It's about time for one of these...regulars know the drill. Leave your questions in comments below, or email them, or via twitter, and I'll get to as many as I can. Apologies in advance if I don't get to yours. Of course I suppose that elections questions are the most obvious ones right now, but I'll take whatever you have, as usual.
Looking forward to it!
Friday, October 5, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Should we treat the various models (using economic data, approval ratings, presence or absence of war, etc.) for projecting Presidential election results are just junk science, given the incredibly small sample size of the data set? (It seems like they mostly use data back to 1952, so 15 data points.)
ReplyDeleteNot going to get to this one...search for "nerd wars" and presidential elections and there's just tons there from Nate Silver, John Sides, myself, and plenty of others. One short answer: the predictor models are useful for lots of reasons, but that's all.
DeleteThis may be too weird/speculative/open-ended for a Friday, but I've had a bunch of conversations over the years with people who wonder why we don't go with a more parliamentary system -- the idea being that it would free up government to act, I think, and cut through a bunch of the checks and balances in the system that can feel frustrating when you're in charge. I was wondering the other day how that would have impacted U.S. History -- say we take the House as our "parliamentary body", where a majority would have installed a prime minister and acted with relative freedom. How different would our country look, both at critical junctures along the way, and now? Are my friends on to something with this idea?
ReplyDeleteI've thought this too, but instead of a radical departure from our constitution, maybe it would be helpful to increase the number of seats in the house, via an act of Congress? States like New York and Texas (not to mention DC and Puerto Rico) should have more seats than they do currently to be proportional to the least populated state.
DeleteWhat are the biggest ways that technology and the Internet have changed the way we consume political news and make political decisions over the past 30 years? Have those changes impacted election outcomes, in your opinion? Can you make a sci-fi guess about how elections and electoral politics will look in the next 30 years?
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think would have been the election results in 1992 if, say, Paul Tsongas had won the Democratic nomination? You can choose whether you think Ross Perot would still have run under that scenario or not.
ReplyDeleteA little outdated, but back to nominations and vetting. You've said that Romney may not have been well vetted during the primaries. I have heard you describe McGovern, Goldwater and sometimes Carter as weak nominees. How about in the pre-primary days? Who were the poor nominees from the days of the old back room deals, when the party really did decide everything? At a guess I'd have to say the Democrats nominees of the 20's. Do you think the old process produced better presidential candidates?
ReplyDeleteAh, wish I had time to do this one...very short answer is that I think the modern process works well for our times, and that the older one was probably fine for it's time, but it's more complicated than that.
DeleteAmericans notoriously hate on Congress, something you have discussed here.
ReplyDeleteDo people in other democratic countries have a similarly low opinion of the national legislature? Do Brits hate on the House of Commons, etc.? Or does public annoyance get channeled differently in the mostly-parliamentary systems abroad?
One thing I've never seen discussed but has seemed kind of axiomatic to me is that the bigger the electorate is, the more solid a certain lead is. Right? Bob Kerrey, running for the senate in Nebraska, would have a much easier time making up a four-percentage-point polling deficit than Mitt Romney would. For Kerrey, that's about 20,000 votes, but a comparable swing for Romney would require moving a couple million votes. Am I right in assuming that's a much taller order for Romney?
ReplyDeleteHooray for Question Day!
ReplyDeleteHow important is today's jobs report (unemployment fell to 7.8%!) compared to the coverage of the debate? And do you know if this changes the "fundamentals" models in any significant way at all? Or are those sorta set predicting a close election with Obama as a slight favorite? Superficially it seems to me that it will squash the "Romney Won" debate meme and makes his over/under talking point about 8% unemployment look pretty foolish.
Are there any alternatives to gerrymandering? Making political geography the domain of elected state legislatures seems like a recipe for trouble...
ReplyDeleteIt seems like all my life I have heard that voters do not pay attention to the presidential election until after Labor Day. I did not hear that once this summer and it seems like (from the polls) they had all made up their minds long before Labor Day.
ReplyDeleteWas the Labor Day thing never true? Or what changed?
You talk a lot about how being a good President is largely about being a good politician. One of the reasons you think Carter was a poor president, I take it, is that he viewed himself as above politics and did not take seriously, once in office, the job of leading his party and fighting partisan battles.
ReplyDeleteThat said, my question is this: Did Obama's debate performance on Wednesday change your opinion on him? Joe Klein said something like, it's hard to imagine this Obama (i.e., the debate version) even being able to communicate effectively to do his job.
