andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2011 andrew_gelman_stats-2011-885 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: Writing in the Washington Post, Matt Miller wants a billionaire to run for president and “save the country.” We already have two billionaires running for president. (OK, not really. Romney has a mere quarter of a billion bucks, and it’s Huntsman’s dad, not Huntsman himself, who’s the billionaire in that family.) And, according to all reports, NYC mayor Bloomberg would run for president in an instant if he thought he’d have a chance of winning. So we should amend Miller’s article to say that he wants a billionaire presidential candidate who (a) shares the political views of a “senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and co-host of public radio’s “Left, Right, and Center” and (b) has a chance of winning. That shouldn’t be too hard to find, right? Hey, I have an idea! MIller writes that that Thomas Friedman just wrote a book arguing that “the right independent candidacy could provide for our dysfunctional politics presents an unrivaled opportunity.” Friedman’s actu
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 Writing in the Washington Post, Matt Miller wants a billionaire to run for president and “save the country. [sent-1, score-0.713]
2 ” We already have two billionaires running for president. [sent-2, score-0.211]
3 Romney has a mere quarter of a billion bucks, and it’s Huntsman’s dad, not Huntsman himself, who’s the billionaire in that family. [sent-4, score-0.79]
4 ) And, according to all reports, NYC mayor Bloomberg would run for president in an instant if he thought he’d have a chance of winning. [sent-5, score-0.484]
5 So we should amend Miller’s article to say that he wants a billionaire presidential candidate who (a) shares the political views of a “senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and co-host of public radio’s “Left, Right, and Center” and (b) has a chance of winning. [sent-6, score-0.858]
6 MIller writes that that Thomas Friedman just wrote a book arguing that “the right independent candidacy could provide for our dysfunctional politics presents an unrivaled opportunity. [sent-9, score-0.375]
7 ” Friedman’s actually in a billionaire family himself, so why can’t Miller talk him into running? [sent-10, score-0.39]
8 He could get even more campaign funds by trading in all those frequent flyer miles. [sent-11, score-0.315]
9 Alternatively, we could just cut out the middleman and just give Miller a billion dollars and a major party nomination directly. [sent-12, score-0.501]
10 If Miller wins the election, he’ll do his best to make the contribution retroactively tax-deductible. [sent-17, score-0.242]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('miller', 0.517), ('billionaire', 0.39), ('billion', 0.239), ('huntsman', 0.208), ('friedman', 0.167), ('president', 0.121), ('candidacy', 0.115), ('dysfunctional', 0.115), ('wants', 0.114), ('center', 0.11), ('amend', 0.109), ('middleman', 0.109), ('billionaires', 0.109), ('peterson', 0.104), ('donation', 0.104), ('running', 0.102), ('retroactively', 0.101), ('mayor', 0.098), ('pete', 0.095), ('dad', 0.091), ('bout', 0.091), ('instant', 0.091), ('nomination', 0.089), ('alternatively', 0.089), ('run', 0.088), ('bucks', 0.088), ('bloomberg', 0.088), ('chance', 0.086), ('radio', 0.085), ('gates', 0.085), ('trading', 0.085), ('quarter', 0.084), ('shares', 0.084), ('frequent', 0.082), ('funds', 0.08), ('right', 0.078), ('mere', 0.077), ('mon', 0.077), ('matt', 0.076), ('wins', 0.076), ('romney', 0.076), ('fellow', 0.075), ('nyc', 0.074), ('senior', 0.071), ('campaign', 0.068), ('presents', 0.067), ('contribution', 0.065), ('washington', 0.065), ('save', 0.065), ('cut', 0.064)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0000001 885 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-01-Needed: A Billionaire Candidate for President Who Shares the Views of a Washington Post Columnist
Introduction: Writing in the Washington Post, Matt Miller wants a billionaire to run for president and “save the country.” We already have two billionaires running for president. (OK, not really. Romney has a mere quarter of a billion bucks, and it’s Huntsman’s dad, not Huntsman himself, who’s the billionaire in that family.) And, according to all reports, NYC mayor Bloomberg would run for president in an instant if he thought he’d have a chance of winning. So we should amend Miller’s article to say that he wants a billionaire presidential candidate who (a) shares the political views of a “senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and co-host of public radio’s “Left, Right, and Center” and (b) has a chance of winning. That shouldn’t be too hard to find, right? Hey, I have an idea! MIller writes that that Thomas Friedman just wrote a book arguing that “the right independent candidacy could provide for our dysfunctional politics presents an unrivaled opportunity.” Friedman’s actu
2 0.12667169 859 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-18-Misunderstanding analysis of covariance
