andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2010 andrew_gelman_stats-2010-384 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
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
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 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. [sent-4, score-0.368]
2 I think this is misleading for the usual reason that these message-oriented critiques are misleading: When things are going well, your message is going to sound good; when things aren’t going so well, it doesn’t matter much how you spin things. [sent-15, score-0.315]
3 Baker recognizes this: “the debate has taken on particular resonance in a time of economic distress. [sent-16, score-0.296]
4 ” To put it another way, I disagree that the battle of elitism is “at the core of the nation’s debate this fall. [sent-17, score-0.764]
5 ” I think it would be more accurate to say that economic policy and outcomes are at the core of the debate, and “elitism” is just being attached to that debate. [sent-18, score-0.345]
6 Here’s the second story I’m not thrilled with, this time from Jonathan Chait in the New Republic: Republicans are going to gain a lot of seats in the midterm elections. [sent-21, score-0.358]
7 Political punditry has been saturated with arguments interpreting this result as a verdict of sorts on the Obama administration. [sent-23, score-0.243]
8 Liberals are interpreting the incipient GOP win on poor communication or perhaps timid policies by the Democrats. [sent-24, score-0.457]
9 Conservatives are interpreting it as the natural punishment for a party that moved too far left. [sent-25, score-0.237]
10 Clearly, in the current environment, it’s not rational to expect the majority party to escape any losses whatsoever. [sent-31, score-0.28]
11 If you want to blame the Democrats’ loss on bad messaging or wimpy policies or rampaging socialism, then you need to establish how you’d expect them to do given normal messaging and policies. [sent-32, score-0.878]
12 Chait then discusses Doug Hibbs’s model, featured on this blog before , which predicts midterm election outcomes given incumbency, the current distribution of House seats, and recent economic performance. [sent-33, score-0.547]
13 From Paul Krugman on the left to Casey Mulligan on the right, commenters have been arguing that the governing party can make a difference. [sent-38, score-0.298]
14 Whether it’s Kruguman recommending a larger stimulus or Mulligan saying the government should avoid intervention into the financial sector, the claim is that that the economy could be doing better (or worse). [sent-39, score-0.292]
15 ” Or, to put it another way, I think it’s perfectly reasonable for liberals to interpret some of the current state of the economy, and thus the predicted election outcome, to “timid policies by the Democrats. [sent-41, score-0.541]
16 Similarly, why shouldn’t conservatives think that the current economic doldrums are partly explained by the Democrats’ policies, from regulation to stimulus to health care? [sent-43, score-0.477]
17 Republicans have been making this argument for awhile, that these activist government policies are counterproductive. [sent-44, score-0.2]
18 He’s right that elections are largely determined by the fundamentals, but he’s wrong to think that the governing party has no effect on the economy. [sent-48, score-0.291]
19 ) To say that the fundamentals matter, that the economy is key, is not the same as saying that the president and Congress can’t influence elections. [sent-51, score-0.251]
20 Or, if it was, a lot of people were wasting their time arguing about the macroeconomic consequences of the stimulus, the bailouts, the deficit, the tax cuts, etc etc etc. [sent-53, score-0.275]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('elitism', 0.338), ('chait', 0.297), ('messaging', 0.203), ('policies', 0.2), ('democrats', 0.187), ('economy', 0.154), ('obama', 0.149), ('baker', 0.143), ('stimulus', 0.138), ('timid', 0.135), ('seats', 0.132), ('battle', 0.13), ('debate', 0.125), ('interpreting', 0.122), ('governing', 0.116), ('party', 0.115), ('core', 0.113), ('economic', 0.113), ('krugman', 0.111), ('election', 0.111), ('blame', 0.109), ('etc', 0.104), ('hibbs', 0.099), ('fundamentals', 0.097), ('mulligan', 0.097), ('midterm', 0.092), ('current', 0.091), ('establish', 0.089), ('nation', 0.087), ('predicts', 0.081), ('liberals', 0.079), ('conservatives', 0.075), ('expect', 0.074), ('gain', 0.071), ('arguing', 0.067), ('misleading', 0.066), ('republicans', 0.063), ('going', 0.063), ('house', 0.062), ('saturated', 0.062), ('bailouts', 0.062), ('strategist', 0.062), ('think', 0.06), ('republican', 0.06), ('arguments', 0.059), ('outcomes', 0.059), ('disagree', 0.058), ('gop', 0.058), ('resonance', 0.058), ('troubles', 0.058)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.99999976 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
2 0.33459714 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
Introduction: Johathan Chait writes : Parties and candidates will kill themselves to move the needle a percentage point or two in a presidential race. And again, the fundamentals determine the bigger picture, but within that big picture political tactics and candidate quality still matters around the margins. I agree completely. This is the central message of Steven Rosenstone’s excellent 1983 book, Forecasting Presidential Elections. So, given that Chait and I agree 100%, why was I so upset at his recent column on “The G.O.P.’s Dukakis Problem”? I’ll put the reasons for my displeasure below the fold because my main point is that I’m happy with Chait’s quote above. For completeness I want to explain where I’m coming from but my take-home point is that we’re mostly in agreement. — OK, so what upset me about Chait’s article? 1. The title. I’m pretty sure that Mike Dukakis, David Mamet, Bill Clinton, and the ghost of Lee Atwater will disagree with me on this one, but Duka
4 0.23818421 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 0.23758513 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
7 0.22183466 2255 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-19-How Americans vote
8 0.2009082 237 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-27-Bafumi-Erikson-Wlezien predict a 50-seat loss for Democrats in November
10 0.1740448 210 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-16-What I learned from those tough 538 commenters
11 0.16969782 84 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-14-Is it 1930?
