gilens-page   16

I Don’t Think it Means What You Think it Means – spottedtoad
Clearly, there’s a “How a Bill Becomes a Law” quality about all of this; now that Congress is more-or-less a vestigial organ of government and almost all policymaking is done by the Executive Branch, contained intermittently by the courts, carried out by contractors, and acting on plans conceived largely by think tanks and academia, how much democratic accountability do we even expect?

There’s something irritating as well, of course, about newspapers acquiring breathless naivete about the influence of institutions they’ve spent decades decrying. Much like the “new-found respect” for the CIA or for George W. Bush, it leads one to suspect that either they are the world’s worst liars, or as Obama’s adviser Ben Rhodes bragged to the Times last year, “The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”
ratty  unaffiliated  commentary  news  org:rec  government  power  usa  network-structure  technocracy  military  media  westminster  critique  politics  trump  intel  managerial-state  social-structure  social-choice  slippery-slope  democracy  civic  malaise  current-events  gilens-page  info-dynamics  madisonian  vampire-squid  chart  obama  anarcho-tyranny  propaganda 
march 2017 by nhaliday
What Do Europeans Think About Muslim Immigration? | Chatham House
- majority of population wants complete moratorium
- 48% of college graduates as well
- 44% for 18-29
- UK and Spain the only ones <50% overall
- no Scandinavian countries surveyed
Relatively few Europeans believe diversity has a positive impact on their countries. At 36%, Sweden registers the highest percentage that believes an increasingly diverse society makes their country a better place to live. In many countries, the prevailing view is that diversity makes no difference in the quality of life.
fundamental incompatibility >50% in Germany, etc.
ridiculously out-of-touch
It’s as if people in the elite were mostly protected from the bad consequences of immigration, but not from its benefits, while the opposite were true for most people in the public… (A study showed a similar phenomenon in the US, although there is less opposition to immigration overall here, which is not saying much given how much opposition there is to immigration in Europe.) What is really striking is that, on every single point raised in that poll, people in the public are right and people in the elite are wrong. At least, they are if we’re talking about the immigration of poor, unskilled and non-Western people, but this is what people have in mind when they complain about immigration. In fact, not only is the public right, but it’s obviously right.

Of course, the sophisticates don’t know that, because they haven’t actually read the literature which they claim shows the public is mistaken about immigration. So they ascribe the hostility to immigration among the public, which is off the charts, to bigotry and ignorance. As soon as I have more time, which probably won’t be until a few months from now, I plan to publish a series of very detailed posts in which I discuss the literature on the effects of immigration in the West. In the meantime, if you are convinced that the elite is right and that immigration is great for Europe, you should ask yourself why, if members of the elite are right, they have to lie all the time about this. For instance, you should ask yourself why, if immigration really doesn’t make crime worse, the French government under Jospin gave instructions to the police not to release any names when communicating to the press or why journalists systematically replace non-French names by French names when they write on crime. Similarly, you could ask yourself why both the authorities and the media covered up the sexual assaults perpetrated by migrants in Cologne and many other cities throughout Europe in 2016, before the truth finally came out. If these were isolated incidents, you couldn’t conclude much from them, but the cover-up is systematic. Maybe it’s just me, but when I think what I’m saying is true, I don’t have to lie about it.
Of course, this is not surprising in the least, what is surprising is that so many people were stupid enough as to think it wasn’t going to happen. But the most amazing thing is that you can be certain that, despite this fiasco, the sophisticates will continue to treat anyone who voice skepticism about the benefits of mass immigration in Europe as a bigoted cretin. To be convinced of your intellectual and moral superiority when you are making claims that are manifestly absurd is perhaps the worst kind of stupidity.

lawlz from NYT:

ick source but whatever:
'I would do it again’ Defiant Merkel has no regrets about opening Germany’s borders:
A recent poll by the University of Mainz, cited in the study, found that 55 per cent of those asked felt “systematically lied to by the media”. Some 26 per cent agreed with the statement that “the media and politicians work hand in hand to manipulate public opinion”.
7 out of 10 Germans want to send Mediterranean refugees back
Despite this strong connection, a large majority of the Germans sees the Muslim immigrants here as badly integrated. 65.6 percent of the Germans would generally call Muslim immigrants in Germany as rather poor or very badly integrated. This was the result of the WELT-Trend, a representative survey which was exclusively made by the opinion research institute Civey.