Introduction: Jeremy Miles writes: Are you familiar with Miller and Chapman’s (2001) article : Misunderstanding Analysis of Covariance saying that ANCOVA (and therefore, I suppose regression) should not be used when groups differ on a covariate. It has caused a moderate splash in psychology circles. I wondered if you had any thoughts on it. I had not heard of the article so I followed the link . . . ugh! Already on the very first column of the very first page they confuse nonadditivity with nonlinearity. I could probably continue with, “and it gets worse,” but since nobody’s paying me to read this one, I’ll stop reading right there on the first page! I prefer when people point me to good papers to read. . . .
Introduction: I don’t know when I’ve seen political writing quote so misinformed as this. It’s a bizarre mixture of cliches, non-sequitors, and outright mistakes. The author is Gregg Easterbrook and he’s writing for Reuters . First, the cliches: Right now Romney seems to be the frontrunner, which, of course, is a mixed blessing. His aura of experience and reasonableness could prove quite appealing to voters. Perry continues to have the potential to light a populist fire. . . . Of all the 2012 candidates, Huntsman is the one who is Not Just Another Politician. And now the errors. At this point in the 1992 election cycle, the elder George Bush held an 89 percent approval rating. . . . Clinton beat a popular incumbent with a fantastic approval rating. For the 2012 election, Barack Obama is just as vulnerable as the elder Bush, if not even more so. Obama currently has an approval rating of 23 percent. This is all fine, except that: 1. It’s not true that at this point in the 1992 elec
4 0.088973708 966 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-20-A qualified but incomplete thanks to Gregg Easterbrook’s editor at Reuters
Introduction: Dear Reuters editor: Thanks for reading my blog and correcting the erroneous numbers in Easterbrook’s column from the other day. I’m pretty sure you got the corrections from my blog because in your corrections you used the exact same links that I posted. I think your readers will like that you gave links to the sources of your numbers. But I’d appreciate if you cite me! It’s considered polite to credit your sources rather than just copying over numbers and links with no mention of where they came from. Unlike Easterbrook, I’m not expecting to be paid for this material but I’d still like to be thanked. (See the last paragraph of this post by Felix Salmon for more on the desirability of linking to your sources.) Also, since you’re correcting the article anyway, maybe you could go back and change this sentence too: But don’t sell Huntsman short because he is low in the polls – Obama had been at that point, too. As I noted earlier, As of 14 Oct 2011, Gallup gi
5 0.076668352 1900 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-15-Exploratory multilevel analysis when group-level variables are of importance
Introduction: Steve Miller writes: Much of what I do is cross-national analyses of survey data (largely World Values Survey). . . . My big question pertains to (what I would call) exploratory analysis of multilevel data, especially when the group-level predictors are of theoretical importance. A lot of what I do involves analyzing cross-national survey items of citizen attitudes, typically of political leadership. These survey items are usually yes/no responses, or four-part responses indicating a level of agreement (strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree) that can be condensed into a binary variable. I believe these can be explained by reference to country-level factors. Much of the group-level variables of interest are count variables with a modal value of 0, which can be quite messy. How would you recommend exploring the variation in the dependent variable as it could be explained by the group-level count variable of interest, before fitting the multilevel model itself? When
6 0.076080129 654 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-09-There’s no evidence that voters choose presidential candidates based on their looks
7 0.075473092 2255 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-19-How Americans vote
8 0.070673987 1439 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-01-A book with a bunch of simple graphs
9 0.069171697 1027 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-25-Note to student journalists: Google is your friend
10 0.065721512 2280 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-03-As the boldest experiment in journalism history, you admit you made a mistake
11 0.063299514 1075 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-20-This guy has a regular column at Reuters
13 0.061378431 1396 andrew gelman stats-2012-06-27-Recently in the sister blog
14 0.061362304 521 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-17-“the Tea Party’s ire, directed at Democrats and Republicans alike”
15 0.061034329 719 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-19-Everything is Obvious (once you know the answer)
16 0.058764301 113 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-28-Advocacy in the form of a “deliberative forum”
17 0.05866345 1083 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-26-The quals and the quants
19 0.057599861 1187 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-27-“Apple confronts the law of large numbers” . . . huh?
