Bush 47.55% Kerry 45.9 % difference 1.65% standard error of difference due to sampling error alone about 0.5%
is the population weighted average by state of the average state poll since 10/10 (only one observation per tracking poll. Latest poll if none since 10/10).
The very slight shift to Bush and the decline in the standard error are both due to a new poll from New York. It means that, by now, about one third of the sampling variance in the population weighted average is due to Texas a large state with only one poll.
Update: The population weighted average by state of the average state poll since 10/20 (only one observation per tracking poll. Latest poll if none since 10/20).
is Kerry 45.9 % Bush 48% with a standard error due to sampling alone of about 0.77 %.
The very slight shift towards Bush is, naturally, a little bit more marked if the older polls are removed from the sample and not averaged with the newer polls. As mentioned above it is largely due to one new poll each for California and New York.
Under the null of no true change, the standard error of the change in the difference would be root(0.77*0.77 - 0.5*0.5) or 0.58%. The actual change in the change dropping the old polls is Bush gains by 0.45 % which is clearly not significant. I just did a Wu-Hausman test.
Friday, October 29, 2004
A good start
Bush did make one excellent point "A political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not who you want as commander in chief."
He should have added other reasons why he is unqualified to be President such as
" a President who invades a country mostly because he wants to, should not be re-elected",
" a president determined to disrupt an evil but deterable power with terrible weapons, so that the weapons end up in the hands of undeterable terrorists should not be re-elected" ,
"a President who didn't try to kill Zarqawi when we knew which small valley he was in, because he cared more about building support for his planned invasion should not be re-elected",
"a commander in chief who claims authority to declare anyone an enemy combatent and imprison him without trial has a right to a fair trial before being convicted of treason" and lots of things, but hey, a start is a start.
Bush did make one excellent point "A political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not who you want as commander in chief."
He should have added other reasons why he is unqualified to be President such as
" a President who invades a country mostly because he wants to, should not be re-elected",
" a president determined to disrupt an evil but deterable power with terrible weapons, so that the weapons end up in the hands of undeterable terrorists should not be re-elected" ,
"a President who didn't try to kill Zarqawi when we knew which small valley he was in, because he cared more about building support for his planned invasion should not be re-elected",
"a commander in chief who claims authority to declare anyone an enemy combatent and imprison him without trial has a right to a fair trial before being convicted of treason" and lots of things, but hey, a start is a start.
Al Qa Qaa Hypotheticals
It is now clear that at least some of the HMX and RDX were present in al Qa Qaa when US forces arrived. Thus the Bush administrations "defence" that they couldn't have been secured is false.
It is also irrelevant for several reasons. Assume for the sake of argument that the explosives were dispersed by the Iraqi army before the US army arrived. It would probably still have been possible to prevent dispersion of the explosives by detonating them with smart bombs. This would not have been pleasant for the unfortunate Iraqi soldiers in the vicinity but, when one decides to go to war, one has to be willing to kill enemy soldiers.
For the sake of further argument, assume that this was not possible. This would mean that invading Iraq to secure weapons (the stated reason to invade) was a grossly stupid strategic mistake. If it was not possible to secure explosives whose location was known, it was certainly not possible to secure chemical and biological weapons of unknown location. The Bush administrations line is roughly equivalent to asserting that, if there had been WMD in Iraq, they would now be in the hands of terrorists.
Now I think this was obvious to begin with.
Also Qa Qaa was definitely not secured as soon as US forces arrived. They were too few soldiers to do so and also secure Baghdad. Furthermore the very clear warnings from the IAEA to the Bush administration were not effectively communicated down the chain of command. The interest in weapons was interest in finding WMD for propaganda, not in preventing them from falling into the wrong hands.
The Bush administrations defence is based on false claims which have been refuted within days.
The false claim is also irrelevant.
It is now clear that at least some of the HMX and RDX were present in al Qa Qaa when US forces arrived. Thus the Bush administrations "defence" that they couldn't have been secured is false.
It is also irrelevant for several reasons. Assume for the sake of argument that the explosives were dispersed by the Iraqi army before the US army arrived. It would probably still have been possible to prevent dispersion of the explosives by detonating them with smart bombs. This would not have been pleasant for the unfortunate Iraqi soldiers in the vicinity but, when one decides to go to war, one has to be willing to kill enemy soldiers.
For the sake of further argument, assume that this was not possible. This would mean that invading Iraq to secure weapons (the stated reason to invade) was a grossly stupid strategic mistake. If it was not possible to secure explosives whose location was known, it was certainly not possible to secure chemical and biological weapons of unknown location. The Bush administrations line is roughly equivalent to asserting that, if there had been WMD in Iraq, they would now be in the hands of terrorists.
Now I think this was obvious to begin with.
Also Qa Qaa was definitely not secured as soon as US forces arrived. They were too few soldiers to do so and also secure Baghdad. Furthermore the very clear warnings from the IAEA to the Bush administration were not effectively communicated down the chain of command. The interest in weapons was interest in finding WMD for propaganda, not in preventing them from falling into the wrong hands.
The Bush administrations defence is based on false claims which have been refuted within days.
The false claim is also irrelevant.
Thursday, October 28, 2004
Consequentialism and consequences
Matt mauls another fool
"Will Wilkinson... asks "Could it be that the sort of person likely to be "intimidated" out of voting isn't in general the sort of person who you want to be voting?" ...The people who I want voting are the people who will vote for John Kerry."
