andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2010 andrew_gelman_stats-2010-369 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
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
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 Gallup tells us that 71 percent of all Americans blame Republican policies for the bad economy, while only 48 percent blame the Obama administration. [sent-6, score-0.37]
2 while disapproval of congressional Democrats stands at 61 percent, disapproval of congressional Republicans stands at 67 percent. [sent-10, score-0.72]
3 [But] Republicans are heavily tipped to wrest control of one or both houses of Congress from the Democrats in the upcoming midterms. [sent-11, score-0.174]
4 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. [sent-14, score-0.544]
5 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. [sent-15, score-0.161]
6 He writes: One explanation for our paradox is that Americans want divided government. [sent-17, score-0.389]
7 This might make sense as a national storyline, but it doesn’t make sense in the real world, because wanting divided government doesn’t tell an individual how to vote. [sent-19, score-0.61]
8 If you are a voter in, say Pennsylvania’s 8th District, would you vote against Democratic incumbent Patrick Murphy in order to get divided government if you weren’t sure how people in all the other congressional Districts were going to vote? [sent-20, score-0.891]
9 If you liked Murphy, would you say you are going to vote against him just to get divided government? [sent-21, score-0.6]
10 Debunking the debunking I think that, in his eagerness to explain undesirable political outcomes as the product of irrationality and “unconscious bias,” Vedantam is missing the point. [sent-25, score-0.258]
11 To start with, a small swing of 10% of the vote would result in a large swing in the political outcome. [sent-26, score-0.663]
12 To take the example above, if you like Patrick Murphy, you can vote for him, and if you prefer his opponent, you can cast your vote the other way. [sent-27, score-0.578]
13 Preference for divided government may be only a small factor, but it can be enough to swing some votes. [sent-30, score-0.659]
14 Vedantam writes: Wouldn’t it make more sense to stop worrying about how everyone else votes and simply pick the candidate you like? [sent-31, score-0.466]
15 But it’s hardly irrational for voters to be strategic and to not merely “simply pick the candidate they like. [sent-34, score-0.428]
16 ” It’s pretty funny for the author of a book called The Hidden Brain to bring up evidence of cognitive illusions from business to sports to politics–and then recommend that voters simply “stop worrying”! [sent-35, score-0.407]
17 I’m sure Vedantam is correct that voters are irrational in many ways. [sent-37, score-0.287]
18 Voters are also misinformed (we give some examples in chapter 8 of Red State, Blue State) and their perceptions, even of verifiable facts, are disturbingly correlated with partisanship. [sent-38, score-0.126]
19 And I’m not saying that preference for divided government explains all or, necessarily, even most of the anticipated vote swing in 2010. [sent-41, score-1.041]
20 Whether the argument is that whites voted for Obama because it made them feel good about themselves, or that people are planning to vote Republican in 2010 because “our unconscious bias favors action over holding steady, regardless of whether that makes sense,” my response is: Maybe so. [sent-44, score-0.477]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('vedantam', 0.363), ('divided', 0.311), ('vote', 0.289), ('murphy', 0.218), ('voters', 0.187), ('swing', 0.187), ('government', 0.161), ('democrats', 0.147), ('disapproval', 0.131), ('congressional', 0.13), ('congress', 0.124), ('unconscious', 0.123), ('debunking', 0.117), ('republicans', 0.111), ('patrick', 0.11), ('worrying', 0.107), ('republican', 0.105), ('houses', 0.101), ('irrational', 0.1), ('percent', 0.099), ('stands', 0.099), ('americans', 0.097), ('preference', 0.093), ('hidden', 0.09), ('blame', 0.086), ('brain', 0.085), ('cognitive', 0.079), ('explanation', 0.078), ('simply', 0.078), ('candidate', 0.073), ('disturbs', 0.073), ('eagerness', 0.073), ('shankar', 0.073), ('tipped', 0.073), ('stop', 0.071), ('obama', 0.07), ('voting', 0.07), ('sense', 0.069), ('storyline', 0.068), ('aaahhhh', 0.068), ('undesirable', 0.068), ('necessarily', 0.068), ('pick', 0.068), ('disturbingly', 0.065), ('bias', 0.065), ('illusions', 0.063), ('misinformed', 0.061), ('distrust', 0.061), ('presidency', 0.06), ('legislative', 0.06)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0000002 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
2 0.2914868 416 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-16-Is parenting a form of addiction?
