andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2010 andrew_gelman_stats-2010-312 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: In the context of a discussion of Democratic party strategies, Matthew Yglesias writes : Given where things stood in January 2009, large House losses were essentially inevitable. The Democratic majority elected in 2008 was totally unsustainable and was doomed by basic regression to the mean. I’d like to push back on this, if for no other reason than that I didn’t foresee all this back in January 2009. Regression to the mean is a fine idea, but what’s the “mean” that you’re regressing to? Here’s a graph I made a couple years ago , showing the time series of Democratic vote share in congressional and presidential elections: Take a look at the House vote in 2006 and 2008. Is this a blip, just begging to be slammed down in 2010 by a regression to the mean? Or does it represent a return to form, back to the 55% level of support that the Democrats had for most of the previous fifty years? It’s not so obvious what to think–at least, not simply from looking at the graph.
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 In the context of a discussion of Democratic party strategies, Matthew Yglesias writes : Given where things stood in January 2009, large House losses were essentially inevitable. [sent-1, score-0.162]
2 The Democratic majority elected in 2008 was totally unsustainable and was doomed by basic regression to the mean. [sent-2, score-0.462]
3 I’d like to push back on this, if for no other reason than that I didn’t foresee all this back in January 2009. [sent-3, score-0.333]
4 Regression to the mean is a fine idea, but what’s the “mean” that you’re regressing to? [sent-4, score-0.29]
5 Here’s a graph I made a couple years ago , showing the time series of Democratic vote share in congressional and presidential elections: Take a look at the House vote in 2006 and 2008. [sent-5, score-0.524]
6 Is this a blip, just begging to be slammed down in 2010 by a regression to the mean? [sent-6, score-0.328]
7 Or does it represent a return to form, back to the 55% level of support that the Democrats had for most of the previous fifty years? [sent-7, score-0.189]
8 It’s not so obvious what to think–at least, not simply from looking at the graph. [sent-8, score-0.069]
9 As an ear-to-the-ground political pundit, Yglesias might well have a sense of political trends beyond what I have up here in my ivory tower. [sent-10, score-0.348]
10 I don’t know much about the actual political process or the politicians who participate in it. [sent-12, score-0.157]
11 ) And I can well believe that, in January 2009, Yglesias was already pretty sure that the Democrats were heading for electoral trouble. [sent-13, score-0.211]
12 But, if so, I think it’s more than “regression to the mean”; he’d have had to have some additional information giving him a sense of what that mean actually is. [sent-14, score-0.183]
13 Yglesias responds: I [Yglesias] think historically Democrats averaged over 50% of the vote because of weird race dynamics in the South, but nowadays we should expect both parties to average 50% of the vote over the long term. [sent-17, score-0.976]
14 On the other hand, various pundits have been saying that in future years, the race dynamics of blacks and Latinos will give the Democrats a permanent advantage. [sent-19, score-0.533]
15 As a matter of fact, I clearly remember looking at that graph I made in Nov 2008 and trying to decide whether it represented an exciting new trend, an anti-Bush blip, or a reversion to the pre-1994 pattern of 55%/45% voting. [sent-23, score-0.318]
16 Yglesias then shot back with: Well then let me go on record now then as hypothesizing that the long-run 1994- trend will average 50/50. [sent-25, score-0.477]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('yglesias', 0.481), ('blip', 0.236), ('democrats', 0.217), ('january', 0.209), ('vote', 0.19), ('mean', 0.183), ('democratic', 0.175), ('dynamics', 0.156), ('regression', 0.137), ('trend', 0.126), ('race', 0.122), ('back', 0.113), ('house', 0.108), ('begging', 0.107), ('ivory', 0.107), ('foresee', 0.107), ('regressing', 0.107), ('reversion', 0.107), ('hypothesizing', 0.097), ('latinos', 0.097), ('doomed', 0.093), ('permanent', 0.091), ('averaged', 0.091), ('pundit', 0.088), ('political', 0.087), ('unsustainable', 0.086), ('slammed', 0.084), ('blacks', 0.084), ('historically', 0.084), ('stood', 0.083), ('nov', 0.083), ('jan', 0.081), ('pundits', 0.08), ('losses', 0.079), ('elected', 0.079), ('fifty', 0.076), ('heading', 0.075), ('graph', 0.074), ('average', 0.073), ('responds', 0.072), ('parties', 0.07), ('politicians', 0.07), ('years', 0.07), ('strategies', 0.07), ('electoral', 0.069), ('looking', 0.069), ('shot', 0.068), ('represented', 0.068), ('totally', 0.067), ('well', 0.067)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0000002 312 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-02-“Regression to the mean” is fine. But what’s the “mean”?