Deadly. Wilkinson is being pragmatic shading to cynical asking if universal sufferage maximisises social welfare. Matt replies saying (roughly) if you are going to be pragmatic, I think the way to get to the best outcome is to let only Matt Yglesias vote. Frankly that would be fine by me, but Matt is not considering the long term consequences of his proposal. I know he is mainly kidding but he writes
"Democracy has an instrumental value and there's no fact of the matter about what really is and is not a legitimate leadership-selection process. If I thought Kerry would be a terrible president and that Bush was a good one, I'd be applauding efforts to intimidate likely Kerry voters."
Like hell you would. OK Yglesias has made it clear that he is a consequentialist. It is not clear exactly which consequences he considers important -- I guess something between the sum of utils and Man as a species being achieving our Telos. But being a consequentialist does not mean caring only about what happens next Tuesday.
A consequentialist should realise that there is such a thing as respect for principles which are perceived to be Democratic. He might believe that such respect is misplaced because the only thing that matters is the sum of utils, but to be practical, we must deal with people as they are, and many of them believe that democracy is sacred. Even if this belief is a mistake, it is a very useful mistake. If we all were willing to do anything necessary for our candidate to win, the world would be a worse place. Voter intimidation and especially toleration of voter intimidation by disinterested observers undermines belief in democratic principles. It is ironic how often cynical pragmatists say that dishonesty might be useful when a dishonest declaration that honesty is the best policy is almost always useful. It is odder how my argument against cynical pragmatism is, in fact, William James' argument.
Consider, would you hack a few thousand Deibold machines in Florida to make sure Kerry won ?
Assume that 1) you won't get personally nailed and sent to jail 2) without fraud Bush would win (hey this is hypothetical) 3) the results will certainly look suspicious and there is a 99% chance the courts will conclude that the result is due to pro Kerry fraud and declare Bush the winner.
that is 100 % chance of further undermining peoples faith in Democracy and 1 % chance of getting Bush out of the White House. What would you do ?
I should admit that I wrote 90% then edited to 95% then to 99% but hey Bush is special. Usually the difference between two candidates is trivial compared to the value of a democratic tradition and I mean the practical instrumental value.
Matt mauls another fool
"Will Wilkinson... asks "Could it be that the sort of person likely to be "intimidated" out of voting isn't in general the sort of person who you want to be voting?" ...The people who I want voting are the people who will vote for John Kerry."
Deadly. Wilkinson is being pragmatic shading to cynical asking if universal sufferage maximisises social welfare. Matt replies saying (roughly) if you are going to be pragmatic, I think the way to get to the best outcome is to let only Matt Yglesias vote. Frankly that would be fine by me, but Matt is not considering the long term consequences of his proposal. I know he is mainly kidding but he writes
"Democracy has an instrumental value and there's no fact of the matter about what really is and is not a legitimate leadership-selection process. If I thought Kerry would be a terrible president and that Bush was a good one, I'd be applauding efforts to intimidate likely Kerry voters."
Like hell you would. OK Yglesias has made it clear that he is a consequentialist. It is not clear exactly which consequences he considers important -- I guess something between the sum of utils and Man as a species being achieving our Telos. But being a consequentialist does not mean caring only about what happens next Tuesday.
A consequentialist should realise that there is such a thing as respect for principles which are perceived to be Democratic. He might believe that such respect is misplaced because the only thing that matters is the sum of utils, but to be practical, we must deal with people as they are, and many of them believe that democracy is sacred. Even if this belief is a mistake, it is a very useful mistake. If we all were willing to do anything necessary for our candidate to win, the world would be a worse place. Voter intimidation and especially toleration of voter intimidation by disinterested observers undermines belief in democratic principles. It is ironic how often cynical pragmatists say that dishonesty might be useful when a dishonest declaration that honesty is the best policy is almost always useful. It is odder how my argument against cynical pragmatism is, in fact, William James' argument.
Consider, would you hack a few thousand Deibold machines in Florida to make sure Kerry won ?
Assume that 1) you won't get personally nailed and sent to jail 2) without fraud Bush would win (hey this is hypothetical) 3) the results will certainly look suspicious and there is a 99% chance the courts will conclude that the result is due to pro Kerry fraud and declare Bush the winner.
that is 100 % chance of further undermining peoples faith in Democracy and 1 % chance of getting Bush out of the White House. What would you do ?
I should admit that I wrote 90% then edited to 95% then to 99% but hey Bush is special. Usually the difference between two candidates is trivial compared to the value of a democratic tradition and I mean the practical instrumental value.
Drunken thoughts too at the moment
I just drank a bottle of wine (very cheap and not bad). Now I am not so abstemious that a little alchohol makes me totally drunk, but, it does, as noted by Franklin, add to the inclination and detract from the ability (to blog of course).
When thinking of the Bush administration I occasionally think "technically true but deliberately misleading". Yes, of course, the "technically true" part is rare. That's why I said "occasionally".
Now I consider a new catagory "technically true but totally idiotic". One might ask how a true statement might be idiotic (this is more likely if one is me, who often wastes breath, ink or pixels making arguably true and definitely pointless assertions). OK look at this quote ofLee Smith.
"the Americans who say they are ashamed Bush is our president would no doubt be surprised that many ordinary Arabs actually like George W. Bush."
totally hammered by Matt "Now there are 76 million people in Egypt, and one million people is, in some sense, many people, so it's probably true in this sense that "many ordinary Arabs" like Bush. But many, many, many, many, many more absolutely detest him."