Tribes of Europe:

Australia and Muslim ban:
Report: Voters Say Country Is Full, Support Partial Muslim Immigration Ban:
New Zealand's Refugee Policy is Closer to Trump's 'Muslim Ban' Than You Might Think:
news  org:anglo  data  poll  policy  migrant-crisis  migration  islam  MENA  demographics  europe  EU  britain  gilens-page  mediterranean  gallic  germanic  eastern-europe  org:ngo  values  crosstab  current-events  nationalism-globalism  assimilation  zeitgeist  multi  terrorism  descriptive  org:euro  pdf  analysis  class  elite  vampire-squid  redistribution  welfare-state  crime  culture-war  westminster  white-paper  social  video  lurid  censorship  culture  org:mag  journos-pundits  neocons  unaffiliated  right-wing  propaganda  media  twitter  discussion  org:rec  org:biz  crooked  criminology  commentary  gnon  org:data  diversity  putnam-like  judaism  civic  universalism-particularism  nordic  database  chart  anglo  statesmen  🎩  attaq  wonkish  org:lite  counter-revolution  track-record  africa  exploratory  list  maps  visualization  politics  polisci  coalitions  ideology  phalanges  urban-rural  sentiment 
february 2017 by nhaliday
Peter Turchin Elite Collusion or Competition? - Peter Turchin
more comments
interesting discussion of gilens-page:
This is not accurate. It is true Gilens shows that when the policy preferences of the rich diverge from the rest, the rich do get their way. But as I tried to point out on Twitter, most of the divergence is in matters unrelated to economic or redistributive policies. In fact, the policy preferences of the rich are positively correlated with the policy preferences of the middle and the poor on economics, taxes, and social welfare. The divergence is substantially driven (in Gilens’s analysis) by gun control and environment (see Table 5.5). The rich are more ‘progressive’ on those things.
econotariat  history  cliometrics  class  pseudoE  debate  politics  polisci  turchin  multi  realpolitik  winner-take-all  gilens-page  roots  zero-positive-sum  market-power  competition  elite  managerial-state  sociology  broad-econ  madisonian  chart  rent-seeking  westminster  polarization  crime  inequality  noblesse-oblige  vampire-squid  the-bones  cultural-dynamics  twitter  social  commentary  2016-election  trump  org:sci  org:mag  malaise  stagnation  class-warfare  poast  policy  government  microfoundations  trends  usa  interests  hari-seldon 
january 2017 by nhaliday
Exploring Elitist Democracy: The Latest from Gilens and Page, Bryan Caplan | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty
First, middle-class Americans' preferences are highly correlated with rich Americans' preferences - but not interest groups' preferences:

It turns out, in fact, that the preferences of average citizens are positively and fairly highly correlated, across issues, with the preferences of economic elites (see Table 2.) Rather often, average citizens and affluent citizens (our proxy for economic elites) want the same things from government. This bivariate correlation affects how we should interpret our later multivariate findings in terms of "winners" and "losers." It also suggests a reason why serious scholars might keep adhering to both the Majoritarian Electoral Democracy and the Economic Elite Domination theoretical traditions, even if one of them may be dead wrong in terms of causal impact. Ordinary citizens, for example, might often be observed to "win" (that is, to get their preferred policy outcomes) even if they had no independent effect whatsoever on policy making, if elites (with whom they often agree) actually prevail.

But net interest group stands are not substantially correlated with the preferences of average citizens. Taking all interest groups together, the index of net interest group alignment correlates only a non-significant .04 with average citizens' preferences! (See Table 2.) This casts grave doubt on David Truman's and others' argument that organized interest groups tend to do a good job of representing the population as a whole. Indeed, as Table 2 indicates, even the net alignments of the groups we have categorized as "mass-based" correlate with average citizens' preferences only at the very modest (though statistically significant) level of .12.

Second, each theory looks good in isolation:

When taken separately, each independent variable - the preferences of average citizens, the preferences of economic elites, and the net alignments of organized interest groups - is strongly, positively, and quite significantly related to policy change. Little wonder that each theoretical tradition has its strong adherents.