Introduction: In the context of a discussion of Democratic party strategies, Matthew Yglesias writes : Given where things stood in January 2009, large House losses were essentially inevitable. The Democratic majority elected in 2008 was totally unsustainable and was doomed by basic regression to the mean. I’d like to push back on this, if for no other reason than that I didn’t foresee all this back in January 2009. Regression to the mean is a fine idea, but what’s the “mean” that you’re regressing to? Here’s a graph I made a couple years ago , showing the time series of Democratic vote share in congressional and presidential elections: Take a look at the House vote in 2006 and 2008. Is this a blip, just begging to be slammed down in 2010 by a regression to the mean? Or does it represent a return to form, back to the 55% level of support that the Democrats had for most of the previous fifty years? It’s not so obvious what to think–at least, not simply from looking at the graph.
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 0.20656131 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
4 0.2047753 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
5 0.18969393 536 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-24-Trends in partisanship by state
Introduction: Matthew Yglesias discusses how West Virginia used to be a Democratic state but is now solidly Republican. I thought it would be helpful to expand this to look at trends since 1948 (rather than just 1988) and all 50 states (rather than just one). This would represent a bit of work, except that I already did it a couple years ago, so here it is (right-click on the image to see the whole thing): I cheated a bit to get reasonable-looking groupings, for example putting Indiana in the Border South rather than Midwest, and putting Alaska in Mountain West and Hawaii in West Coast. Also, it would help to distinguish states by color (to be able to disentangle New Jersey and Delaware, for example) but we didn’t do this because the book is mostly black and white. In any case, the picture makes it clear that there have been strong regional trends all over during the past sixty years. P.S. My graph comes from Red State Blue State so no 2008 data, but 2008 was pretty much a shift
6 0.18010378 394 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-05-2010: What happened?
7 0.1698474 237 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-27-Bafumi-Erikson-Wlezien predict a 50-seat loss for Democrats in November
8 0.1598808 488 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-27-Graph of the year
9 0.14180805 210 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-16-What I learned from those tough 538 commenters
10 0.13598484 1027 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-25-Note to student journalists: Google is your friend
11 0.13388607 369 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-25-Misunderstanding of divided government
13 0.12113251 670 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-20-Attractive but hard-to-read graph could be made much much better
14 0.11835504 292 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-23-Doug Hibbs on the fundamentals in 2010
15 0.11524813 2010 andrew gelman stats-2013-09-06-Would today’s captains of industry be happier in a 1950s-style world?
16 0.11288956 654 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-09-There’s no evidence that voters choose presidential candidates based on their looks
17 0.11069833 1577 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-14-Richer people continue to vote Republican
18 0.10982613 1942 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-17-“Stop and frisk” statistics
19 0.10752589 384 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-31-Two stories about the election that I don’t believe
20 0.10733382 50 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-25-Looking for Sister Right
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.159), (1, -0.08), (2, 0.17), (3, 0.135), (4, -0.043), (5, -0.027), (6, -0.063), (7, -0.035), (8, -0.018), (9, -0.001), (10, 0.046), (11, 0.045), (12, 0.019), (13, -0.05), (14, 0.032), (15, 0.002), (16, 0.0), (17, -0.006), (18, -0.035), (19, 0.007), (20, -0.012), (21, 0.03), (22, 0.001), (23, -0.018), (24, 0.013), (25, 0.015), (26, 0.036), (27, -0.033), (28, -0.013), (29, 0.01), (30, 0.028), (31, 0.022), (32, -0.028), (33, 0.014), (34, -0.03), (35, -0.039), (36, -0.057), (37, -0.009), (38, -0.021), (39, 0.021), (40, -0.033), (41, 0.025), (42, -0.006), (43, 0.003), (44, 0.049), (45, 0.001), (46, -0.002), (47, -0.029), (48, 0.003), (49, -0.004)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.95864981 312 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-02-“Regression to the mean” is fine. But what’s the “mean”?