20 0.056789573 1512 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-27-A Non-random Walk Down Campaign Street
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.085), (1, -0.061), (2, 0.032), (3, 0.055), (4, -0.028), (5, 0.024), (6, 0.001), (7, -0.033), (8, -0.006), (9, -0.007), (10, 0.003), (11, 0.044), (12, 0.03), (13, -0.013), (14, -0.024), (15, -0.004), (16, -0.008), (17, -0.023), (18, 0.012), (19, -0.003), (20, -0.024), (21, 0.042), (22, 0.034), (23, 0.033), (24, -0.026), (25, 0.012), (26, -0.019), (27, -0.021), (28, 0.008), (29, -0.006), (30, 0.009), (31, -0.008), (32, 0.007), (33, 0.023), (34, -0.005), (35, -0.032), (36, 0.002), (37, -0.005), (38, 0.032), (39, -0.022), (40, 0.035), (41, 0.005), (42, 0.0), (43, 0.007), (44, 0.009), (45, 0.006), (46, -0.001), (47, 0.021), (48, -0.005), (49, 0.005)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.95237833 885 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-01-Needed: A Billionaire Candidate for President Who Shares the Views of a Washington Post Columnist
Introduction: Writing in the Washington Post, Matt Miller wants a billionaire to run for president and “save the country.” We already have two billionaires running for president. (OK, not really. Romney has a mere quarter of a billion bucks, and it’s Huntsman’s dad, not Huntsman himself, who’s the billionaire in that family.) And, according to all reports, NYC mayor Bloomberg would run for president in an instant if he thought he’d have a chance of winning. So we should amend Miller’s article to say that he wants a billionaire presidential candidate who (a) shares the political views of a “senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and co-host of public radio’s “Left, Right, and Center” and (b) has a chance of winning. That shouldn’t be too hard to find, right? Hey, I have an idea! MIller writes that that Thomas Friedman just wrote a book arguing that “the right independent candidacy could provide for our dysfunctional politics presents an unrivaled opportunity.” Friedman’s actu
2 0.76763707 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
3 0.74273056 551 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-02-Obama and Reagan, sitting in a tree, etc.
