Guest Bloggers: Sharyn O'Halloran David Epstein

Collaborative Space

RSS Subscriptions

Add
to netvibes

Add to
Google

Subscribe in
NewsGator Online

« Insuring Against Financial Katrinas | Main | Bailout Vote Analysis: Theory »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341ca8e553ef010535005d2f970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bailout Vote Analysis: Empirics:

Comments

sbw

Don't confuse correlation with causation.

I analyzed the data differently. I took who was associated with Pelosi in one way or another -- committee chair, subcommittee chair, friend, California cohort, Finance committee member.

A high percentage of them voted no. Just enough, in fact, to leave the vote in the awkward position that Barney Frank could mock rant.

This, of course, is why I got out of Political Science. Like your chart, Poli Sci deals with small-T truths.

Never attribute to malice what you can attribute to malice and stupidity.

Paul Lehto

This appears to be very good work, much appreciated overall.

The nearly inevitable critique: While Democrats were "more likely" to support the bailout measure, the bipartisan coalition that emerged to defeat the bailout was, relatively speaking, more accurately described as "reasonably balanced" in party membership, since as you note, the wings of both parties DID combine to help defeat it.

Since you're sort of straying into the news business as a (reflective)"Pundit" -- the better lead on this particular narrow news-point is the existence of a robust bipartisan coalition. To say "more" democrats could mean almost anything from 1 to 100 or more.

The marginal extent in which one party votes for a bill more than another is true in virtually all cases, it's a relative yawner, and distracts from the lead here and what's unusual about the situation -- which you otherwise handle quite well.

The comments to this entry are closed.