Quote of the day

So, I’m actually at a political science conference learning all sorts of fascinating new things in Political Science.  Really.  Well, sort of, when I’m not socializing with old friends.  I hope to have some good posts on some of this next week.  As for now, it’s about time for more socializing, but I thought I’d at least share this great Kevin Drum quote on who really runs the show in America– hint, it’s not the little guy:

Years ago I remember a lot of moderate liberals talking about how the Bush era radicalized them. For me, it was the economic collapse of 2008 that did it. The financial industry almost literally came within a hair’s breadth of destroying the world, but even so it took only a few short months for them to close ranks with Republicans and the rich to prevent anything serious being done to rein them in. Profits are back up, new regulations are barely more than window dressing, nothing was done to help underwater homeowners, bonuses are as obscene as ever, unemployment remains sky high, and the public has somehow been convinced that this was all their own fault — or perhaps the fault of big government, or big deficits, or something. But the finance industry has escaped almost entirely unscathed. It’s mind boggling. If this doesn’t change your view of who really runs the world, I don’t know what would.

Chart of the day

Let’s make it a double MPSA paper day.  Here’s the final chart from my paper on the generation gap with Kyle Saunders.


Each line is young voters (under 30) minus older voters (60 and over).  Young voters have been getting more Democratic in their partisanship than older voters (blue line), but especially in their votes (red line), and their views on social issues (green line).  It’s not all about gay marriage, but this is certainly a big part of the story.

The health care vote revisited

I was going to email my co-author in crime, Seth Masket, to see if he thought it was alright to go ahead and blog about our MPSA paper.  Instead, I went to his blog and learned that the answer is yes.  Works for me, here’s Seth:

We’ve put this research together into a paper that we’re presenting this weekend at MPSA.

For the paper, we look at the impact of four roll call votes: health reform, the stimulus, cap-and-trade, and the TARP bailout from 2008. We find that a vote for health reform was very costly for Democrats, reducing reelection margins by six to eight percentage points. This cost at least thirteen House Democrats their jobs. We find a smaller, but still statistically significant, effect for supporting TARP. The stimulus has a mixed effect, harming Democrats in more conservative districts but possibly helping them in more liberal ones. We found no overall effect for cap-and-trade.

Here’s my favorite graph from our paper, showing the estimated impact of the health reform vote on Democrats’ likelihood of reelection. The patterns are generated by a logit equation and show how Democrats from a broad range of districts fared in 2010 based on this one roll call vote. For example, in a district where Obama got 40% of the vote in 2008, a Democratic representative would have a 54 percent chance of retaining her seat if she opposed health reform, but only a 19 percent chance if she supported it.

At first, that graph may not look all the dramatic, but you need to consider a vertical line running through the graph at whatever Obama vote percentage you find interesting. There’s a huge amount of space between these two lines on the y-axis representing likihood of reelection.

And, just so we’re absolutely clear, if these results are totally accurate, I still endorse a vote for health reform 100%.  Some votes are worth losing your seat over and I can think of few that would be more worthy.  I think it is genuine shame that our best evidence suggests that this important vote on legislation that will materially improve the lives of millions indeed really cost many Democrats at the polls.  Of course, if I were a Republican, I’d just bury the results.  But us liberals are open-minded.

Was Va Tech wrong on the day of the shooting?

From the Post:

The federal government said Tuesday it plans to issue the maximum possible fine against Virginia Tech– $55,000 — for violations of a campus safety law in connection with the 2007 shooting rampage that left more than 30 students and teachers dead.

A federal official wrote in a letter to university President Charles W. Steger that the penalty for failing to provide timely warnings about the threat to the campus on the day of the massacre should be greater.

“Virginia Tech’s violations warrant a fine far in excess of what is currently permissible under the statute,” Mary E. Gust, an official in the Education Department’s Office of Federal Student Aid, wrote to Steger.

Her conclusion represented a stinging rebuke for Virginia Tech, which has sought for nearly four years to overcome wounds inflicted by the deadliest school massacre in U.S. history. It also bolstered the view of some relatives of the shooting victims that the university was negligent in efforts to protect the campus community.

