Comments on: FDL Book Salon Welcomes Andrew Gelman: Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State

By: readerOfTeaLeaves

readerOfTeaLeaves — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 00:32:39 +0000

But as 80% of its research is “me too” (i.e. chasing the smallest patentable difference from an existing blockbuster), I think that’s not as much of a new economy industry as some believe.

FOTFLMAO ;-))

By: readerOfTeaLeaves

readerOfTeaLeaves — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 00:12:35 +0000

Arguably, they were our suburban presidents.
And it was an era of enabling massive sprawl, and much of their money came from people involved in sprawl related activities: gas, oil, home building, autos, insurance, mortgage brokers, realtors… and there’s overlap with the whole ‘prosperity gospel’ megachurch layer in those demographics, also.

By: Margot

Margot — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 00:08:23 +0000

New post

By: JohnEmerson

JohnEmerson — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 00:08:19 +0000

#107, #102, #83: Lest I wasn’t heavy-handed enough in #99, etc.: besides individual shifts from impartiality to advocacy (Barone), and besides the rewards given to people with a vivid hypothesis (Frank), in a lot of the media people are rewarded for being less liberal and less Democratic one way or another, whether in a conservative, centrist, or cynical way. And for complex reasons, dishonesty and confusion often pay off better than honesty.

By: papatonyinsd

papatonyinsd — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 00:08:03 +0000

I don’t see any discussion of WHY the states are trending bluer or redder over time, which surely bears on the discussion.

I blame mobility.

I live in an area of San Diego (comprising several square miles) that I call a “refugee camp”. Nearly NO ONE who lives here is from around California. They’re mostly folks who couldn’t stand the redneck attitudes in Chicken Leg Arkansas (or wherever) and got away as soon as they could. There has been a “brain drain” of creative, bright, open-minded people departing permanently from “fly-over country” and fleeing to the coasts and the larger cities. This leaves rich reserves of closed-minded, self-righteous, un-challenged folks, back home.

I see this trend accelerating, thanks to the Internet. If everybody there tells you that your life will be better away from where you grew up, then why would you stick around if you have a choice?

Given this premise, how would you predict some facts might change in your book over the next few decades?

By: Andrew Gelman

Andrew Gelman — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 00:01:29 +0000

Also I should mention our blog,
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/blog/
In case you want to keep up with our latest thoughts…

By: selise

selise — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 00:00:21 +0000

Pharma might seem to be the outlier, an allegedly research-intensive industry that supports Rs. But as 80% of its research is “me too” (i.e. chasing the smallest patentable difference from an existing blockbuster), I think that’s not as much of a new economy industry as some believe.

i don’t have the numbers at hand, but iirc pharma in generala is far more marketing and lobbying intensive than research intensive.

By: Teddy Partridge

Teddy Partridge — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 00:00:08 +0000

Thanks for this great chat, Mr Gelman, and thanks to Matt also for hosting today.

By: Andrew Gelman

Andrew Gelman — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:59:45 +0000

Thank you . . . that was fun (as well as exhausting). Perhaps we can do another one in a few months for my forthcoming book (of which I’m an editor), A Quantitative Tour of the Social Sciences!

By: readerOfTeaLeaves

readerOfTeaLeaves — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:59:45 +0000

CHS, anecdotal only on my part, but in my observation it comes down to caliber of candidate plus campaign organization.

In 2008, women that I know who tend to be Republican (moderates) were donating money and votes to Obama. They took one look at Sarah Palin and flipped out.

Tina Fey was the icing on that cake.
They don’t trust government, but the ‘incompetence and dishonesty’ of GWB and McCain put them over the edge between Sept and Nov.

Totally anecdotal info, no stats involved.