Yes indeed. I am sure that the ordinary Arabs who like Bush are plural (2 or more) more than I can count on the fingers of one hand (5 even though it looks like 10 some times) more important in the eyes of God than me (2 or more) not the smallest number of people who have ever liked any particular thing (1 or more there are things unknown to us that no one has liked) incomprehensible in their complexity (1 or more) greater than the number of Jews who were pope (there were 2 counting St Peter) , greater than the number of bears sadly imprisoned in zoos, and greater than the number of Popes who were, in fact,secretly atheists but damn
is the Pope catholic ? Does the bear shit in the woods ? Do Arabs hate George W Bush Jr ?
I just drank a bottle of wine (very cheap and not bad). Now I am not so abstemious that a little alchohol makes me totally drunk, but, it does, as noted by Franklin, add to the inclination and detract from the ability (to blog of course).
When thinking of the Bush administration I occasionally think "technically true but deliberately misleading". Yes, of course, the "technically true" part is rare. That's why I said "occasionally".
Now I consider a new catagory "technically true but totally idiotic". One might ask how a true statement might be idiotic (this is more likely if one is me, who often wastes breath, ink or pixels making arguably true and definitely pointless assertions). OK look at this quote ofLee Smith.
"the Americans who say they are ashamed Bush is our president would no doubt be surprised that many ordinary Arabs actually like George W. Bush."
totally hammered by Matt "Now there are 76 million people in Egypt, and one million people is, in some sense, many people, so it's probably true in this sense that "many ordinary Arabs" like Bush. But many, many, many, many, many more absolutely detest him."
Yes indeed. I am sure that the ordinary Arabs who like Bush are plural (2 or more) more than I can count on the fingers of one hand (5 even though it looks like 10 some times) more important in the eyes of God than me (2 or more) not the smallest number of people who have ever liked any particular thing (1 or more there are things unknown to us that no one has liked) incomprehensible in their complexity (1 or more) greater than the number of Jews who were pope (there were 2 counting St Peter) , greater than the number of bears sadly imprisoned in zoos, and greater than the number of Popes who were, in fact,secretly atheists but damn
is the Pope catholic ? Does the bear shit in the woods ? Do Arabs hate George W Bush Jr ?
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
The Circular Firing Squad of Flying Attack Monkeys II
Hovering around a pile of HMX and RDX and firing away at it.
Josh Marshall quotes Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita
"We do not know when -- if those weapons did exist at that facility -- they were last seen, and under whose control they were last in ... It's very possible -- certainly it's plausible -- that it was the Saddam Hussein regime that last had control of these things."
In the October 25 press gaggle Scott McClellan said
"MR. McCLELLAN: See, that's -- now you just hit on what I just said a second ago, that the sites now are really -- my understanding, they're the responsibility of the Iraqi forces. "
OK so maybe the explosives were looted before Coalition forces passed through in April 2003 or maybe they were looted after responsibility was transferred to the Iraqi Interim Government in 2004, but, in any case Iraqis and not Americans and certainly not GWB are too blame. The dinar stops there.
Trying to get to the bottom of what went wrong and who is responsible, McClellan manages to note that "sometime after April 9th 2003" could be long after April 9th 2003
They just found out about it says McClellan
"MR. McCLELLAN: Maybe the best way to do this is kind of walk you through how we came to be informed about this. The Iraqi Interim Government informed -- told the IAEA -- the International Atomic Energy Agency on October 10th that there were approximately 350 tons of high explosives missing from Al Qaqaa in Iraq. ... And the International Atomic Energy Agency informed the United States mission in Vienna on October 15th about these -- this cache of explosives that was missing ...
Hovering around a pile of HMX and RDX and firing away at it.
Josh Marshall quotes Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita
"We do not know when -- if those weapons did exist at that facility -- they were last seen, and under whose control they were last in ... It's very possible -- certainly it's plausible -- that it was the Saddam Hussein regime that last had control of these things."
In the October 25 press gaggle Scott McClellan said
"MR. McCLELLAN: See, that's -- now you just hit on what I just said a second ago, that the sites now are really -- my understanding, they're the responsibility of the Iraqi forces. "
OK so maybe the explosives were looted before Coalition forces passed through in April 2003 or maybe they were looted after responsibility was transferred to the Iraqi Interim Government in 2004, but, in any case Iraqis and not Americans and certainly not GWB are too blame. The dinar stops there.
Trying to get to the bottom of what went wrong and who is responsible, McClellan manages to note that "sometime after April 9th 2003" could be long after April 9th 2003
"Q On the tick-tock, do you know if the missing munitions, if they were looted before or after the handover June 30th? Was this -- happened when the coalition was in control or when the Allawi government --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, no. First of all, I said that they reported that it went missing sometime after April 9th, 2003. Remember, early on -- during and at the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom, there was some looting."They just found out about it says McClellan
"MR. McCLELLAN: Maybe the best way to do this is kind of walk you through how we came to be informed about this. The Iraqi Interim Government informed -- told the IAEA -- the International Atomic Energy Agency on October 10th that there were approximately 350 tons of high explosives missing from Al Qaqaa in Iraq. ... And the International Atomic Energy Agency informed the United States mission in Vienna on October 15th about these -- this cache of explosives that was missing ...
Q When did the President find out?
MR. McCLELLAN: That's why I said, we were informed on October 15th. Condi Rice was informed days after that. This is all in the last, what, 10 days now."