I emphatically disagree.  Early that morning Virginia Tech officials were confronted with what looked like at the time, from all reasonable appearances, to be an isolated act of murder between individuals who knew each other.  There was absolutely nothing to suggest that this was the just the first killing in what would turn out to be the infamous killing spree hours later.  Should a campus of 20,000 students automatically shut down because one of its students is murdered– in a crime that police consider to be isolated and with a killer with a known motive?  Maybe you can argue that, but it is entirely reasonable to notify students and simply move on.  Maybe Virginia Tech should have known better, but they were going with the best information supplied at the time.  I don’t think I want to live in a world where we always have to consider the absolute worst possibility.  Where any shooting anywhere may be the prelude to an unprecedented mass murder.  Looking at the totality of the evidence, I just don’t see how you can blame the University for their actions.

 

My wife is so over the hill, but I’ve got a long way to go

So, you’ve got to respond to your wife’s blogging suggestions– right?  Actually, as rarely as she suggests, I can count on it to be something interesting.  Here’s the key finding:

According to a recent study in Britain, women say they feel “over-the-hill” by 29, while men feel over-the-hill by 58 years old. And the reasons are the best part: Women feel old when they spot their first gray hairs and start acting like their mothers; men feel old when they can no longer perform in the bedroom and start to become annoyed by loud music in bars.

I’ll not comment on the first part, but I can say according to the loud music in bars standard, I’ve been over the hill for a long time.  I spotted some gray hairs a few years ago, but since they seem to be colonizing very slowly, it doesn’t really bother me.  And to Kim’s credit, I don’t think she feels particularly over the hill.  Of course her hair color is still great.

That said, I’d hate to me considered mid-40’s when I’m only 41 (as I’m only 2 years away from that age):

I am 29 years old, and I find the idea that I am over-the-hill ridiculous. Who wants to be 22, anyway? I was clueless at 22. Now I know what’s up… at least more than ever before, and I know I’ll only get smarter.

When I see a woman I aspire to be, it’s Kelly Ripa, mid-40s, got it together, looks great, smart, confident, successful

 

Quote of the day

To anybody who actually believes that Republicans have any interest whatsoever in reducing the deficit, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.  Both Klein and Drum flagged this very telling quote today:

Asked about the offer the White House has floated, a top Republican aide says, “This debate has always been about discretionary spending — not autopilot ‘mandatory’ spending or tax hikes.”

I.e., the debate has always been about the things that simply lack the potential to make meaningful changes in our budget deficit.  Or as Drum puts it, the debate is about programs where money goes to help less well-off Americans.  So frustrating how many people fall for all the ridiculous Republican posturing on the deficit.  I guess that’s why PT Barnum remains among my favorite people to quote.

Roger Ebert predicts the future

Found via Ebert’s facebook feed.  This is very cool:

Nearly a quarter of a century ago, inhabiting a primitive world where the biggest movies of the moment were such cinematic fossils as “Three Men and a Baby” and “Beverly Hills Cop II,” Ebert took a pretty impressive stab at swami-like crystal ball gazing:

We will have high-definition, wide-screen television sets and a push-button dialing system to order the movie you want at the time you want it. You’ll not go to a video store but instead order a movie on demand and then pay for it. Videocassette tapes as we know them now will be obsolete both for showing prerecorded movies and for recording movies. People will record films on 8mm and will play them back using laser-disk/CD technology. I also am very, very excited by the fact that before long, alternative films will penetrate the entire country. Today seventy-five percent of the gross from a typical art film in America comes from as few as six –six– different theaters in six different cities. Ninety percent of the American motion-picture marketplace never shows art films. With this revolution in delivery and distribution, anyone, in any size town or hamlet, will see the movies he or she wants to see.

OK, so the CD became DVD and 8mm didn’t really go anywhere, but otherwise, Ebert got it pretty much right on the money.

I’ve never tried predicting more than an election in advance.  Very impressive.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 525 other followers

%d bloggers like this: