andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2011 andrew_gelman_stats-2011-656 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
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
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 Johathan Chait writes : Parties and candidates will kill themselves to move the needle a percentage point or two in a presidential race. [sent-1, score-0.476]
2 And again, the fundamentals determine the bigger picture, but within that big picture political tactics and candidate quality still matters around the margins. [sent-2, score-0.542]
3 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. [sent-9, score-0.213]
4 For completeness I want to explain where I’m coming from but my take-home point is that we’re mostly in agreement. [sent-10, score-0.124]
5 Had Steven Rosenstone been asked by the New York Times to write an article on the Republican presidential candidates, I’m pretty sure he would’ve emphasized that the #1 determinant of the forthcoming election will be the economy, with candidate ideology being a distant #2. [sent-24, score-0.517]
6 As a teacher, I’m used to making the obvious point, but, again, I’ll defer to Chait on what works in a magazine article. [sent-31, score-0.108]
7 I’d made an offhand remark that Chait wasn’t familiar with the political science literature on elections. [sent-32, score-0.346]
8 Given his recent reply, what seems more likely is that he is familiar with the literature, possibly so much that he takes for granted that his readers will be also. [sent-33, score-0.152]
9 In the space of a couple of columns we are able to clear up some confusion and come to a key point of agreement (see the boldface quote above). [sent-35, score-0.207]
10 My main substantive disagreement with Chait is on his recommendation to the Republican party establishment. [sent-36, score-0.156]
11 Chait writes, “The candidates they are recruiting . [sent-37, score-0.264]
12 ” My recommendation would be, go with the candidate who you think will govern best. [sent-41, score-0.222]
13 Chait writes that I was making a “condescending demand” that he familiarize himself with political science research. [sent-48, score-0.194]
14 I recognize that when you deal with Ivy League professors you’re going to expect some condescending demands, so I can see where he’s coming from on this, but . [sent-49, score-0.137]
15 I was serious when I said that I wouldn’t expect Chait to be familiar with all the political science research, all the way to a book from 1983 and an article that appeared in the British Journal of Political Science ten years later. [sent-52, score-0.481]
16 After all, I’m not familiar with back issues of the New Republic! [sent-53, score-0.152]
17 I’m honestly not expecting a political pundit to be familiar with 20-year-old journal articles, just as, in the other direction, I’m pretty clueless about a lot of the details of what’s going on in Washington. [sent-54, score-0.286]
18 The fundamentals are particularly relevant for the general election for president, where candidates are clearly distinct in party and political ideology, campaigns are comparable in resources, and there are only two major candidates. [sent-60, score-0.709]
19 Factors other than the fundamentals can loom larger in primary elections, referenda, local elections, nonpartisan races, and elections with multiple candidates. [sent-61, score-0.469]
20 For example, when Obama, Clinton, Edwards, and others were running in 2008, the Democratic primary voters faced multiple candidates with the same party identification, similar or indistinguishable political ideologies, and the instability of a multi-candidate election. [sent-62, score-0.551]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('chait', 0.6), ('rosenstone', 0.217), ('candidates', 0.208), ('fundamentals', 0.196), ('dukakis', 0.158), ('familiar', 0.152), ('presidential', 0.138), ('condescending', 0.137), ('political', 0.134), ('elections', 0.095), ('candidate', 0.094), ('party', 0.087), ('upset', 0.087), ('election', 0.084), ('clinton', 0.083), ('quote', 0.083), ('ideology', 0.074), ('article', 0.073), ('recommendation', 0.069), ('point', 0.068), ('primary', 0.068), ('steven', 0.066), ('president', 0.065), ('displeasure', 0.062), ('needle', 0.062), ('referenda', 0.062), ('economy', 0.062), ('appeared', 0.062), ('picture', 0.062), ('conservative', 0.061), ('republican', 0.06), ('science', 0.06), ('times', 0.06), ('edwards', 0.059), ('govern', 0.059), ('exhaustive', 0.056), ('boldface', 0.056), ('mamet', 0.056), ('nonpartisan', 0.056), ('completeness', 0.056), ('recruiting', 0.056), ('tactics', 0.056), ('obvious', 0.055), ('determinant', 0.054), ('loom', 0.054), ('unqualified', 0.054), ('wildly', 0.054), ('indistinguishable', 0.054), ('wasn', 0.054), ('defer', 0.053)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0000001 656 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-11-Jonathan Chait and I agree about the importance of the fundamentals in determining presidential elections
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
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
3 0.29289699 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
4 0.2212635 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 0.21035425 1512 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-27-A Non-random Walk Down Campaign Street
Introduction: Political campaigns are commonly understood as random walks, during which, at any point in time, the level of support for any party or candidate is equally likely to go up or down. Each shift in the polls is then interpreted as the result of some combination of news and campaign strategies. A completely different story of campaigns is the mean reversion model in which the elections are determined by fundamental factors of the economy and partisanship; the role of the campaign is to give voters a chance to reach their predetermined positions. The popularity of the random walk model for polls may be partially explained via analogy to the widespread idea that stock prices reflect all available information, as popularized in Burton Malkiel’s book, A Random Walk Down Wall Street. Once the idea has sunk in that short-term changes in the stock market are inherently unpredictable, it is natural for journalists to think the same of polls. For example, political analyst Nate Silver wrote
6 0.20850155 874 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-27-What’s “the definition of a professional career”?