But they had to keep it secret to protect intelligence sources and methods, in particluar the new untested approach of looking in the bunkers to see if they have been emptied, which our adversaries could never ever imagine we would have neglected to do (oops I mean thought of doing).
CNN Via Josh Marshall
"One 'senior administration official' tells CNN that "the
discovery was not made public sooner because standard intelligence practice is not to let the enemy know such information.""
The explosives in the hands of terrorists are no big deal
"A senior administration official played down the importance of the missing explosives, describing them as dangerous material but "stuff you can buy anywhere." "
but too risky to leave in Saddam Hussein's Iraq under IAEA seal as noted by Josh Marshall (of course)
"But interestly, on January 30th 2003, when then-UN Ambassador (and now Ambassador to Iraq) John Negroponte testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about Iraqi non-compliance with the inspections regime, one of the items in the long bill of particulars he adduced was the fact that the Iraqis had not come clean about their stocks of HMX."
Finally McClellan almost manages to be a one man circular firing squad"Q One last one on the tick-tock. These notices from Iraq to IAEA to U.S. to Condi to President happened over days as opposed to hours. Was there just no sense of urgency that what they had discovered here was really an important --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, just -- no, I think that this has all happened in a -- just the last few days. We're talking about the last 10 days."
Edited that is
"days as opposed to hours" ... "No, just - no ... 10 days"
Bad taste I must say talking about the tick-tock in the context of time bombs. Not good for Scotties ticker.
By the way, he does seem to measure time very approximately and I just noticed that his Last name looks a bit like the (not quite correct) Roman Numeral for 1350 AD MCCLLL AD. Sure hope I don't get to circular firing squad of flying attack monkeys MCCL.
Monday, October 25, 2004
I predict Kerry will be elected president.
There is a chance of a major event, but I will risk my prediction now.
Popular Vote
Kerry 49.8 % Bush 49.2 % Nader about 1 %
Electoral Vote
Kerry 304 Bush 234
I guess there will be controversy, but, given my electoral vote predictions, I predict Kerry will be declared the winner the night of November 2 (or early AM November 3).
I guess the result in Florida will come as a surprise to many.
My guesse s for the House and Senate depend almost totally on MyDD
plus wishful thinking.
I predict
Senate
50 Democrats 49 Republicans and James Jeffords I votes Dem
House
212 Democrats 222 Republicans and Bernie Sanders Socialist votes Dem
Sen Leahy must be pretty lonely as a non independent in the Vermont delegation.
State level polls have been very stable. I am mainly using 2.oo4k polls. 2.004k presents polls of registered voters if available. This means that they overstate support for Kerry. However, undecided voters tend to split against the incumbent. I follow Charlie Cook who should know. He gives as a low range 2/3 vs 1/3 so Kerry gains 1/3 of the undecideds who are about 5.7% of those polled so 1.9 % more for Kerry . I expect (wishful thinking) an effect of new registration, ACT bias in telephone polls etc etc etc to cancel the likely voter - registered voter effect. It averages only about 1.5 to 2 % in national polls (even including Gallup).
IIAC (if I added correctly) my electoral vote prediction corresponds to guessing Kerry wins Ohio, Florida, Hawaii, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Wisconsin and loses Iowa.
That is compared to Gore ddrops Iowa and picks up Ohio and New Hampshire and his victory in Florida is recognised. This means I predict Kerry to win Florida, Hawaii, and New Mexico even though he is slightly behind on average in the polls and to win Wisconsin where the average poll post 10/10 is exactly tied (same mix of undecided pattern and wishful thinking as for popular vote). I just don't believe the Hawaii polls.
There is a chance of a major event, but I will risk my prediction now.
Popular Vote
Kerry 49.8 % Bush 49.2 % Nader about 1 %
Electoral Vote
Kerry 304 Bush 234
I guess there will be controversy, but, given my electoral vote predictions, I predict Kerry will be declared the winner the night of November 2 (or early AM November 3).
I guess the result in Florida will come as a surprise to many.
My guesse s for the House and Senate depend almost totally on MyDD
plus wishful thinking.
I predict
Senate
50 Democrats 49 Republicans and James Jeffords I votes Dem
House
212 Democrats 222 Republicans and Bernie Sanders Socialist votes Dem
Sen Leahy must be pretty lonely as a non independent in the Vermont delegation.
State level polls have been very stable. I am mainly using 2.oo4k polls. 2.004k presents polls of registered voters if available. This means that they overstate support for Kerry. However, undecided voters tend to split against the incumbent. I follow Charlie Cook who should know. He gives as a low range 2/3 vs 1/3 so Kerry gains 1/3 of the undecideds who are about 5.7% of those polled so 1.9 % more for Kerry . I expect (wishful thinking) an effect of new registration, ACT bias in telephone polls etc etc etc to cancel the likely voter - registered voter effect. It averages only about 1.5 to 2 % in national polls (even including Gallup).
IIAC (if I added correctly) my electoral vote prediction corresponds to guessing Kerry wins Ohio, Florida, Hawaii, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Wisconsin and loses Iowa.
That is compared to Gore ddrops Iowa and picks up Ohio and New Hampshire and his victory in Florida is recognised. This means I predict Kerry to win Florida, Hawaii, and New Mexico even though he is slightly behind on average in the polls and to win Wisconsin where the average poll post 10/10 is exactly tied (same mix of undecided pattern and wishful thinking as for popular vote). I just don't believe the Hawaii polls.