Introduction: The last time we encountered Slate columnist Shankar Vedantam was when he puzzled over why slightly more than half of voters planned to vote for Republican candidates, given that polls show that Americans dislike the Republican Party even more than they dislike the Democrats. Vedantam attributed the new Republican majority to irrationality and “unconscious bias.” But, actually, this voting behavior is perfectly consistent with there being some moderate voters who prefer divided government. The simple, direct explanation (which Vedantam mistakenly dismisses) actually works fine. I was flipping through Slate today and noticed a new article by Vedantam headlined, “If parenthood sucks, why do we love it? Because we’re addicted.” I don’t like this one either. Vedantam starts by reviewing the evidence that people with kids are less happy than people without kids and that parents report that they are unhappy when they are around their young children. Given this, Vedantam asks
3 0.27858582 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 0.24663873 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
5 0.22723877 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
7 0.22230688 389 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-01-Why it can be rational to vote
8 0.22230688 1565 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-06-Why it can be rational to vote
9 0.19566035 237 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-27-Bafumi-Erikson-Wlezien predict a 50-seat loss for Democrats in November
11 0.17714255 1027 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-25-Note to student journalists: Google is your friend
12 0.17638187 1227 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-23-Voting patterns of America’s whites, from the masses to the elites
13 0.15760888 654 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-09-There’s no evidence that voters choose presidential candidates based on their looks
14 0.14938547 1229 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-25-Same old story
15 0.14632113 1385 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-20-Reconciling different claims about working-class voters
17 0.14383946 1574 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-12-How to Lie With Statistics example number 12,498,122
18 0.14174621 125 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-02-The moral of the story is, Don’t look yourself up on Google
19 0.13962273 377 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-28-The incoming moderate Republican congressmembers
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.162), (1, -0.119), (2, 0.243), (3, 0.15), (4, -0.146), (5, 0.026), (6, -0.081), (7, -0.034), (8, -0.022), (9, -0.051), (10, 0.057), (11, 0.039), (12, 0.027), (13, -0.087), (14, 0.027), (15, -0.029), (16, -0.012), (17, 0.003), (18, 0.004), (19, 0.003), (20, -0.027), (21, -0.012), (22, 0.052), (23, -0.034), (24, -0.024), (25, -0.001), (26, 0.025), (27, 0.005), (28, -0.029), (29, -0.012), (30, -0.035), (31, 0.011), (32, 0.032), (33, 0.04), (34, 0.011), (35, 0.009), (36, 0.005), (37, -0.011), (38, -0.086), (39, 0.043), (40, 0.015), (41, 0.009), (42, -0.008), (43, 0.039), (44, 0.025), (45, -0.026), (46, 0.007), (47, 0.008), (48, 0.003), (49, -0.025)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.97005177 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
2 0.86505949 1027 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-25-Note to student journalists: Google is your friend
Introduction: A student journalist called me with some questions about when the U.S. would have a female president. At one point she asked if there were any surveys of whether people would vote for a woman. I suggested she try Google. I was by my computer anyway so typed “what percentage of americans would vote for a woman president” (without the quotation marks), and the very first hit was this from Gallup, from 2007: The Feb. 9-11, 2007, poll asked Americans whether they would vote for “a generally well-qualified” presidential candidate nominated by their party with each of the following characteristics: Jewish, Catholic, Mormon, an atheist, a woman, black, Hispanic, homosexual, 72 years of age, and someone married for the third time. Between now and the 2008 political conventions, there will be discussion about the qualifications of presidential candidates — their education, age, religion, race, and so on. If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happene
3 0.8499068 377 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-28-The incoming moderate Republican congressmembers
Introduction: Boris writes : By nearly all accounts, the Republicans looks set to take over the US House of Representatives in next week’s November 2010 general election. . . . Republicans, in this wave election that recalls 1994, look set to win not just swing districts, but also those districts that have been traditionally Democratic, or those with strong or longtime Democratic incumbents. Naturally, just as in 2008, this has led to overclaiming by jubilant conservatives and distraught liberals-though the adjectives were then reversed-that this portends a realignment in American politics. . . . Republican moderates in Congress are often associated with two factors: 1) a liberal voting record earlier in their career, and 2) a liberal district. Of course, both are related, in the sense that ambitious moderates choose liberal districts to run in, and liberal districts weed out conservative candidates. . . . Given how competitive Republicans are in 2010, even in otherwise unfriendly territory,
