15 And I wouldn’t be surprised if the White House is getting urgent messages from Democrats running in swing districts, asking the national party to please sent money but otherwise to stay away. [sent-47, score-0.541]
16 On the other hand, if the election is going to be nationalized anyway–and my intuition is that this is happening whether the parties want it or not–then I think Bob is probably right–the Democrats should be out there campaigning. [sent-48, score-0.178]
17 The larger question is whether it’s true, as Bob says, that the two parties campaign differently. [sent-49, score-0.396]
18 Democrats have been the party of government (to the extent that Republicans don’t always seem clear on what to do with the government when in power), while Republicans are traditionally the party of business. [sent-52, score-0.548]
19 That is, there’s been a rough division of labor, with Democrats running most things within government and Republicans running most of private industry. [sent-53, score-0.287]
20 So maybe we could understand some of the asymmetry in campaigning as arising from these different roles: as the natural party of government, the Democrats haven’t really felt the need to campaign so aggressively. [sent-54, score-0.528]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('democrats', 0.482), ('republicans', 0.409), ('campaign', 0.265), ('bob', 0.192), ('party', 0.163), ('voters', 0.155), ('house', 0.152), ('democratic', 0.137), ('parties', 0.131), ('national', 0.121), ('government', 0.111), ('campaigning', 0.1), ('white', 0.098), ('obama', 0.097), ('fear', 0.094), ('running', 0.088), ('erikson', 0.085), ('registered', 0.081), ('tea', 0.075), ('issues', 0.071), ('reagan', 0.069), ('ad', 0.068), ('bush', 0.064), ('headline', 0.061), ('stay', 0.06), ('sent', 0.059), ('taxes', 0.059), ('lost', 0.053), ('tax', 0.052), ('mention', 0.051), ('bleeding', 0.05), ('gist', 0.05), ('owns', 0.05), ('plunged', 0.05), ('stampede', 0.05), ('startled', 0.05), ('strenuously', 0.05), ('timidity', 0.05), ('urgent', 0.05), ('advantage', 0.05), ('spent', 0.049), ('republican', 0.049), ('disillusioned', 0.047), ('slew', 0.047), ('millionaires', 0.047), ('nationalized', 0.047), ('nominating', 0.047), ('relentlessly', 0.047), ('onion', 0.045), ('enthusiasm', 0.045)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0000002 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
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 0.38303816 394 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-05-2010: What happened?
Introduction: A lot of people are asking, How could the voters have swung so much in two years? And, why didn’t Obama give Americans a better sense of his long-term economic plan in 2009, back when he still had a political mandate? As an academic statistician and political scientist, I have no insight into the administration’s internal deliberations, but I have some thoughts based on my interpretation of political science research. The baseline As Doug Hibbs and others have pointed out, given the Democrats’ existing large majority in both houses of Congress and the continuing economic depression, we’d expect a big Republican swing in the vote. And this has been echoed for a long time in the polls–as early as September, 2009–over a year before the election–political scientists were forecasting that the Democrats were going to lose big in the midterms. (The polls have made it clear that most voters do not believe the Republican Party has the answer either. But, as I’ve emphasized before
4 0.33838853 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
5 0.33636212 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 0.27634525 210 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-16-What I learned from those tough 538 commenters
7 0.26958176 1577 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-14-Richer people continue to vote Republican
8 0.24479219 2228 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-28-Combining two of my interests
9 0.23818421 384 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-31-Two stories about the election that I don’t believe
10 0.22723877 369 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-25-Misunderstanding of divided government
11 0.22650087 659 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-13-Jim Campbell argues that Larry Bartels’s “Unequal Democracy” findings are not robust
12 0.21551442 1079 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-23-Surveys show Americans are populist class warriors, except when they aren’t
13 0.2047753 312 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-02-“Regression to the mean” is fine. But what’s the “mean”?
14 0.20433867 521 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-17-“the Tea Party’s ire, directed at Democrats and Republicans alike”
15 0.19954813 551 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-02-Obama and Reagan, sitting in a tree, etc.
16 0.19627221 1020 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-20-No no no no no
17 0.18767475 1388 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-22-Americans think economy isn’t so bad in their city but is crappy nationally and globally
18 0.18660031 654 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-09-There’s no evidence that voters choose presidential candidates based on their looks
19 0.17134327 377 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-28-The incoming moderate Republican congressmembers
20 0.16802233 201 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-12-Are all rich people now liberals?