Joshua Marshall quotes the Nelson Report
"Some 350 tons of high explosives (RDX and HMX), which were under IAEA seal while Saddam was in power, were looted during the early days of the US occupation. Like so much else, it was just left unguarded"
The Bush administration has been trying to keep this secret. The explosives are probably being used in roadside bombs and suicide bombs in Iraq. They were under IAEA seal because they are used to trigger nuclear bombs. In other words, because of the invasion, terrorists have their hands on an ingredient for nuclear weapons.
This reminds me of my first post on Iraq, in which I argued that the WMD, which I (among others) thought were in Iraq, implie dthat we should not invade. I think the case is proven. The RDX and HMX were in a known location and yet they wre not secured by coalition forces. Clearly there woul dhave been a low chance of securing gas or biological weapons hidden a locations unknown to the coalition. There is no reason to hope that Zarquawi would be too squeamish to use them. There is little reason to hope that, if there had been chemical and biological weapons in Iraq, they would not now be in the hands of terrorists.
Saddam Hussein is evil, but he was deterable.
I believe that the only thing that kept the invasion from being a much worse disaster than it was is the error in the basic premise for invasion.
"Some 350 tons of high explosives (RDX and HMX), which were under IAEA seal while Saddam was in power, were looted during the early days of the US occupation. Like so much else, it was just left unguarded"
The Bush administration has been trying to keep this secret. The explosives are probably being used in roadside bombs and suicide bombs in Iraq. They were under IAEA seal because they are used to trigger nuclear bombs. In other words, because of the invasion, terrorists have their hands on an ingredient for nuclear weapons.
This reminds me of my first post on Iraq, in which I argued that the WMD, which I (among others) thought were in Iraq, implie dthat we should not invade. I think the case is proven. The RDX and HMX were in a known location and yet they wre not secured by coalition forces. Clearly there woul dhave been a low chance of securing gas or biological weapons hidden a locations unknown to the coalition. There is no reason to hope that Zarquawi would be too squeamish to use them. There is little reason to hope that, if there had been chemical and biological weapons in Iraq, they would not now be in the hands of terrorists.
Saddam Hussein is evil, but he was deterable.
I believe that the only thing that kept the invasion from being a much worse disaster than it was is the error in the basic premise for invasion.
Has Comrade Yglesias committed a thought crime ?
He writes "at the risk of getting my liberal card taken away, I don't think inequality is a serious problem. Deprivation in the face of alternate policies that could promote well-being for the worst off without serious reducing the living standards of others is intolerable, but inequality per se is not." He goes on to say that unequal provision of public services is unacceptable.
The PC police are confused. A key problem is the quickly typed word "serious[ly]". Does this mean "significant" which would imply that Yglesias considers deprivation acceptable unless it could be eliminated with insignificant costs for others ? If so Matt Yglesias is not a liberal. Or does it mean "even more painful" in which case Yglesias is a utilitarian and yes Virginia utilitarians can be liberals. Or finally does "serious[ly] reducing" mean driving others into poverty. In that case, Yglesias doesn't disagree with Rawls after all.
I will assume that "serious" is very serious, so Yglesias is arguing that poverty in America is morally unnacceptable.
According to this interpretation, Yglesias thinks that, provided no one was deprived, the distribution of income would matter little. To be even more specific and less controversial, he might have meant something like this " if everyone had the equivalent of an income of say $100,000 for a family of 4, then it really wouldn't matter how income above that level were distributed, since that would only affect the distribution of un-necessary luxuries."
I don't know if that is what he meant, but, in my view, above that level, neither the distribution of income nor the average income matter much.
However, if, instead of $ 100,000 for a family of 4 he is thinking of the poverty line (in 2003 $18,810 for a family of four) then I absolutely disagree. People with income over the poverty line may still sufffer immensly from lack of privately purchased goods . My guess is that people with income twice the poverty line would still suffer from what Yglesias and I consider to be destitution.
The idea that inequality per se is not a problem so long as destitution is eliminated, seems to suffer very much from consideration about how low a standard of living was considered minimally adequate in the past. If the poverty line had been set in 1800, veryfew people would fall below it, but no one would be better off.
Now I have objected to the whole line of reasoning arguing that there is evidence that relative poverty causes absolute suffering for the innocent (Waldmann (1992) Quarterly Journal of Economics vol. 107 pp 1283-1302) but it is certainly consistent with being a liberal in good standing.
He writes "at the risk of getting my liberal card taken away, I don't think inequality is a serious problem. Deprivation in the face of alternate policies that could promote well-being for the worst off without serious reducing the living standards of others is intolerable, but inequality per se is not." He goes on to say that unequal provision of public services is unacceptable.
The PC police are confused. A key problem is the quickly typed word "serious[ly]". Does this mean "significant" which would imply that Yglesias considers deprivation acceptable unless it could be eliminated with insignificant costs for others ? If so Matt Yglesias is not a liberal. Or does it mean "even more painful" in which case Yglesias is a utilitarian and yes Virginia utilitarians can be liberals. Or finally does "serious[ly] reducing" mean driving others into poverty. In that case, Yglesias doesn't disagree with Rawls after all.
I will assume that "serious" is very serious, so Yglesias is arguing that poverty in America is morally unnacceptable.
According to this interpretation, Yglesias thinks that, provided no one was deprived, the distribution of income would matter little. To be even more specific and less controversial, he might have meant something like this " if everyone had the equivalent of an income of say $100,000 for a family of 4, then it really wouldn't matter how income above that level were distributed, since that would only affect the distribution of un-necessary luxuries."
