without any GOP votes in the House.
Why?
Simple: the Republicans left in the House represent heavily Republican districts. Nearly every Republican representing a marginal House district lost in either 2006 or 2008.
Therefore, voting against the stimulus was the right vote. Voting for it can open up these House members to a primary challenge--virtually the only way they could lose their seats.
Expect more defections among Republicans in the Senate, given the nature of their more heterogenous constituencies.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Obama's speech
Very interesting. Some commentary felt that it wasn't as impressive as the event itself, with all the crowds shouting for Obama and the intensely felt passion of the onlookers.
I disagree. First, Obama had a number of things he had to do. First, inspire confidence. Second, tell the hard truth about the tough economic circumstances we're in. Third, strike a clear chord with foreign nations about the intent of the nation internationally from this moment forward.
I thought he did all three, and did them well.
And, if you listened carefully, there were shades of Reagan, JFK, and FDR.
JFK--all call to service.
Reagan--candor about economic problems and an acknowledgment that while tough, Americans can get through this.
FDR--shaming the money lenders.
What was different, strikingly to this listener, was Obama's solution. Reagan, of course, felt that the economic ills were afflicted by government and that government was not the solution. FDR blamed Wall Street. Obama--well, he tried to craft a new path. Government is not always the solution, but it is not always the devil, either. It was interesting that he said we'll do what works and scrap what doesn't--very technocratic, and very Jimmy Carter. Pragmatism was the solution that was being peddled.
The question is, of course, if Obama can be the reconstructive president that Reagan and FDR were. If he can make good on his promise to change the tone in Washington, to get us to grow up, as it were, then perhaps. But the solution that is neither anti- nor pro-governmental strikes me as very Clinton and very pre-emptive. These presidents are successful in their own right, but do not establish long lasting legacies.
I'll keep watching and listening.
I disagree. First, Obama had a number of things he had to do. First, inspire confidence. Second, tell the hard truth about the tough economic circumstances we're in. Third, strike a clear chord with foreign nations about the intent of the nation internationally from this moment forward.
I thought he did all three, and did them well.
And, if you listened carefully, there were shades of Reagan, JFK, and FDR.
JFK--all call to service.
Reagan--candor about economic problems and an acknowledgment that while tough, Americans can get through this.
FDR--shaming the money lenders.
What was different, strikingly to this listener, was Obama's solution. Reagan, of course, felt that the economic ills were afflicted by government and that government was not the solution. FDR blamed Wall Street. Obama--well, he tried to craft a new path. Government is not always the solution, but it is not always the devil, either. It was interesting that he said we'll do what works and scrap what doesn't--very technocratic, and very Jimmy Carter. Pragmatism was the solution that was being peddled.
The question is, of course, if Obama can be the reconstructive president that Reagan and FDR were. If he can make good on his promise to change the tone in Washington, to get us to grow up, as it were, then perhaps. But the solution that is neither anti- nor pro-governmental strikes me as very Clinton and very pre-emptive. These presidents are successful in their own right, but do not establish long lasting legacies.
I'll keep watching and listening.
Monday, January 12, 2009
A lesson in correlation and causation
One of the foundational texts in voting behavior is the American Voter, published in 1960. This book kick-started the behavioral revolution in the discipline, moving political science away from the study of institutions and legal systems to the examination of individual political behavior.
Campbell et al discuss in the early chapters of the book the funnel of causality. To use their words directly:
"Events are conceived to follow each other in a converging sequence of causal chains, moving from the mouth to the stem of the funnel. The funnel shape is a logical product of the explanatory task chosen. Most of the complex events in the funnel occur as a result of multiple prior causes. Each such event is, in its turn, responsible for multiple effects as well, but our focus of interest narrows as we approach the dependent behavior. We progressively eliminate those effects that do not continue to have relevance for the political act" (p. 24).
What causes someone to vote in a particular way? Lots of things. But the best predictor--the most causally proximate--would be partisanship. It is the best single predictor of political behavior.
I mention all of this in the context of a news story I saw floating about on the web the other day. Apparently, traffic fatalities in Montana were down in 2008, compared to 2007. The reasons offered included increased use of seat belts and more police patrols. And yes, these probably do relate to the decrease in traffic deaths. But are these factors the most causally proximate predictors of the observed behavior (i.e. a decrease in traffic fatalities)? Probably not.