7 0.20601951 1000 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-10-Forecasting 2012: How much does ideology matter?
8 0.15840301 692 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-03-“Rationality” reinforces, does not compete with, other models of behavior
9 0.14762101 2255 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-19-How Americans vote
10 0.12744902 1570 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-08-Poll aggregation and election forecasting
11 0.11811022 210 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-16-What I learned from those tough 538 commenters
12 0.11562213 279 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-15-Electability and perception of electability
13 0.11282673 364 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-22-Politics is not a random walk: Momentum and mean reversion in polling
15 0.10920609 551 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-02-Obama and Reagan, sitting in a tree, etc.
16 0.10877927 1823 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-24-The Tweets-Votes Curve
17 0.10764766 286 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-20-Are the Democrats avoiding a national campaign?
18 0.10643889 292 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-23-Doug Hibbs on the fundamentals in 2010
19 0.10301987 389 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-01-Why it can be rational to vote
20 0.10301987 1565 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-06-Why it can be rational to vote
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.187), (1, -0.11), (2, 0.125), (3, 0.091), (4, -0.121), (5, 0.011), (6, -0.054), (7, -0.06), (8, -0.035), (9, 0.003), (10, 0.076), (11, 0.054), (12, 0.011), (13, -0.085), (14, -0.029), (15, -0.011), (16, -0.059), (17, -0.006), (18, -0.013), (19, 0.029), (20, -0.023), (21, 0.02), (22, 0.042), (23, 0.031), (24, 0.023), (25, -0.004), (26, 0.036), (27, 0.021), (28, -0.049), (29, 0.019), (30, -0.024), (31, 0.037), (32, 0.014), (33, 0.008), (34, -0.011), (35, -0.008), (36, -0.043), (37, 0.042), (38, 0.033), (39, -0.02), (40, 0.02), (41, 0.022), (42, 0.022), (43, 0.031), (44, -0.002), (45, 0.014), (46, 0.022), (47, 0.035), (48, 0.01), (49, 0.03)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.9504177 656 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-11-Jonathan Chait and I agree about the importance of the fundamentals in determining presidential elections
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
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
3 0.87259483 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 0.85385478 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 0.85171545 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 0.84432548 521 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-17-“the Tea Party’s ire, directed at Democrats and Republicans alike”
7 0.82779938 1512 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-27-A Non-random Walk Down Campaign Street
8 0.81090915 369 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-25-Misunderstanding of divided government
9 0.80072379 210 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-16-What I learned from those tough 538 commenters
10 0.79215795 551 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-02-Obama and Reagan, sitting in a tree, etc.
11 0.79189402 292 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-23-Doug Hibbs on the fundamentals in 2010
12 0.78657544 1574 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-12-How to Lie With Statistics example number 12,498,122
13 0.78243071 84 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-14-Is it 1930?
14 0.77830327 1020 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-20-No no no no no
15 0.77678102 1000 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-10-Forecasting 2012: How much does ideology matter?
17 0.77003896 377 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-28-The incoming moderate Republican congressmembers
18 0.76721668 312 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-02-“Regression to the mean” is fine. But what’s the “mean”?