I don't know if that is what he meant, but, in my view, above that level, neither the distribution of income nor the average income matter much.
However, if, instead of $ 100,000 for a family of 4 he is thinking of the poverty line (in 2003 $18,810 for a family of four) then I absolutely disagree. People with income over the poverty line may still sufffer immensly from lack of privately purchased goods . My guess is that people with income twice the poverty line would still suffer from what Yglesias and I consider to be destitution.
The idea that inequality per se is not a problem so long as destitution is eliminated, seems to suffer very much from consideration about how low a standard of living was considered minimally adequate in the past. If the poverty line had been set in 1800, veryfew people would fall below it, but no one would be better off.
Now I have objected to the whole line of reasoning arguing that there is evidence that relative poverty causes absolute suffering for the innocent (Waldmann (1992) Quarterly Journal of Economics vol. 107 pp 1283-1302) but it is certainly consistent with being a liberal in good standing.
Average of state polls taken after 10/10 as of 10/24
Updates for
a standard error of the difference Bush-Kerry of about 0.6% (this corresponds to the MOE as reported by pollsters)
……………Kerry… Bush… number of polls
USA………. 46….. 47.3
Alabama…...32..… 56..… 1
Alaska……. 30..… 57..… 1
Arizona…… 42.3… 50..… 3
Arkansas….. 46..… 49..… 4
California… . 53.7… 41.7… 3
Conneticut… 47..… 38..… 1
D.C………. .. 78..… 11..… 1
Hawai……... 43.8… 44.7 … 2
Kansas....... 38..... 57..... 1
Michigan…..... 48.2… 44,4… 8
Minnesota….. 46.2… 44.7… 6
Mississippi.. .. 42..… 51..… 1
Missouri...….. 45.3… 49.8… 4
Average poll post 10/10 for each state. Data from http://www.electoralvote.com and http://2.004k.com
update: I forgot the critical state rundown. No change since yesterday. In fact hardly any change since 2000. It looks distinctly possible that the only consonants which will appear in states that change on whether they want to send George to the White House are W and H ! That is Ohio yes to no, Iowa no to yes and maybe (seems incredible but it's 2 polls now) Hawaii no to yes. Of course a W H state switch will deprive poor George of the White House.
update2: Indiana corrected Kansas added
Sunday, October 24, 2004
Average poll post 10/10 for each state. Data from http://www.electoralvote.com and http://2.004k.com
Critical state run down. I will assume that the polls are OK. A key issue is that 2.004k.com reports polls of registered voters if available. Another key issue is that undecided voters tend to vote for the challenger in the end. I tend to assume that the second issue is more important, but that may be wishful thinking.
Very brief key state run down. Kerry is marginally ahead in Ohio and Minnesota. Given the undecided voter pattern, I would guess that Kerry will win Ohio and Minnesota unless something big happens. Kos guesses Rove guesses the same thing. Florida is way too close to call. New Mexico leans Bush but the undecideds breaking for Kerry might make the difference. Iowa leans Bush. Wisconsin is, on average, a perfect tie. The undecided voter pattern suggests that Kerry should win Wisconsin and with it the White House.
Kerry has to worry that these polls aren't as good as they claim, that a dramatic event could change everything and that the Republicans could cheat.
Kerry Bush no. s.e. difference
Alabama 32 56 1 4.2
Alaska 30 57 1 4
Arizona 42.3 50 3 2.5
Arkansas 45.3 49.3 3 2.5
California 53.7 41.7 3 2.3
Colorado 44 49.2 6 1.7
Conneticut 47 38 1 3
Delaware 45 38 1 3.9
D.C. 78 11 1 4
Florida 46.2 46.9 8 1.3
Georgia 39.8 54.3 4 2.2
Hawai 42.6 43.3 1 4
Idaho 30 59 1 4
Illinois 53 42 1 4
Indiana 38.5 56 2 2.7
Iowa 45.3 47.8 7 1.5
Kentucky 38 57 1 4.1
Louisiana 31.9 50 1 4
Maine 51 45 1 3,9
Maryland 51 42 1 5
Massach. 50 36 1 3.5
Michigan 47.8 44.1 7 1.6
Minnesota 46.2 44.7 6 1.7
Mississippi 42 51 1 4
Missouri 45.3 49.7 3 2.3
Montana 34 56 2 3.2
Nebraska 30 61 1 4
Nevada 43 51.3 3 2.3
N Hampshr 47 55.6 5 2
N Jersey 47.6 42.3 7 1.5
N Mexico 46 47.5 2 2.3
N York 58 35 1 4.1
N Carolina 47 50 1 4
N Dakota 33 62 1 4
Ohio 47.6 46.4 12 1.2
Oklahoma 33.3 59.8 4 2.1
Oregon 49.5 45 8 1.7
Penn 47.3 44.4 7 1.3
Rhode I 56 36 1 4.1
S Carolina 42 55 1 4.2
S Dakota 42 52 1 4.5
Tennessee 38.5 55 2 2.8
Texas 37 60 1 4.1
Utah 27 64 1 4
Vermont 53 40 1 5
Virginia 46 50 1 3.9
Washington 50.3 45.3 3 2.5
W Virginia 44.5 48 2 2.8
Wisconsin 46.2 46.2 9 1.4
Wyoming 29 65 1 4
update:Indiana corrected
Critical state run down. I will assume that the polls are OK. A key issue is that 2.004k.com reports polls of registered voters if available. Another key issue is that undecided voters tend to vote for the challenger in the end. I tend to assume that the second issue is more important, but that may be wishful thinking.