Introduction: In the context of a discussion of Democratic party strategies, Matthew Yglesias writes : Given where things stood in January 2009, large House losses were essentially inevitable. The Democratic majority elected in 2008 was totally unsustainable and was doomed by basic regression to the mean. I’d like to push back on this, if for no other reason than that I didn’t foresee all this back in January 2009. Regression to the mean is a fine idea, but what’s the “mean” that you’re regressing to? Here’s a graph I made a couple years ago , showing the time series of Democratic vote share in congressional and presidential elections: Take a look at the House vote in 2006 and 2008. Is this a blip, just begging to be slammed down in 2010 by a regression to the mean? Or does it represent a return to form, back to the 55% level of support that the Democrats had for most of the previous fifty years? It’s not so obvious what to think–at least, not simply from looking at the graph.
2 0.86053371 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
3 0.81879348 369 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-25-Misunderstanding of divided government
Introduction: Shankar Vedantam writes : Americans distrust the GOP. So why are they voting for it? . . . Gallup tells us that 71 percent of all Americans blame Republican policies for the bad economy, while only 48 percent blame the Obama administration. . . . while disapproval of congressional Democrats stands at 61 percent, disapproval of congressional Republicans stands at 67 percent. [But] Republicans are heavily tipped to wrest control of one or both houses of Congress from the Democrats in the upcoming midterms. Hey! I know the answer to that one. As I wrote in early September: Those 10% or so of voters who plan to vote Republican–even while thinking that the Democrats will do a better job–are not necessarily being so unreasonable. The Democrats control the presidency and both houses of Congress, and so it’s a completely reasonable stance to prefer them to the Republicans yet still think they’ve gone too far and need a check on their power. But Vendatam thinks this expla
Introduction: Jonathan Chait writes that the most important aspect of a presidential candidate is “political talent”: Republicans have generally understood that an agenda tilted toward the desires of the powerful requires a skilled frontman who can pitch Middle America. Favorite character types include jocks, movie stars, folksy Texans and war heroes. . . . [But the frontrunners for the 2012 Republican nomination] make Michael Dukakis look like John F. Kennedy. They are qualified enough to serve as president, but wildly unqualified to run for president. . . . [Mitch] Daniels’s drawbacks begin — but by no means end — with his lack of height, hair and charisma. . . . [Jeb Bush] suffers from an inherent branding challenge [because of his last name]. . . . [Chris] Christie . . . doesn’t cut a trim figure and who specializes in verbally abusing his constituents. . . . [Haley] Barbour is the comic embodiment of his party’s most negative stereotypes. A Barbour nomination would be the rough equivalent
5 0.81167287 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
6 0.80361539 377 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-28-The incoming moderate Republican congressmembers
7 0.80069613 237 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-27-Bafumi-Erikson-Wlezien predict a 50-seat loss for Democrats in November
8 0.79912496 292 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-23-Doug Hibbs on the fundamentals in 2010
10 0.78900498 384 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-31-Two stories about the election that I don’t believe
11 0.78719097 659 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-13-Jim Campbell argues that Larry Bartels’s “Unequal Democracy” findings are not robust
12 0.78695589 210 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-16-What I learned from those tough 538 commenters
14 0.76954734 521 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-17-“the Tea Party’s ire, directed at Democrats and Republicans alike”
15 0.76307136 1577 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-14-Richer people continue to vote Republican
16 0.76001787 1027 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-25-Note to student journalists: Google is your friend
17 0.75604403 1388 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-22-Americans think economy isn’t so bad in their city but is crappy nationally and globally
18 0.74927765 362 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-22-A redrawing of the Red-Blue map in November 2010?
20 0.74582475 1020 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-20-No no no no no
topicId topicWeight
[(9, 0.025), (13, 0.023), (16, 0.064), (22, 0.011), (24, 0.119), (34, 0.191), (53, 0.01), (57, 0.017), (63, 0.021), (67, 0.049), (96, 0.02), (99, 0.311)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
1 0.95829803 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
2 0.9542343 1911 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-23-AI Stats conference on Stan etc.