Romney abandoned many of the standard conservative positions in the debate this week, yet his base seems to have reacted with cheers instead of outrage. Does the fact that Romney was losing and his base was desperate for a "win" against Obama give Romney much more room to dump conservative orthodoxy and run towards the center (and in some cases, the left)?
ReplyDeleteSecond this, with an addendum: at what point do conservatives insist he snap back? Prior to Wednesday, they wanted him to be more forcefully conservative (see Noonan, WSJ, Fox, etc.) Since the debate, they seem perfectly willing to accept half a loaf. Are conservatives reading Chait, too, and remembering: "Oh yeah...we can lie about our policies then pass what we want!"
DeleteQ1. Do you have any interest in or actively follow politics in other countries?
ReplyDeleteQ2. If so, what could US politicos and politicians glean from the political process and culture of those countries?
Some, but not enough to have enough expertise to talk about it here very much.
DeleteOn the second one...no, not specifically, really. Both the US system and the US itself are just so different from most other nations and what they have...
Why isn't Arizona more of a battleground state? Do you think Texas will one day be up for grabs?
ReplyDelete(An interesting side question: how big of a boost for Republicans could Texas breaking up into multiple states be?)
Have you watched The West Wing? Thoughts about its portrayal of the political system? Are the various inaccuracies interesting or just inaccurate?
ReplyDeleteI really should do a Monday Movie Post on TWW, shouldn't I? Never have. I'll think about doing that.
DeleteRelated to the gerrymandering question: could you elaborate more on your thoughts of the strengths and weaknesses of PR vs. FPTP and the U.S. system vs. parliamentary systems?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDo you favor increased or decreased politicization in the realm of judge selection on a state level? My state, Missouri, is considering a referendum that would make their selection a much more partisan process. My law professor father hates it, and my political science professor loves it.
ReplyDeleteThere is a good chance Romney and Ryan will both lose their home states? Has this ever happened with any major party ticket before?
ReplyDeleteMcGovern/Shriver, unless you count Shriver as being from Washington -- he was actually from Maryland, and had lived in DC and IL, but wasn't from Massachusetts.
DeleteThoughts on this setup--
ReplyDeleteKeep the expanded 2-wild-card setup
The wild-card teams play a best of 3 game series, in the better-seeded teams' stadium, over 3 days...just like a regular series.
Reduce season to 161 games (helps eliminate ties)
The wild card team thus has only played 163 games before the "real" playoffs (just like now), the luck factor is reduced somewhat, and there's no more than 1 extra day inserted into the calendar.
(Still trying to figure out if the 161 games is bad from a "my team played only 80 games at home, whereas yours played 81" perspective)
How would you rate Harry Reid's job as Majority leader over the last six years? As a young liberal, I (and plenty of others) have had many moments of frustration with his seeming unwillingness to really confront the obstructive GOP caucus in his chamber through rules changes or making them actually filibuster or something. At the same time, he has managed to push through some major pieces of legislation (stimulus, ACA, Ledbetter, TARP, DADT repeal.) So has he been amazingly effective or could he have been more effective? Where does he rate compared to others? He's been the ML for pretty much my entire politcally conscious life, so its hard for me to compare him to anyone.
ReplyDeleteIf a major party POTUS nominee discovered that he had serious but probably treatable cancer in October, would you want him to tell the American people before the election (potentially altering the outcome), or wait until after he/she won to disclose it?
ReplyDeleteNot about politics: Your recent baseball post referred to a "wrong-handed bluff pitcher." I forwarded this to a friend of mine who's avidly learning baseball right now and wanted to know what that means. "Wrong-handed" I take it means lefty, but I'm having more trouble explaining "bluff pitcher." I get bluffing in general, but does it have some more specific meaning I'm not familiar with with regard to pitching?
ReplyDeleteGuessing: Does it mean announcing a fake rotation?
DeleteJeff, re-read the post. It was about playing against a team that platoons a lot of players, i.e. it has two very different line ups depending on whether it is facing a left handed or a right handed pitcher. What he said was install a plausible, bluff pitcher, one that could realistically be the starting pitcher and after one batter take him out and put in a pitcher that throws with the opposite arm. Now the other team has a lineup designed say for a left handed pitcher but now must face a right handed pitcher. The problem is whether or not a pitcher who could actually be plausible may be too important to waste on a bluff.
DeleteBajsa, thanks very much -- yes, I had an inkling it was something like that but am not deep enough into the game myself to have heard of this before. Makes sense, though!
DeleteYup, thanks Bajsa, that's exactly what I meant.
Delete