Very brief key state run down. Kerry is marginally ahead in Ohio and Minnesota. Given the undecided voter pattern, I would guess that Kerry will win Ohio and Minnesota unless something big happens. Kos guesses Rove guesses the same thing. Florida is way too close to call. New Mexico leans Bush but the undecideds breaking for Kerry might make the difference. Iowa leans Bush. Wisconsin is, on average, a perfect tie. The undecided voter pattern suggests that Kerry should win Wisconsin and with it the White House.
Kerry has to worry that these polls aren't as good as they claim, that a dramatic event could change everything and that the Republicans could cheat.
Kerry Bush no. s.e. difference
Alabama 32 56 1 4.2
Alaska 30 57 1 4
Arizona 42.3 50 3 2.5
Arkansas 45.3 49.3 3 2.5
California 53.7 41.7 3 2.3
Colorado 44 49.2 6 1.7
Conneticut 47 38 1 3
Delaware 45 38 1 3.9
D.C. 78 11 1 4
Florida 46.2 46.9 8 1.3
Georgia 39.8 54.3 4 2.2
Hawai 42.6 43.3 1 4
Idaho 30 59 1 4
Illinois 53 42 1 4
Indiana 38.5 56 2 2.7
Iowa 45.3 47.8 7 1.5
Kentucky 38 57 1 4.1
Louisiana 31.9 50 1 4
Maine 51 45 1 3,9
Maryland 51 42 1 5
Massach. 50 36 1 3.5
Michigan 47.8 44.1 7 1.6
Minnesota 46.2 44.7 6 1.7
Mississippi 42 51 1 4
Missouri 45.3 49.7 3 2.3
Montana 34 56 2 3.2
Nebraska 30 61 1 4
Nevada 43 51.3 3 2.3
N Hampshr 47 55.6 5 2
N Jersey 47.6 42.3 7 1.5
N Mexico 46 47.5 2 2.3
N York 58 35 1 4.1
N Carolina 47 50 1 4
N Dakota 33 62 1 4
Ohio 47.6 46.4 12 1.2
Oklahoma 33.3 59.8 4 2.1
Oregon 49.5 45 8 1.7
Penn 47.3 44.4 7 1.3
Rhode I 56 36 1 4.1
S Carolina 42 55 1 4.2
S Dakota 42 52 1 4.5
Tennessee 38.5 55 2 2.8
Texas 37 60 1 4.1
Utah 27 64 1 4
Vermont 53 40 1 5
Virginia 46 50 1 3.9
Washington 50.3 45.3 3 2.5
W Virginia 44.5 48 2 2.8
Wisconsin 46.2 46.2 9 1.4
Wyoming 29 65 1 4
update:Indiana corrected
What Mark Kleiman did (divided by 10). WWW.winbackrespect.com claims that an ad which contrasts Bush's clowning about WMD for the correspondents dinner and the suffering of a family who lost a loved one in Iraq moved Bush-Kerry support down 8% when tested on a sample audience. The add is devastating and honest and could make the difference. Mark Kleiman gave $ 1000 to http://www.winbackrespect.org/ads/. I only gave $100 but hey the pay scale is pretty different at uniroma2 and at UCLA.
Bush 47.3% Kerry 46 % standard error of difference about 0.6%
is the population weighted average across states of the average poll taken on or after 10/10 or the most recent poll if none taken after 10/10(only one observation each for tracking polls).
Update: I had Bush 47.3 % until I found 4 polls from New Jersey that I should have included, then briefly at 47.2 until I found another error. The standard error of the difference is almost exactly equal to the MOE for each candidate (MOE as reported by pollsters) because they each get about 50% of the votes and together get fairly close to all of the votes (93.2 is close to 100).
is the population weighted average across states of the average poll taken on or after 10/10 or the most recent poll if none taken after 10/10(only one observation each for tracking polls).
Update: I had Bush 47.3 % until I found 4 polls from New Jersey that I should have included, then briefly at 47.2 until I found another error. The standard error of the difference is almost exactly equal to the MOE for each candidate (MOE as reported by pollsters) because they each get about 50% of the votes and together get fairly close to all of the votes (93.2 is close to 100).
Saturday, October 23, 2004
Bush 47.8% Kerry 46.3 % standard error of difference about 0.6%
is the result of averaging state level polls taken after October 10 (if available other wise most recent poll available) and then taking a population weighted average over states. Notice that polls from October 1 through 10 (see below) change the averages essentially not at all and reduce the sampling standard error very little.
Data at www.electoralvote.com or 2.004k.com as of 6 pm EST October 22.
A population weighted average state averages of all available polls in October (or latest in September if none in October) except for multiple observations from tracking polls gives
Bush 47.9% Kerry 46.3 % with a sampling standard error of the difference of about 0.53%
using only polls from October 1 through 10 (or latest in September if none available) gives Bush 47.8% Kerry 46.3 %.
Using only polls from September gives Bush 47.9% Kerry 46% with a sampling standard error of about 0.4%.
The amazing absense of change in the weighted average state average poll is in part due to the fact that there is some overlap of polls. In some states no polls have been taken in October so the state "October average" is the most recent poll from September. The overlap of the aiming for after 10/10 average and the aiming for before 10/10 average is modest. Basically the absence of change in the average is a bit surprising even under the assumption that there has been 0 true change in opinions. Certainly there is no sign of the fluctuation one sees in the averages national polls.