Introduction: Jaakko Peltonen writes: The Seventeenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (http://www.aistats.org) will be next April in Reykjavik, Iceland. AISTATS is an interdisciplinary conference at the intersection of computer science, artificial intelligence, machine learning, statistics, and related areas. ============================================================================== AISTATS 2014 Call for Papers Seventeenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics April 22 – 25, 2014, Reykjavik, Iceland http://www.aistats.org Colocated with a MLSS Machine Learning Summer School ============================================================================== AISTATS is an interdisciplinary gathering of researchers at the intersection of computer science, artificial intelligence, machine learning, statistics, and related areas. Since its inception in 1985, the primary goal of AISTATS has been to broaden research in the
Introduction: Solomon Hsiang shares some bad news: Persistently reduced labor productivity may be one of the largest economic impacts of anthropogenic climate change. . . . Two percent per degree Celsius . . . That’s the magic number for how worker productivity responds to warm/hot temperatures. In my 2010 PNAS paper , I [Hsiang] found that labor-intensive sectors of national economies decreased output by roughly 2.4% per degree C and argued that this looked suspiously like it came from reductions in worker output. Using a totally different method and dataset, Matt Neidell and Josh Graff Zivin found that labor supply in micro data fell by 1.8% per degree C. Both responses kicked in at around 26C. Chris Sheehan just sent me this NYT article on air conditioning , where they mention this neat natural experiment: [I]n the past year, [Japan] became an unwitting laboratory to study even more extreme air-conditioning abstinence, and the results have not been encouraging. After th
4 0.94595647 1734 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-23-Life in the C-suite: A graph that is both ugly and bad, and an unrelated story
Introduction: Jemes Keirstead sends along this infographic : He hates it: First we’ve got an hourglass metaphor wrecked by the fact that “now” (i.e. the pinch point in the glass) is actually 3-5 years in the future and the past sand includes “up to three years” in the future. Then there are the percentages which are appear to represent a vertical distance, not volume of sand or width of the hourglass. Add to that a strange color scheme in which green goes from dark to light to dark again. I know January’s not even finished yet, but surely a competitor for worst infographic of 2013? Keirstead doesn’t even comment on what I see as the worst aspect of the graph, which is that the “3-5 years” band is the narrowest on the graph, but expressed as a per-year rate it is actually the highest of all the percentages. The hourglass visualization does the astounding feat of taking the period where the executives expect the highest rate of change and presenting it as a minimum in the graph.
5 0.94410419 1501 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-18-More studies on the economic effects of climate change
Introduction: After writing yesterday’s post , I was going through Solomon Hsiang’s blog and found a post pointing to three studies from researchers at business schools: Severe Weather and Automobile Assembly Productivity Gérard P. Cachon, Santiago Gallino and Marcelo Olivares Abstract: It is expected that climate change could lead to an increased frequency of severe weather. In turn, severe weather intuitively should hamper the productivity of work that occurs outside. But what is the effect of rain, snow, fog, heat and wind on work that occurs indoors, such as the production of automobiles? Using weekly production data from 64 automobile plants in the United States over a ten-year period, we find that adverse weather conditions lead to a significant reduction in production. For example, one additional day of high wind advisory by the National Weather Service (i.e., maximum winds generally in excess of 44 miles per hour) reduces production by 26%, which is comparable in order of magnitude t
6 0.94408464 1111 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-10-The blog of the Cultural Cognition Project
7 0.94359535 956 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-13-Hey, you! Don’t take that class!
8 0.93208885 1144 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-29-How many parameters are in a multilevel model?
same-blog 9 0.93173862 312 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-02-“Regression to the mean” is fine. But what’s the “mean”?
10 0.93167502 929 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-27-Visual diagnostics for discrete-data regressions
11 0.92739713 1132 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-21-A counterfeit data graphic
12 0.92328876 884 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-01-My course this fall on Bayesian Computation
13 0.9211151 1723 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-15-Wacky priors can work well?
14 0.91621053 135 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-09-Rasmussen sez: “108% of Respondents Say . . .”
15 0.91390914 219 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-20-Some things are just really hard to believe: more on choosing your facts.
16 0.89815712 1842 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-05-Cleaning up science
17 0.89600968 886 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-02-The new Helen DeWitt novel
18 0.8932485 936 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-02-Covariate Adjustment in RCT - Model Overfitting in Multilevel Regression
19 0.89185292 71 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-07-Pay for an A?
20 0.89001268 2203 andrew gelman stats-2014-02-08-“Guys who do more housework get less sex”