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.164), (1, -0.15), (2, 0.253), (3, 0.199), (4, -0.166), (5, 0.023), (6, -0.092), (7, -0.083), (8, -0.04), (9, -0.0), (10, 0.031), (11, 0.077), (12, 0.023), (13, -0.084), (14, 0.032), (15, -0.022), (16, -0.05), (17, 0.012), (18, -0.084), (19, 0.039), (20, 0.001), (21, 0.032), (22, 0.046), (23, 0.012), (24, -0.027), (25, 0.028), (26, -0.042), (27, -0.004), (28, 0.018), (29, 0.044), (30, 0.001), (31, 0.055), (32, 0.008), (33, 0.067), (34, -0.073), (35, 0.001), (36, -0.111), (37, 0.04), (38, 0.08), (39, 0.014), (40, -0.018), (41, 0.038), (42, 0.074), (43, 0.071), (44, 0.07), (45, 0.027), (46, 0.045), (47, -0.009), (48, -0.006), (49, 0.02)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.9814114 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
2 0.90107846 394 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-05-2010: What happened?
Introduction: A lot of people are asking, How could the voters have swung so much in two years? And, why didn’t Obama give Americans a better sense of his long-term economic plan in 2009, back when he still had a political mandate? As an academic statistician and political scientist, I have no insight into the administration’s internal deliberations, but I have some thoughts based on my interpretation of political science research. The baseline As Doug Hibbs and others have pointed out, given the Democrats’ existing large majority in both houses of Congress and the continuing economic depression, we’d expect a big Republican swing in the vote. And this has been echoed for a long time in the polls–as early as September, 2009–over a year before the election–political scientists were forecasting that the Democrats were going to lose big in the midterms. (The polls have made it clear that most voters do not believe the Republican Party has the answer either. But, as I’ve emphasized before
3 0.88447458 551 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-02-Obama and Reagan, sitting in a tree, etc.
Introduction: I saw this picture staring at me from the newsstand the other day: Here’s the accompanying article, by Michael Scherer and Michael Duffy, which echoes some of the points I made a few months ago , following the midterm election: Why didn’t Obama do a better job of leveling with the American people? In his first months in office, why didn’t he anticipate the example of the incoming British government and warn people of economic blood, sweat, and tears? Why did his economic team release overly-optimistic graphs such as shown here? Wouldn’t it have been better to have set low expectations and then exceed them, rather than the reverse? I don’t know, but here’s my theory. When Obama came into office, I imagine one of his major goals was to avoid repeating the experiences of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter in their first two years. Clinton, you may recall, was elected with less then 50% of the vote, was never given the respect of a “mandate” by congressional Republicans, wasted
Introduction: A few years ago Larry Bartels presented this graph, a version of which latter appeared in his book Unequal Democracy: Larry looked at the data in a number of ways, and the evidence seemed convincing that, at least in the short term, the Democrats were better than Republicans for the economy. This is consistent with Democrats’ general policies of lowering unemployment, as compared to Republicans lowering inflation, and, by comparing first-term to second-term presidents, he found that the result couldn’t simply be explained as a rebound or alternation pattern. The question then arose, why have the Republicans won so many elections? Why aren’t the Democrats consistently dominating? Non-economic issues are part of the story, of course, but lots of evidence shows the economy to be a key concern for voters, so it’s still hard to see how, with a pattern such as shown above, the Republicans could keep winning. Larry had some explanations, largely having to do with timing: under De
5 0.86098933 384 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-31-Two stories about the election that I don’t believe
Introduction: I don’t exactly disagree with the two arguments that I reproduce below, but I think they miss the point. Is “the battle over elitism” really central to this election? First, the easy one. Peter Baker in the New York Times, under the heading, “Elitism: The Charge That Obama Can’t Shake”: For all the discussion of health care and spending and jobs, at the core of the nation’s debate this fall has been the battle of elitism. . . . Ron Bonjean, a Republican strategist, said Mr. Obama had not connected with popular discontent. “A lot of people have never been to Washington or New York, and they feel people there are so out of touch,” he said. . . . Rather than entertaining the possibility that the program they have pursued is genuinely and even legitimately unpopular, the White House and its allies have concluded that their political troubles amount to mainly a message and image problem. I think this is misleading for the usual reason that these message-oriented critiques are
6 0.814116 1020 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-20-No no no no no
7 0.81249112 84 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-14-Is it 1930?
8 0.81213164 1577 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-14-Richer people continue to vote Republican
9 0.79043955 237 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-27-Bafumi-Erikson-Wlezien predict a 50-seat loss for Democrats in November
10 0.79039061 1569 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-08-30-30-40 Nation
11 0.78833234 377 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-28-The incoming moderate Republican congressmembers
12 0.78155535 521 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-17-“the Tea Party’s ire, directed at Democrats and Republicans alike”
14 0.74973428 312 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-02-“Regression to the mean” is fine. But what’s the “mean”?