I was surprised that the article did not mention the most likely reason for the decline: fewer highway miles travelled. This, from a press release generated by the US Department of Transportation:
"Americans drove more than 100 billion fewer miles between November 2007 and October 2008 than the same period a year earlier, said U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters, making it the largest continuous decline in American driving in history." Read the whole release here.
Now, sure, one might say Montana probably didn't experience as big of a decline. Wide open spaces, big distances, there's only so much travel you can reduce in a state as big and as sparsely populated as Montana. Well, wrong. Montana's August 2008 travel numbers suggest that we had between a 5 and 6 percent drop in travel compared to August of 2007. That's among the biggest drops in the country (18 other states were in the top category). Check out these maps here.
The moral of the story: the simplest explanation is probably the best, and correlation does not equal causation.
Campbell et al discuss in the early chapters of the book the funnel of causality. To use their words directly:
"Events are conceived to follow each other in a converging sequence of causal chains, moving from the mouth to the stem of the funnel. The funnel shape is a logical product of the explanatory task chosen. Most of the complex events in the funnel occur as a result of multiple prior causes. Each such event is, in its turn, responsible for multiple effects as well, but our focus of interest narrows as we approach the dependent behavior. We progressively eliminate those effects that do not continue to have relevance for the political act" (p. 24).
What causes someone to vote in a particular way? Lots of things. But the best predictor--the most causally proximate--would be partisanship. It is the best single predictor of political behavior.
I mention all of this in the context of a news story I saw floating about on the web the other day. Apparently, traffic fatalities in Montana were down in 2008, compared to 2007. The reasons offered included increased use of seat belts and more police patrols. And yes, these probably do relate to the decrease in traffic deaths. But are these factors the most causally proximate predictors of the observed behavior (i.e. a decrease in traffic fatalities)? Probably not.
I was surprised that the article did not mention the most likely reason for the decline: fewer highway miles travelled. This, from a press release generated by the US Department of Transportation:
"Americans drove more than 100 billion fewer miles between November 2007 and October 2008 than the same period a year earlier, said U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary E. Peters, making it the largest continuous decline in American driving in history." Read the whole release here.
Now, sure, one might say Montana probably didn't experience as big of a decline. Wide open spaces, big distances, there's only so much travel you can reduce in a state as big and as sparsely populated as Montana. Well, wrong. Montana's August 2008 travel numbers suggest that we had between a 5 and 6 percent drop in travel compared to August of 2007. That's among the biggest drops in the country (18 other states were in the top category). Check out these maps here.
The moral of the story: the simplest explanation is probably the best, and correlation does not equal causation.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Franken v. Coleman: It's a tie
The Minnesota recount saga continues. The Minnesota Commission in charge of the recount has found that Franken is ahead by 255 votes, but inconsistencies in counting and ballot acceptance/rejection abound. Norm Coleman has decided to sue, preventing Al Franken from receiving the proper certification from the Secretary of State, meaning he cannot be seated by the Senate. So, at the dawn of the 111th Congress, there are only 99 Senators and 1 vacant seat.
There has been talk of the Senate seating Franken and of Republicans filibustering to prevent this. I have a much more simple solution: the Senate can declare the seat vacant, and force another election.
Let's face it: this election is damn close. It is so close we may not really know who really won. For all intents and purposes, it's a tie. Frankly, whoever wins will have very little "mandate" or flexibility to accomplish much anyway. So why not simply do it over?
There is precedent for this. In 1974, the Democratic candidate Durkin led by a slim margin on election night but the election commission recounted and certified the Republican Wyman the winner by 2 votes. The Democratic majority ended up declaring the seat vacant to protests from the Republicans, but this was probably the smartest and best move. Durkin ended up winning the special election, and was defeated in Republican landslide in 1980.
There has been talk of the Senate seating Franken and of Republicans filibustering to prevent this. I have a much more simple solution: the Senate can declare the seat vacant, and force another election.
Let's face it: this election is damn close. It is so close we may not really know who really won. For all intents and purposes, it's a tie. Frankly, whoever wins will have very little "mandate" or flexibility to accomplish much anyway. So why not simply do it over?
There is precedent for this. In 1974, the Democratic candidate Durkin led by a slim margin on election night but the election commission recounted and certified the Republican Wyman the winner by 2 votes. The Democratic majority ended up declaring the seat vacant to protests from the Republicans, but this was probably the smartest and best move. Durkin ended up winning the special election, and was defeated in Republican landslide in 1980.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Is there something in the water in Illinois?
