Friday, December 03, 2004
Donkeys still down and out
Ruy Teixeira doesn’t know how to call it quits… Right now he’s out looking for people who voted for Bush. Who really voted for W? Apparently not too many, if you want to believe him – well, not too many regular folks, that is. On his blog, he is still working on proving his case and he finds that just about everyone who voted for Bush is a right-wing nutcase . Too much statistical analysis can do that to a man.
This should come as no surprise – after all when you’ve written a book less than two years ago, which had as its main theme the prediction that Democrats are soon to take over national politics in the U.S., well, then I guess you have a lot of damage control to take care of right now…
The latest from his blog of the not so rising Donkeys is The non-existing vote increase for Republicans among Hispanics. I agree with him - the exit polls gave a bad (as in misrepresenting) picture of the electorate. So why even bother trying to crunch numbers that can't be trusted in the first place? Well, first of all - Teixeira argues - there are are places like Texas and California, where it is possible to break down the ethnic vote to see just how big increase W received among Hispanics. And Teixiera's conclusion - Bush did not get 44 percent of Hispanics, but rather 40. Wow. Four points. So much talk. So little to talk about.
Does the political science community ever feel burdoned by people from the left who are trying to squeeze stats into a political blender to fit their world view? Probably not. Afterall, Teixiera was moderator John Kingdon's choice for the APSA panel (see previous entry November 19).
Btw... The Washington Post has run several stories on the case:
Realignment or Tilt? (by John F. Harris)
Pollsters Debate Hispanics' Vote (by Darryl Fears)
Was the election just a mishaps? A "Tilt" of the game Democrats are supposed to win? And are the Republicans still not "in tune" with the American people (i.e. ethnic minorities)? With this form of analysis (or, rather - spinning) I guess you can lose any election and not really lose at all.
Allow me to share a laugh with you: Eeeh-aw, eeeh-aw!
This should come as no surprise – after all when you’ve written a book less than two years ago, which had as its main theme the prediction that Democrats are soon to take over national politics in the U.S., well, then I guess you have a lot of damage control to take care of right now…
The latest from his blog of the not so rising Donkeys is The non-existing vote increase for Republicans among Hispanics. I agree with him - the exit polls gave a bad (as in misrepresenting) picture of the electorate. So why even bother trying to crunch numbers that can't be trusted in the first place? Well, first of all - Teixeira argues - there are are places like Texas and California, where it is possible to break down the ethnic vote to see just how big increase W received among Hispanics. And Teixiera's conclusion - Bush did not get 44 percent of Hispanics, but rather 40. Wow. Four points. So much talk. So little to talk about.
Does the political science community ever feel burdoned by people from the left who are trying to squeeze stats into a political blender to fit their world view? Probably not. Afterall, Teixiera was moderator John Kingdon's choice for the APSA panel (see previous entry November 19).
Btw... The Washington Post has run several stories on the case:
Realignment or Tilt? (by John F. Harris)
Pollsters Debate Hispanics' Vote (by Darryl Fears)
Was the election just a mishaps? A "Tilt" of the game Democrats are supposed to win? And are the Republicans still not "in tune" with the American people (i.e. ethnic minorities)? With this form of analysis (or, rather - spinning) I guess you can lose any election and not really lose at all.
Allow me to share a laugh with you: Eeeh-aw, eeeh-aw!