16 0.74773628 1388 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-22-Americans think economy isn’t so bad in their city but is crappy nationally and globally
17 0.74570173 369 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-25-Misunderstanding of divided government
18 0.74313116 1407 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-06-Statistical inference and the secret ballot
19 0.73650217 1574 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-12-How to Lie With Statistics example number 12,498,122
20 0.72638589 654 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-09-There’s no evidence that voters choose presidential candidates based on their looks
topicId topicWeight
[(2, 0.025), (9, 0.017), (13, 0.016), (15, 0.016), (16, 0.059), (21, 0.047), (24, 0.09), (45, 0.019), (55, 0.048), (63, 0.156), (86, 0.025), (93, 0.027), (99, 0.268)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
1 0.97382462 1621 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-13-Puzzles of criminal justice
Introduction: Four recent news stories about crime and punishment made me realize, yet again, how little I understand all this. 1. “HSBC to Pay $1.92 Billion to Settle Charges of Money Laundering” : State and federal authorities decided against indicting HSBC in a money-laundering case over concerns that criminal charges could jeopardize one of the world’s largest banks and ultimately destabilize the global financial system. Instead, HSBC announced on Tuesday that it had agreed to a record $1.92 billion settlement with authorities. . . . I don’t understand this idea of punishing the institution. I have the same problem when the NCAA punishes a college football program. These are individual people breaking the law (or the rules), right? So why not punish them directly? Giving 40 lashes to a bunch of HSBC executives and garnisheeing their salaries for life, say, that wouldn’t destabilize the global financial system would it? From the article: “A money-laundering indictment, or a guilt
2 0.96136367 1480 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-02-“If our product is harmful . . . we’ll stop making it.”
Introduction: After our discussion of the sad case of Darrell Huff, the celebrated “How to Lie with Statistics” guy who had a lucrative side career disparaging the link between smoking and cancer, I was motivated to follow John Mashey’s recommendation and read the book, Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition, by historian Robert Proctor. My first stop upon receiving the book was the index, in particular the entry for Rubin, Donald B. I followed the reference to pages 440-442 and found the description of Don’s activities to be accurate, neither diminished nor overstated, to the best of my knowledge. Rubin is the second-most-famous statistician to have been paid by the cigarette industry, but several other big and small names have been on the payroll at one time or another. Here’s a partial list . Just including the people I know or have heard of: Herbert Solomon, Stanford Richard Tweedie, Bond U Arnold Zellner, U of Chicago Paul Switzer, S
same-blog 3 0.96116823 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
4 0.96108198 313 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-03-A question for psychometricians
Introduction: Don Coffin writes: A colleague of mine and I are doing a presentation for new faculty on a number of topics related to teaching. Our charge is to identify interesting issues and to find research-based information for them about how to approach things. So, what I wondered is, do you know of any published research dealing with the sort of issues about structuring a course and final exam in the ways you talk about in this blog post ? Some poking around in the usual places hasn’t turned anything up yet. I don’t really know the psychometrics literature but I imagine that some good stuff has been written on principles of test design. There are probably some good papers from back in the 1920s. Can anyone supply some references?
5 0.95801449 1484 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-05-Two exciting movie ideas: “Second Chance U” and “The New Dirty Dozen”
Introduction: I have a great idea for a movie. Actually two movies based on two variants of a similar idea. It all started when I saw this story: Dr. Anil Potti, the controversial cancer researcher whose work at Duke University led to lawsuits from patients, is now a medical oncologist at the Cancer Center of North Dakota in Grand Forks. When asked about Dr. Potti’s controversial appointment, his new boss said : If a guy can’t get a second chance here in North Dakota, where he trained, man, you can’t get a second chance anywhere. (Link from Retraction Watch , of course.) Potti’s boss is also quoted as saying, “Most, if not all, his patients have loved him.” On the other hand, the news article reports: “The North Carolina medical board’s website lists settlements against Potti of at least $75,000.” I guess there’s no reason you can’t love a guy and still want a juicy malpractice settlement. Second Chance U I don’t give two poops about Dr. Anil Potti. But seeing the above s
6 0.95630395 782 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-29-Putting together multinomial discrete regressions by combining simple logits
8 0.95032632 293 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-23-Lowess is great
9 0.93668377 1078 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-22-Tables as graphs: The Ramanujan principle
10 0.93639231 2103 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-16-Objects of the class “Objects of the class”
11 0.93319309 1201 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-07-Inference = data + model
12 0.93310189 102 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-21-Why modern art is all in the mind
13 0.93275613 544 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-29-Splitting the data
14 0.93096149 628 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-25-100-year floods
15 0.92787075 745 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-04-High-level intellectual discussions in the Columbia statistics department
16 0.91769791 1690 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-23-When are complicated models helpful in psychology research and when are they overkill?
17 0.91753578 421 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-19-Just chaid
18 0.91338003 2163 andrew gelman stats-2014-01-08-How to display multinominal logit results graphically?
19 0.91262829 1506 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-21-Building a regression model . . . with only 27 data points
20 0.91179961 460 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-09-Statistics gifts?