For example the standard error due to sampling of the change of the difference from September to so far in October would be root(0.53 squared + 0.4 squared) or slightly less than 0.7%. The observed change is Bush-Kerry dropped by 0.3 %
The reason that including more polls has such a small effect on the standard error is that about half of it is due to sampling error in the "average" of one poll each for Texas and New York. People in these large uncontested states are polled much less often than would be ideal in order to get a precise estimate of national opinion. The "standard error" i, as reported by pollsters due only to sampling under the assumption that the sample is unbiased. It should be independent in each poll. Needless to say, I don't believe this is the only source of error. Part of the point of this little project (if any) is to test for bias with an average with a very small stated standard error.
is the result of averaging state level polls taken after October 10 (if available other wise most recent poll available) and then taking a population weighted average over states. Notice that polls from October 1 through 10 (see below) change the averages essentially not at all and reduce the sampling standard error very little.
Data at www.electoralvote.com or 2.004k.com as of 6 pm EST October 22.
A population weighted average state averages of all available polls in October (or latest in September if none in October) except for multiple observations from tracking polls gives
Bush 47.9% Kerry 46.3 % with a sampling standard error of the difference of about 0.53%
using only polls from October 1 through 10 (or latest in September if none available) gives Bush 47.8% Kerry 46.3 %.
Using only polls from September gives Bush 47.9% Kerry 46% with a sampling standard error of about 0.4%.
The amazing absense of change in the weighted average state average poll is in part due to the fact that there is some overlap of polls. In some states no polls have been taken in October so the state "October average" is the most recent poll from September. The overlap of the aiming for after 10/10 average and the aiming for before 10/10 average is modest. Basically the absence of change in the average is a bit surprising even under the assumption that there has been 0 true change in opinions. Certainly there is no sign of the fluctuation one sees in the averages national polls.
For example the standard error due to sampling of the change of the difference from September to so far in October would be root(0.53 squared + 0.4 squared) or slightly less than 0.7%. The observed change is Bush-Kerry dropped by 0.3 %
The reason that including more polls has such a small effect on the standard error is that about half of it is due to sampling error in the "average" of one poll each for Texas and New York. People in these large uncontested states are polled much less often than would be ideal in order to get a precise estimate of national opinion. The "standard error" i, as reported by pollsters due only to sampling under the assumption that the sample is unbiased. It should be independent in each poll. Needless to say, I don't believe this is the only source of error. Part of the point of this little project (if any) is to test for bias with an average with a very small stated standard error.
Friday, October 22, 2004
Bush 47.8 % Kerry 46.4 % population weighted average state level poll from October (max one per agency latest in Sept if none in Oct.
at 23:52 Rome time updated from: Bush 47.9 % Kerry 46.4 % standard error of difference about 0.5%
is an estimate of national popular vote based on a population weighted of state level polls from October (max one per agency and most recent in September if none in October).
This means Kerry would probably marginally win the popular vote if the election were today under the assumption that Nader gets about 1.5% and about two thirds of currently undecided voters vote for the challenger.
at 23:52 Rome time updated from: Bush 47.9 % Kerry 46.4 % standard error of difference about 0.5%
is an estimate of national popular vote based on a population weighted of state level polls from October (max one per agency and most recent in September if none in October).
This means Kerry would probably marginally win the popular vote if the election were today under the assumption that Nader gets about 1.5% and about two thirds of currently undecided voters vote for the challenger.
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Bush 47.57 % Kerry 46.37%
Meta analysis of state polls II
As of 10:18 AM Rome time State polls for October have a population weighted average of
Bush 47.57% Kerry 46.37 % Bush-Kerry = 1.2%. On the extreme assumption that the sample size for each poll is only 400, the standard error of the difference Bush - Kerry would be 0.69%.
For each state the most recent poll for each agency were averaged. The National average is calculated weighting by the 2003 population estimate.
Meta analysis of state polls II
As of 10:18 AM Rome time State polls for October have a population weighted average of
Bush 47.57% Kerry 46.37 % Bush-Kerry = 1.2%. On the extreme assumption that the sample size for each poll is only 400, the standard error of the difference Bush - Kerry would be 0.69%.
For each state the most recent poll for each agency were averaged. The National average is calculated weighting by the 2003 population estimate.
The past couple of days have been tough for Sinclair broadcasting, but let's look at the longer run here.
Here we see that in the past 3 months Sinclair shares have lost not 15% of their value but 35% of their value. A shareholder lawsuit is not a use of the corporate code to uphold journalistic standards. It is simple self defence.
And what the hell happened August 4th ? The apalling refusal to honor US servicemen who gave their lives in Iraq occured in April. The enraged response (low blows included) of the left blogosphere followed immediately. Did someone say insider trading ?
I would say that anyone familiar with the corporate code in the State of Maryland could make a lot of money taking over Sinclair broadcasting.
Here we see that in the past 3 months Sinclair shares have lost not 15% of their value but 35% of their value. A shareholder lawsuit is not a use of the corporate code to uphold journalistic standards. It is simple self defence.
And what the hell happened August 4th ? The apalling refusal to honor US servicemen who gave their lives in Iraq occured in April. The enraged response (low blows included) of the left blogosphere followed immediately. Did someone say insider trading ?
I would say that anyone familiar with the corporate code in the State of Maryland could make a lot of money taking over Sinclair broadcasting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)