19 0.76348233 279 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-15-Electability and perception of electability
20 0.75666481 237 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-27-Bafumi-Erikson-Wlezien predict a 50-seat loss for Democrats in November
topicId topicWeight
[(5, 0.057), (6, 0.013), (9, 0.045), (15, 0.05), (16, 0.093), (18, 0.021), (21, 0.023), (24, 0.093), (31, 0.012), (59, 0.011), (63, 0.011), (69, 0.138), (84, 0.012), (86, 0.024), (95, 0.022), (99, 0.259)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
1 0.95554924 89 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-16-A historical perspective on financial bailouts
Introduction: Thomas Ferguson and Robert Johnson write : Financial crises are staggeringly costly. Only major wars rival them in the burdens they place on public finances. Taxpayers typically transfer enormous resources to banks, their stockholders, and creditors, while public debt explodes and the economy runs below full employment for years. This paper compares how relatively large, developed countries have handled bailouts over time. It analyzes why some have done better than others at containing costs and protecting taxpayers. The paper argues that political variables – the nature of competition within party systems and voting turnout – help explain why some countries do more than others to limit the moral hazards of bailouts. I know next to nothing about this topic, so I’ll just recommend you click through and read the article yourself. Here’s a bit more: Many recent papers have analyzed financial crises using large data bases filled with cases from all over the world. Our [Ferguson
same-blog 2 0.94161159 656 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-11-Jonathan Chait and I agree about the importance of the fundamentals in determining presidential elections
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
3 0.92566764 406 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-10-Translating into Votes: The Electoral Impact of Spanish-Language Ballots
Introduction: Dan Hopkins sends along this article : [Hopkins] uses regression discontinuity design to estimate the turnout and election impacts of Spanish-language assistance provided under Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act. Analyses of two different data sets – the Latino National Survey and California 1998 primary election returns – show that Spanish-language assistance increased turnout for citizens who speak little English. The California results also demonstrate that election procedures an influence outcomes, as support for ending bilingual education dropped markedly in heavily Spanish-speaking neighborhoods with Spanish-language assistance. The California analyses find hints of backlash among non-Hispanic white precincts, but not with the same size or certainty. Small changes in election procedures can influence who votes as well as what wins. Beyond the direct relevance of these results, I find this paper interesting as an example of research that is fundamentally quantitative. Th
4 0.91308117 265 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-09-Removing the blindfold: visualising statistical models
Introduction: Hadley Wickham’s talk for Monday 13 Sept at noon in the statistics dept: As the volume of data increases, so to does the complexity of our models. Visualisation is a powerful tool for both understanding how models work, and what they say about a particularly dataset. There are very many well-known techniques for visualising data, but far fewer for visualising models. In this talk I [Wichkam] will discuss three broad strategies for model visualisation: display the model in the data space; look all members of a collection; and explore the process of model fitting, not just the end result. I will demonstrate these techniques with two examples: neural networks, and ensembles of linear models. Hey–this is one of my favorite topics!
5 0.91239905 158 andrew gelman stats-2010-07-22-Tenants and landlords
Introduction: Matthew Yglesias and Megan McArdle argue about the economics of landlord/tenant laws in D.C., a topic I know nothing about. But it did remind me of a few stories . . . 1. In grad school, I shared half of a two-family house with three other students. At some point, our landlord (who lived in the other half of the house) decided he wanted to sell the place, so he had a real estate agent coming by occasionally to show the house to people. She was just a flat-out liar (which I guess fits my impression based on screenings of Glengarry Glen Ross). I could never decide, when I was around and she was lying to a prospective buyer, whether to call her on it. Sometimes I did, sometimes I didn’t. 2. A year after I graduated, the landlord actually did sell the place but then, when my friends moved out, he refused to pay back their security deposit. There was some debate about getting the place repainted, I don’t remember the details. So they sued the landlord in Mass. housing court
6 0.90954959 1909 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-21-Job openings at conservative political analytics firm!
7 0.90753734 923 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-24-What is the normal range of values in a medical test?
8 0.90224952 1759 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-12-How tall is Jon Lee Anderson?
9 0.89579028 1769 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-18-Tibshirani announces new research result: A significance test for the lasso
10 0.89404535 654 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-09-There’s no evidence that voters choose presidential candidates based on their looks
11 0.88838035 749 andrew gelman stats-2011-06-06-“Sampling: Design and Analysis”: a course for political science graduate students
12 0.88470542 856 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-16-Our new improved blog! Thanks to Cord Blomquist
13 0.88069755 2137 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-17-Replication backlash
14 0.88046515 675 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-22-Arrow’s other theorem
15 0.88000172 1357 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-01-Halloween-Valentine’s update
16 0.87988156 1914 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-25-Is there too much coauthorship in economics (and science more generally)? Or too little?
17 0.87942028 898 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-10-Fourteen magic words: an update
18 0.87798411 1634 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-21-Two reviews of Nate Silver’s new book, from Kaiser Fung and Cathy O’Neil
19 0.87777007 261 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-07-The $900 kindergarten teacher