Introduction: I saw this picture staring at me from the newsstand the other day: Here’s the accompanying article, by Michael Scherer and Michael Duffy, which echoes some of the points I made a few months ago , following the midterm election: Why didn’t Obama do a better job of leveling with the American people? In his first months in office, why didn’t he anticipate the example of the incoming British government and warn people of economic blood, sweat, and tears? Why did his economic team release overly-optimistic graphs such as shown here? Wouldn’t it have been better to have set low expectations and then exceed them, rather than the reverse? I don’t know, but here’s my theory. When Obama came into office, I imagine one of his major goals was to avoid repeating the experiences of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter in their first two years. Clinton, you may recall, was elected with less then 50% of the vote, was never given the respect of a “mandate” by congressional Republicans, wasted
Introduction: I don’t know when I’ve seen political writing quote so misinformed as this. It’s a bizarre mixture of cliches, non-sequitors, and outright mistakes. The author is Gregg Easterbrook and he’s writing for Reuters . First, the cliches: Right now Romney seems to be the frontrunner, which, of course, is a mixed blessing. His aura of experience and reasonableness could prove quite appealing to voters. Perry continues to have the potential to light a populist fire. . . . Of all the 2012 candidates, Huntsman is the one who is Not Just Another Politician. And now the errors. At this point in the 1992 election cycle, the elder George Bush held an 89 percent approval rating. . . . Clinton beat a popular incumbent with a fantastic approval rating. For the 2012 election, Barack Obama is just as vulnerable as the elder Bush, if not even more so. Obama currently has an approval rating of 23 percent. This is all fine, except that: 1. It’s not true that at this point in the 1992 elec
5 0.73125374 1574 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-12-How to Lie With Statistics example number 12,498,122
Introduction: This post is by Phil Price. Bill Kristol notes that “Four presidents in the last century have won more than 51 percent of the vote twice: Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Reagan and Obama”. I’m not sure why Kristol, a conservative, is promoting the idea that Obama has a mandate, but that’s up to him. I’m more interested in the remarkable bit of cherry-picking that led to this “only four presidents” statistic. There was one way in which Obama’s victory was large: he won the electoral college 332-206. That’s a thrashing. But if you want to claim that Obama has a “popular mandate” — which people seem to interpret as an overwhelming preference of The People such that the opposition is morally obligated to give way — you can’t make that argument based on the electoral college, you have to look at the popular vote. That presents you with a challenge for the 2012 election, since Obama’s 2.7-point margin in the popular vote was the 12th-smallest out of the 57 elections we’ve had. There’s a nice sor
6 0.72779459 394 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-05-2010: What happened?
7 0.71820575 1569 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-08-30-30-40 Nation
8 0.70353937 1083 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-26-The quals and the quants
10 0.69662845 967 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-20-Picking on Gregg Easterbrook
11 0.69544852 588 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-24-In case you were wondering, here’s the price of milk
12 0.68979532 384 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-31-Two stories about the election that I don’t believe
13 0.68597883 286 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-20-Are the Democrats avoiding a national campaign?
14 0.68537712 1075 andrew gelman stats-2011-12-20-This guy has a regular column at Reuters
15 0.68041325 966 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-20-A qualified but incomplete thanks to Gregg Easterbrook’s editor at Reuters
17 0.66791171 1020 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-20-No no no no no
18 0.66710556 654 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-09-There’s no evidence that voters choose presidential candidates based on their looks
19 0.66281599 100 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-19-Unsurprisingly, people are more worried about the economy and jobs than about deficits
topicId topicWeight
[(2, 0.332), (4, 0.014), (5, 0.019), (6, 0.04), (9, 0.023), (13, 0.01), (15, 0.013), (16, 0.073), (18, 0.019), (21, 0.016), (22, 0.011), (24, 0.047), (28, 0.011), (43, 0.01), (47, 0.01), (53, 0.011), (65, 0.011), (86, 0.024), (93, 0.036), (99, 0.174)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
1 0.96955842 663 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-15-Happy tax day!
Introduction: Your taxes pay for the research funding that supports the work we do here, some of which appears on this blog and almost all of which is public, free, and open-source. So, to all of the taxpayers out there in the audience: thank you.
