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

September 30, 2008



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.

Never miss a post
Your email address:*
Please enter all required fields Click to hide
Correct invalid entries Click to hide
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 03/2006