Introduction: Conservative data cruncher Charles Murray asks , “Why aren’t Asians Republicans?”: Asians are only half as likely to identify themselves as “conservative” or “very conservative” as whites, and less than half as likely to identify themselves as Republicans. . . . 70% of Asians voted for Barack Obama in the last presidential election. Something’s wrong with this picture. . . . Everyday observation of Asians around the world reveal them to be conspicuously entrepreneurial, industrious, family-oriented, and self-reliant. If you’re looking for a natural Republican constituency, Asians should define “natural.” . . . Asian immigrants overwhelmingly succeeded, another experience that tends to produce conservative immigrants. Beyond that, Asian minorities everywhere in the world, including America, tend to be underrepresented in politics—they’re more interested in getting ahead commercially or in non-political professions than in running for office or organizing advocacy groups. La
5 0.82327008 1227 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-23-Voting patterns of America’s whites, from the masses to the elites
Introduction: Within any education category, richer people vote more Republican. In contrast, the pattern of education and voting is nonlinear. High school graduates are more Republican than non-HS grads, but after that, the groups with more education tend to vote more Democratic. At the very highest education level tabulated in the survey, voters with post-graduate degrees lean toward the Democrats. Except for the rich post-graduates; they are split 50-50 between the parties. What does this say about America’s elites? If you define elites as high-income non-Hispanic whites, the elites vote strongly Republican. If you define elites as college-educated high-income whites, they vote moderately Republican. There is no plausible way based on these data in which elites can be considered a Democratic voting bloc. To create a group of strongly Democratic-leaning elite whites using these graphs, you would need to consider only postgraduates (no simple college grads included, even if they have achieved s
6 0.81873244 1566 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-07-A question about voting systems—unrelated to U.S. elections!
8 0.81274807 123 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-01-Truth in headlines
9 0.7958203 1000 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-10-Forecasting 2012: How much does ideology matter?
10 0.79218858 389 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-01-Why it can be rational to vote
11 0.79218858 1565 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-06-Why it can be rational to vote
12 0.7919935 286 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-20-Are the Democrats avoiding a national campaign?
13 0.78881449 292 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-23-Doug Hibbs on the fundamentals in 2010
14 0.78719419 279 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-15-Electability and perception of electability
15 0.78700989 654 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-09-There’s no evidence that voters choose presidential candidates based on their looks
16 0.78011036 44 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-20-Boris was right
17 0.77514541 1574 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-12-How to Lie With Statistics example number 12,498,122
18 0.76928633 1229 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-25-Same old story
20 0.76734442 2255 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-19-How Americans vote
topicId topicWeight
[(3, 0.011), (9, 0.083), (16, 0.068), (21, 0.054), (24, 0.064), (45, 0.012), (53, 0.016), (55, 0.013), (56, 0.01), (63, 0.021), (68, 0.125), (72, 0.018), (84, 0.031), (86, 0.014), (87, 0.015), (98, 0.011), (99, 0.297)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.96108156 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
2 0.95597464 877 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-29-Applying quantum probability to political science
Introduction: As we’ve discussed on occasion, conditional probability (“Boltzmann statistics,” in physics jargon) is false at the atomic level. (It’s false at the macroscopic level too, but with discrepancies too small to be detected directly most of the time.) Occasionally I’ve speculated on how quantum probability (that is, the laws of uncertainty that hold in the real world) might be applied to social science research. I’ve made no progress but remain intrigued by the idea. Chris Zorn told me he recently went to a meeting on applications of non-Kolmogorovian / quantum probability to social & human phenomena. Here’s his paper (with Charles Smith), “Some Quantum-Like Features of Mass Politics in Two-Party Systems,” which begins: We [Smith and Zorn] expand the substantive terrain of QI’s reach by illuminating a body of political theory that to date has been elaborated in strictly classical language and formalisms but has complex features that seem to merit generalizations of the prob
3 0.94677854 958 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-14-The General Social Survey is a great resource
Introduction: See, for example, this report by Deborah Carr on changing attitudes about marital infidelity: Two great things about the General Social Survey are: (1) the data are freely available online , and (2) the same questions have been asked since 1972 so you get a nice long series.