12 0.16756941 1079 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-23-Surveys show Americans are populist class warriors, except when they aren’t
13 0.16646127 659 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-13-Jim Campbell argues that Larry Bartels’s “Unequal Democracy” findings are not robust
15 0.15442431 551 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-02-Obama and Reagan, sitting in a tree, etc.
16 0.14937006 1577 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-14-Richer people continue to vote Republican
17 0.14909911 1388 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-22-Americans think economy isn’t so bad in their city but is crappy nationally and globally
18 0.13847062 874 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-27-What’s “the definition of a professional career”?
19 0.13602763 1936 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-13-Economic policy does not occur in a political vacuum
20 0.13513251 369 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-25-Misunderstanding of divided government
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.181), (1, -0.118), (2, 0.199), (3, 0.146), (4, -0.15), (5, -0.001), (6, -0.046), (7, -0.039), (8, -0.016), (9, 0.022), (10, -0.018), (11, 0.067), (12, -0.011), (13, -0.071), (14, -0.026), (15, -0.046), (16, -0.048), (17, -0.001), (18, -0.065), (19, 0.063), (20, 0.007), (21, 0.039), (22, 0.029), (23, 0.036), (24, -0.019), (25, 0.017), (26, 0.018), (27, 0.007), (28, 0.017), (29, 0.054), (30, -0.015), (31, 0.074), (32, -0.002), (33, 0.037), (34, -0.07), (35, -0.015), (36, -0.093), (37, 0.07), (38, 0.095), (39, -0.003), (40, 0.02), (41, -0.002), (42, 0.016), (43, 0.021), (44, 0.061), (45, 0.027), (46, 0.051), (47, 0.025), (48, 0.017), (49, 0.002)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.95808512 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
2 0.94013262 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 0.93894714 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 0.89581537 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
5 0.88650221 84 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-14-Is it 1930?
Introduction: Lawrence Mishel of the Economic Policy Institute reports: Goldman Sachs’ latest forecast (and they’ve been pretty accurate so far) is that unemployment will rise to 9.9% by early 2011 and trend down to 9.7% for the last quarter of 2011. Obviously, this is a simply awful scenario but it seems one that is being accepted. That is, we seem to be in the process of accepting the unacceptable. Note that this scenario probably assumes the passage of the limited efforts now being considered in Congress. One might be surprised that Obama and congressional Democrats are not doing more to try to bring unemployment down. On the other hand, just to speak in generalities (not knowing any of the people involved), I would think that Obama would be much much more worried about the economy doing well in 2010 and then crashing in 2012. A crappy economy through 2011 and then improvement in 2012–that would be his ideal, no? Not that he would have the ability to time this sort of thing. But perhap
6 0.88328373 1020 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-20-No no no no no
8 0.82054955 521 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-17-“the Tea Party’s ire, directed at Democrats and Republicans alike”
10 0.79597765 1569 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-08-30-30-40 Nation
12 0.77991396 1577 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-14-Richer people continue to vote Republican
13 0.77058208 1936 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-13-Economic policy does not occur in a political vacuum
14 0.75746989 1574 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-12-How to Lie With Statistics example number 12,498,122
15 0.75285488 654 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-09-There’s no evidence that voters choose presidential candidates based on their looks
16 0.74978262 312 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-02-“Regression to the mean” is fine. But what’s the “mean”?