2 0.89880991 97 andrew gelman stats-2010-06-18-Economic Disparities and Life Satisfaction in European Regions
Introduction: Grazia Pittau, Roberto Zelli, and I came out with a paper investigating the role of economic variables in predicting regional disparities in reported life satisfaction of European Union citizens. We use multilevel modeling to explicitly account for the hierarchical nature of our data, respondents within regions and countries, and for understanding patterns of variation within and between regions. Here’s what we found: - Personal income matters more in poor regions than in rich regions, a pattern that still holds for regions within the same country. - Being unemployed is negatively associated with life satisfaction even after controlled for income variation. Living in high unemployment regions does not alleviate the unhappiness of being out of work. - After controlling for individual characteristics and modeling interactions, regional differences in life satisfaction still remain. Here’s a quick graph; there’s more in the article:
3 0.89644277 489 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-28-Brow inflation
Introduction: In an article headlined, “Hollywood moves away from middlebrow,” Brooks Barnes writes : As Hollywood plowed into 2010, there was plenty of clinging to the tried and true: humdrum remakes like “The Wolfman” and “The A-Team”; star vehicles like “Killers” with Ashton Kutcher and “The Tourist” with Angelina Jolie and Johnny Depp; and shoddy sequels like “Sex and the City 2.” All arrived at theaters with marketing thunder intended to fill multiplexes on opening weekend, no matter the quality of the film. . . . But the audience pushed back. One by one, these expensive yet middle-of-the-road pictures delivered disappointing results or flat-out flopped. Meanwhile, gambles on original concepts paid off. “Inception,” a complicated thriller about dream invaders, racked up more than $825 million in global ticket sales; “The Social Network” has so far delivered $192 million, a stellar result for a highbrow drama. . . . the message that the year sent about quality and originality is real enoug
4 0.89388323 44 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-20-Boris was right
Introduction: Boris Shor in January : the pivotal Senator will now be a Republican, not a Democrat . . . Brown stands to become the pivotal member of the Senate. The New York Times today : The Senate voted on Thursday afternoon to close debate on a far-reaching financial regulatory bill . . . In an interesting twist, the decisive vote was supplied by Senator Scott Brown, the Republican freshman of Massachusetts . . .
same-blog 5 0.87319064 885 andrew gelman stats-2011-09-01-Needed: A Billionaire Candidate for President Who Shares the Views of a Washington Post Columnist
Introduction: Writing in the Washington Post, Matt Miller wants a billionaire to run for president and “save the country.” We already have two billionaires running for president. (OK, not really. Romney has a mere quarter of a billion bucks, and it’s Huntsman’s dad, not Huntsman himself, who’s the billionaire in that family.) And, according to all reports, NYC mayor Bloomberg would run for president in an instant if he thought he’d have a chance of winning. So we should amend Miller’s article to say that he wants a billionaire presidential candidate who (a) shares the political views of a “senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and co-host of public radio’s “Left, Right, and Center” and (b) has a chance of winning. That shouldn’t be too hard to find, right? Hey, I have an idea! MIller writes that that Thomas Friedman just wrote a book arguing that “the right independent candidacy could provide for our dysfunctional politics presents an unrivaled opportunity.” Friedman’s actu
6 0.85480368 17 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-05-Taking philosophical arguments literally
7 0.8297143 1017 andrew gelman stats-2011-11-18-Lack of complete overlap
8 0.82816708 549 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-01-“Roughly 90% of the increase in . . .” Hey, wait a minute!
9 0.81906331 1698 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-30-The spam just gets weirder and weirder
10 0.81869543 1189 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-28-Those darn physicists
11 0.8035844 694 andrew gelman stats-2011-05-04-My talk at Hunter College on Thurs
12 0.786883 1567 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-07-Election reports
13 0.78666306 1508 andrew gelman stats-2012-09-23-Speaking frankly
14 0.77923447 1663 andrew gelman stats-2013-01-09-The effects of fiscal consolidation
15 0.77789843 1872 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-27-More spam!
16 0.77625126 1260 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-11-Hunger Games survival analysis
17 0.76355857 1102 andrew gelman stats-2012-01-06-Bayesian Anova found useful in ecology
18 0.74499148 1893 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-11-Folic acid and autism
19 0.73975885 1954 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-24-Too Good To Be True: The Scientific Mass Production of Spurious Statistical Significance
20 0.70982659 2360 andrew gelman stats-2014-06-05-Identifying pathways for managing multiple disturbances to limit plant invasions