4 0.94635606 924 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-24-“Income can’t be used to predict political opinion”
Introduction: What really irritates me about this column (by John Steele Gordon) is not how stupid it is (an article about “millionaires” that switches within the very same paragraph between “a nest egg of $1 million” and “a $1 million annual income” without acknowledging the difference between these concepts) or the ignorance it displays (no, it’s not true that “McCain carried the middle class” in 2008—unless by “middle class” you mean “middle class whites”). No, what really ticks me off is that, when the Red State Blue State book was coming out, we pitched a “5 myths” article for the Washington Post, and they turned us down! Perhaps the rule is: if it’s in the Opinions section of the paper, it can’t contain any facts? Or, to be more precise, any facts it contains must be counterbalanced by an equal number of inanities? Grrrrr . . . I haven’t been so annoyed since reading that New York Times article that argued that electoral politics is just like high school. Who needs political scie
5 0.94213772 1284 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-26-Modeling probability data
Introduction: Rafael Huber writes: I conducted an experiment in which subjects where asked to estimate the probability of a certain event given a number of information (like a wheater forecaster or a stockmarket trader). These probability estimates are the dependent variable of my experiment. My goal is to model the data with a (hierarchical) Bayesian regression. A linear equation with all the presented information (quantified as log odds) defines the mu of a normal likelihood. The tau as precision is another free parameter. y[r] ~ dnorm( mu[r] , tau[ subj[r] ] ) mu[r] <- b0[ subj[r] ] + b1[ subj[r] ] * x1[r] + b2[ subj[r] ] * x2[r] + b3[ subj[r] ] * x3[r] My problem is that I do not believe that the normal is the correct probability distribution to model probability data (‌ because the error is limited). However, until now nobody was able to tell me how I can correctly model probability data. My reply: You can take the logit of the data before analyzing them. That is assuming there
6 0.9413749 622 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-21-A possible resolution of the albedo mystery!
7 0.94064248 913 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-16-Groundhog day in August?
8 0.92883754 47 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-23-Of home runs and grand slams
9 0.9276495 1568 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-07-That last satisfaction at the end of the career
10 0.92383653 36 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-16-Female Mass Murderers: Babes Behind Bars
11 0.91275501 1226 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-22-Story time meets the all-else-equal fallacy and the fallacy of measurement
12 0.91077226 1110 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-10-Jobs in statistics research! In New Jersey!
13 0.91074383 1090 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-28-“. . . extending for dozens of pages”
14 0.90809983 1142 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-29-Difficulties with the 1-4-power transformation
15 0.90579957 571 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-13-A departmental wiki page?
16 0.90550947 1715 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-09-Thomas Hobbes would be spinning in his grave
17 0.90426767 1114 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-12-Controversy about average personality differences between men and women
18 0.90413451 279 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-15-Electability and perception of electability
19 0.90344489 29 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-12-Probability of successive wins in baseball
20 0.90330863 1412 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-10-More questions on the contagion of obesity, height, etc.