Governor Rod Blagojevich: Really stupid and cocky crook.
What is the deal in Illinois? Putting Barack aside for the moment, here are some of the public officials the voters have elected to various offices in the past:
1. Governor Blagojevich: The target of a corruption probe for the past three years, the FBI arrests him for attempting to sell Obama's Senate seat to the highest bidder.
2. Governor Ryan: In jail over federal corruption charges that included selling licenses and services to the highest bidder in the state.
3. Senator Carol Mosley-Braun: Met with a dictator in Nigeria, and was under investigation by the FEC and charged with several violations (but could do nothing because the FEC's enforcement is a joke).
4. The Daleys: Enough said.
5. Dan Rostenkowski: Indicted in the House post office scandal in 1994.
Here are some others--all governors--courtesy of William Spain, at the Wall Street Journal:
"Otto Kerner, a Democrat who was convicted in 1973 on 17 counts of bribery, conspiracy, perjury and other charges before being sentenced to three years in the pen. The federal prosecutor in that case, James Thompson, later ascended to the governor's chair and wound up getting his law firm to defend Ryan for free.
Dan Walker was convicted in 1987 -- years after leaving office -- of bank fraud. Serving from 1973 to 1977, with a reputation as a reformer, he was the last Democratic governor of the state before Mr. Blagojevich took office in 2003.
Lennington Small, a Republican, served from 1921 to 1929. He was indicted while in office for embezzlement related to actions taken when he was state treasurer. He was later acquitted; several of the jurors in the case ended up with state jobs." The link to the article is here.
This state is nuts. It's like the voters can't help themselves...they have to have corrupt elected officials, otherwise they wouldn't know how to keep themselves entertained.
What a sad, sad, state of affairs.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Nebraska: 4 to 1
The person who wins the most votes in each state during the presidential campaign gets all the electoral votes, right?
Wrong.
That's true for 48 of the states where the electoral college vote is winner take all. Maine and Nebraska, however, do it differently. In each case, the state awards two of its votes to the winner of the state popular vote total. The other votes are apportioned to the winner of the popular vote in each congressional district.
In November, Nebraska for the first time split its electoral college vote. Nebraska is a very Republican state and McCain swamped Obama overall, winning two of state's electoral college votes. He also beat Obama in the Third Congressional District (most of the state west of Lincoln) and the First Congressional District (including the area around Lincoln and roughly the eastern third). Obama, however, beat McCain in the popular vote in the 2nd Congressional District, which is essentially Omaha.
So, Obama gets 1 electoral college vote from Nebraska, and McCain gets 4.
Odds are the Republican-controlled legislature (which is nonpartisan, but not really) will change the law so this doesn't happen again...
I've been recovering from the election. Expect more posts about the election, Obama's administration, and other current events soon.
Wrong.
That's true for 48 of the states where the electoral college vote is winner take all. Maine and Nebraska, however, do it differently. In each case, the state awards two of its votes to the winner of the state popular vote total. The other votes are apportioned to the winner of the popular vote in each congressional district.
In November, Nebraska for the first time split its electoral college vote. Nebraska is a very Republican state and McCain swamped Obama overall, winning two of state's electoral college votes. He also beat Obama in the Third Congressional District (most of the state west of Lincoln) and the First Congressional District (including the area around Lincoln and roughly the eastern third). Obama, however, beat McCain in the popular vote in the 2nd Congressional District, which is essentially Omaha.
So, Obama gets 1 electoral college vote from Nebraska, and McCain gets 4.
Odds are the Republican-controlled legislature (which is nonpartisan, but not really) will change the law so this doesn't happen again...
I've been recovering from the election. Expect more posts about the election, Obama's administration, and other current events soon.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
What the Election Means to my students
Last night was an historic election to be sure. Rather than give my thoughts about what happened, I thought it best to ask my students to reflect carefully on what November 4th, 2008 meant to them. I asked them to watch both Barack Obama's victory speech in Grant Park, and John McCain's concession in Phoenix, and then carefully reflect upon the last 20 months of campaigning. Attached to this, in comment form, are their thoughts. After they have their say, I'll try to add some of my own reactions.
Now, without further ado, the students who were part of that 18 percent.
Now, without further ado, the students who were part of that 18 percent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
