11 November 2004

More political science grad students blogging

Just discovered a group blog of PS grad students, primarily at Chicago,
but from a few other universities also.  Cruise over to Political Arguments and take a look.

Posted in IvoryTower on 11 November 2004 at 9:51 am by Nate

Some sanity in the continuing Red/Blue State wars

I haven’t posted many of the correlations of Red States/Blue States and
name the social phenomenon you want.  Like the Red State/Slave
States, and so on.

Dan Drezner adds a tiny bit of sanity to this:

As
reluctant as I am to wade in on this — because all these comparisons
demonstrate are potentially spurious correlations — it’s worth
pointing out that there are metrics on which the Red states look much
nicer than the Blue states. Take, for example, generosity.

He then cites a report that the Blue States are all below the median in giving.  Go look.

Correlation is not causation, people!  Hire a social scientist!  We can help!

Posted in Politicks on 11 November 2004 at 9:41 am by Nate
10 November 2004

This is me

I am an information packrat.  I save all sorts of things because
they are printed and contain information that I have found amusing,
stimulating, informative, or unexpected.  I have all my New
Yorkers.  I have massive files of articles and notes.  I have
all my important, personal e-mails since I started e-mailing 11 years
ago (I think).  I have a ridiculous number of books.

Should I worry?  Can you go too far?

I still have my first two computers, although one is at my parents’ house.

Anyone want to be my paper-copy-backup, offsite location?

Posted in OnTheWeb on 10 November 2004 at 8:38 pm by Nate
8 November 2004

Map madness

Via Crooked Timber, we can see the true red/blue breakdown.  Guess what?  We’re pretty purple.

Robert Vanderbei of Princeton created this:

Here is a really big version (have broadband for it) of the same.  He’s also got a bunch of other interesting maps, including one where population density is included as “mountains.”

Posted in Politicks on 8 November 2004 at 11:20 am by Nate
4 November 2004

Andrew Sullivan speaks

From over at Andrew Sullivan’s site:

WAR WAS NOT THE ISSUE:
I have to say it’s almost funny that for the past few months, I’ve been
harangued about the selfishness of gays who put their issues ahead of
pressing matters like the war, and yet the exit polls show something
rather different. The gay vote for Bush was – amazingly – only slightly
down on 2000. Many of them obviously thought the war or the economy was
pre-eminent. But for evangelicals, the issue of “moral values” trumped
the war! It wasn’t about the war on terror for the Bush base. It was
about the war on gay unions. Oh, the ironies.

So ask me what it’s like to be a member of the
only minority group that it’s still acceptable to hate in public. 
It sucks.  Substitute “black” for any of the langauge used in
passing the eleven anti-gay initiatives the other day.  Sound
anything like Jim Crow?  It should, because majorities in this
country are abusing the power of the ballot box to punish minorities.

What I find funny is that among the evangelicals I grew up within,
there was a constant refrain about the seculars and the humanists being
against us, persecuting us, trying to destroy God for us, trying to
restrict our freedoms, and so on.  And I know that this language
and perceived persecution continues for evangelicals.  But they’re
just proven their power, they control the instruments of government,
and they are asking for more, more, more.  But they can’t even
follow one of the most basic rules of their faith: “Do unto others as
you would have them do unto you.”  Even though I don’t see any
real evidence that conservative Christians are under attack from a
culture set on destroying them, many of them would do to us exactly
that which they claim has been done to them.

I’m not surprised by this hatred and hypocrisy, but it seems necessary to point it out.

Sullivan concludes by noting that we are right.  And I note that
Sullivan’s words ring more true with the Gospel of Christ than any bile
from the mouth of a fag-hater.

STAND TALL: But
one more thing is important. The dignity of our lives and our
relationships as gay people is not dependent on heterosexual approval
or tolerance. Our dignity exists regardless of their fear. We have
something invaluable in this struggle: the knowledge that we are in the
right, that our loves are as deep and as powerful and as God-given as
their loves, that our relationships truly are bonds of faith and hope
that are worthy, in God’s eyes and our own, of equal respect. Being gay
is a blessing. The minute we let their fear and ignorance enter into
our own souls, we lose. We have gained too much and come through too
much to let ourselves be defined by others. We must turn hurt back into
pride. Cheap, easy victories based on untruth and fear and cynicism are
pyrrhic ones. In time, they will fall. So hold your heads up high. Do
not give in to despair. Do not let the Republican party rob you of your
hopes. This is America. Equality will win in the end.

The Kingdom of God never proves easy or
quick.  But its justice for the downtrodden and mercy for all roll
irresistably on, “casting down the mighty from their seats and exalting
the humble and meek.” 

I just sometimes wish that the day would get here sooner.

Posted in Politicks on 4 November 2004 at 5:20 pm by Nate
3 November 2004

Realignment?

Posted in Politicks on 3 November 2004 at 2:42 pm by Nate

What to do next?

William Saletan offers a few ideas.

If you’re a Democrat, here’s my advice. Do what the Republicans did in
1998. Get simple. Find a compelling salesman and get him ready to run
for president in 2008. Put aside your quibbles about preparation,
stature, expertise, nuance, and all that other hyper-sophisticated
garbage that caused you to nominate Kerry. You already have legions of
people with preparation, stature, expertise, and nuance ready to staff
the executive branch of the federal government. You don’t need one of
them to be president. You just need somebody to win the White House and
appoint them to his administration. And that will require all the
simplicity, salesmanship, and easygoing humanity they don’t have….

Clear the field of Hillary Clinton and any other well-meaning liberal
who can’t connect with people outside those islands of blue on your
electoral map. Because you’re going to get a simple president again
next time, whether you like it or not. The only question is whether
that president will be from your party or the other one.

Posted in Politicks on 3 November 2004 at 2:40 pm by Nate

Well, here we go again

Well, people kept asking me who I thought would win, and I refused to
make a prediction and also offered that it would take us a week or so
to know.

I hate being right like this.

2.41 PM update: Damn.  I hate being wrong even more.

Posted in Politicks on 3 November 2004 at 9:17 am by Nate
2 November 2004

Zogby prediction

www.zogby.com

Our Call
Zogby International’s 2004 Predictions
(as of Nov. 2, 2004 5:00pm EST)



                     2004 Presidential Election


















Electoral Votes:


Bush


213


Kerry


311


Too Close To Call


Nevada (5)


Too Close To Call


Colorado (9)



Zogby International Finds: Bush at 49.4%, Kerry at 49.1%


The nationwide telephone poll of 955 likely voters was conducted (November 1-2, 2004). The MOE is +/- 3.2

Posted in Politicks on 2 November 2004 at 8:57 pm by Nate

Cautious optimism

I’m watching returns at the house of a professor in the Harvard Government department.  It’s probably not much of a surprise that most of the people here are Kerry supporters.  This is Massachusetts and Boston, after all.


People here seem to be cautiously optimistic that Kerry will do well tonight, but much of that may be because of the information deficit.  I don’t think there’s too much concern right now, but since no one has any good information, we’re seesawing a bit back and forth right now.


Hopefully, more later.

Posted in Politicks on 2 November 2004 at 8:49 pm by Nate