17 0.74938357 649 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-05-Internal and external forecasting
18 0.73702317 828 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-28-Thoughts on Groseclose book on media bias
19 0.72866076 100 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-19-Unsurprisingly, people are more worried about the economy and jobs than about deficits
20 0.72340822 1512 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-27-A Non-random Walk Down Campaign Street
topicId topicWeight
[(1, 0.011), (2, 0.037), (15, 0.044), (16, 0.067), (21, 0.038), (24, 0.121), (34, 0.03), (40, 0.014), (42, 0.026), (48, 0.014), (63, 0.013), (65, 0.012), (66, 0.01), (69, 0.037), (76, 0.028), (79, 0.012), (80, 0.085), (86, 0.03), (97, 0.02), (99, 0.228)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.95242691 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
Introduction: The title of this blog post quotes the second line of the abstract of Goldstein et al.’s much ballyhooed 2008 tech report, Do More Expensive Wines Taste Better? Evidence from a Large Sample of Blind Tastings . The first sentence of the abstract is Individuals who are unaware of the price do not derive more enjoyment from more expensive wine. Perhaps not surprisingly, given the easy target wine snobs make, the popular press has picked up on the first sentence of the tech report. For example, the Freakonomics blog/radio entry of the same name quotes the first line, ignores the qualification, then concludes Wishing you the happiest of holiday seasons, and urging you to spend $15 instead of $50 on your next bottle of wine. Go ahead, take the money you save and blow it on the lottery. In case you’re wondering about whether to buy me a cheap or expensive bottle of wine, keep in mind I’ve had classical “wine training”. After ten minutes of training with some side by
3 0.94004011 1029 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-26-“To Rethink Sprawl, Start With Offices”
Introduction: According to this op-ed by Louise Mozingo, the fashion for suburban corporate parks is seventy years old: In 1942 the AT&T; Bell Telephone Laboratories moved from its offices in Lower Manhattan to a new, custom-designed facility on 213 acres outside Summit, N.J. The location provided space for laboratories and quiet for acoustical research, and new features: parking lots that allowed scientists and engineers to drive from their nearby suburban homes, a spacious cafeteria and lounge and, most surprisingly, views from every window of a carefully tended pastoral landscape designed by the Olmsted brothers, sons of the designer of Central Park. Corporate management never saw the city center in the same way again. Bell Labs initiated a tide of migration of white-collar workers, especially as state and federal governments conveniently extended highways into the rural edge. Just to throw some Richard Florida in the mix: Back in 1990, I turned down a job offer from Bell Labs, larg
4 0.9390921 642 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-02-Bill James and the base-rate fallacy
Introduction: I was recently rereading and enjoying Bill James’s Historical Baseball Abstract (the second edition, from 2001). But even the Master is not perfect. Here he is, in the context of the all-time 20th-greatest shortstop (in his reckoning): Are athletes special people? In general, no, but occasionally, yes. Johnny Pesky at 75 was trim, youthful, optimistic, and practically exploding with energy. You rarely meet anybody like that who isn’t an ex-athlete–and that makes athletes seem special. [italics in the original] Hey, I’ve met 75-year-olds like that–and none of them are ex-athletes! That’s probably because I don’t know a lot of ex-athletes. But Bill James . . . he knows a lot of athletes. He went to the bathroom with Tim Raines once! The most I can say is that I saw Rickey Henderson steal a couple bases when he was playing against the Orioles once. Cognitive psychologists talk about the base-rate fallacy , which is the mistake of estimating probabilities without accou
5 0.93305171 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
6 0.93198383 138 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-10-Creating a good wager based on probability estimates
7 0.92229462 730 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-25-Rechecking the census
8 0.92192543 1430 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-26-Some thoughts on survey weighting
9 0.92118227 1747 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-03-More research on the role of puzzles in processing data graphics
10 0.91805089 158 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-22-Tenants and landlords
11 0.9174273 1171 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-16-“False-positive psychology”
12 0.91686672 964 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-19-An interweaving-transformation strategy for boosting MCMC efficiency
13 0.91539615 1162 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-11-Adding an error model to a deterministic model
14 0.91527969 994 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-06-Josh Tenenbaum presents . . . a model of folk physics!
15 0.91338879 2246 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-13-An Economist’s Guide to Visualizing Data
16 0.91262138 431 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-26-One fun thing about physicists . . .
17 0.91182303 898 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-10-Fourteen magic words: an update
18 0.91163743 2244 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-11-What if I were to stop publishing in journals?
19 0.91063911 1435 andrew gelman stats-2012-07-30-Retracted articles and unethical behavior in economics journals?
20 0.91043556 1223 andrew gelman stats-2012-03-20-A kaleidoscope of responses to Dubner’s criticisms of our criticisms of Freaknomics