Third, average citizens lose almost all apparent influence if you do multiple regression:

These results suggest that reality is best captured by mixed theories in which both individual economic elites and organized interest groups (including corporations, largely owned and controlled by wealthy elites) play a substantial part in affecting public policy, but the general public has little or no independent influence.
econotariat  polisci  politics  government  cracker-econ  policy  political-econ  economics  study  summary  realpolitik  gilens-page  🎩  org:econlib  social-structure  democracy  managerial-state  social-choice  stylized-facts  madisonian  chart  antidemos  exit-voice  interests 
november 2016 by nhaliday
political analysis | West Hunter
Just to make things clear, most political reporters are morons, nearly as bad as sports reporters. Mostly ugly cheerleaders for their side, rather than analysts. Uninteresting.

how to analyze polls:

Who ever is ahead in the polls at the time of election is extremely likely to win. Talk about how Candidate X would have a ‘difficult path to 270 electoral votes’ when he’s up 2 points (for example), is pretty much horseshit. There are second-order considerations: you get more oomph per voter when the voter is in a small state, and you also want your votes distributed fairly evenly, so that you win states giving you a majority of electoral votes by a little rather than winning states giving you a minority of electoral votes by huge margins. Not that a candidate can do much about this, of course.

When you hear someone say that it’s really 50 state contests [ more if you think about Maine and Nebraska] , so you should pay attention to the state polls, not the national polls: also horseshit. In some sense, it is true – but when your national polls go up, so do your state polls – almost all of them, in practice. On election day, or just before, you want to consider national polls rather than state polls, because they are almost always more recent, therefore more accurate.

When should you trust an outlier poll, rather than the average: when you want to be wrong.

Money doesn’t help much. Political consultants will tell you that it does, but then they get 15% of ad buys.

A decent political reporter would actually go out and talk to people that aren’t exactly like him. Apparently this no longer happens.

All of these rules have exceptions – but if you understand those [rare] exceptions and can apply them, you’re paying too much attention to politics.
thinking  politics  media  data  street-fighting  poll  contrarianism  len:short  west-hunter  objektbuch  metameta  checklists  sampling-bias  outliers  descriptive  social-choice  gilens-page  elections  scitariat  money  null-result  polisci  incentives  stylized-facts  metabuch  chart  top-n  hi-order-bits  track-record  wonkish  data-science  tetlock  meta:prediction  info-foraging  civic  info-dynamics  interests 
september 2016 by nhaliday
Personnel decision | West Hunter
I think we are about due for a career civil servant within the agency or relatively recently retired from it (ideally to academia), with a PhD or M.D. and probably a pay grade of either GS-15 or Senior Executive Service (SES), who has a reputation for integrity, for intelligence, and for getting things done bureaucratically, with some low profile political connections (at least to the ruling party but ideally to both political parties) in private life as well (e.g. through friendships made at a top college, a politician or top political aide parent, or friendships made while attending a top D.C. private school like Sidwell Friends or St. Albion’s or National Cathedral School).

Few federal agencies call for more subject-matter competence to understand its functions well enough to run it well.
The problem is that the typical member of the set you describe is nuts. Members have a lot of incorrect ideas in their heads: in fact, you have to express support of those ideas or you are expelled. So, that means that every educational improvement plan pushed by the Feds fails: you can’t do anything realistic, or you would be a bad person. Every intervention in the Middle East fails: same reason. AIDs shows up, so we abandon quarantine: Fidel Castro deals with the situation 50 times better than we did.

The Aztecs thought that the world would end if they didn’t keep cutting people’s hearts out on an industrial scale. They were crazy. But were they crazier than we are?
FDA  regulation  discussion  government  rhetoric  commentary  west-hunter  pharma  policy  meta:medicine  scitariat  proposal  counter-revolution  innovation  stagnation  randy-ayndy  trump  2016-election  alt-inst  money  elections  politics  polisci  variance-components  data  corruption  gilens-page  questions  multi  poast  info-dynamics  institutions  elite  ability-competence  truth  westminster  roots  usa  virginia-DC  is-ought  education  MENA  iraq-syria  disease  spreading  gender  sex  sexuality  prudence  ideology  social-science  empirical  evidence-based  religion 
september 2016 by nhaliday
The Hidden American Immigration Consensus: A Conjoint Analysis of Attitudes toward Immigrants - Hainmueller - 2014 - American Journal of Political Science - Wiley Online Library
Polls re "increasing"/"decreasing" levels aren't reliable, because normies have no idea how much we currently have.
The report also noted that almost half of Americans (49%) say that immigration in the U.S. should be decreased while only 15% said it should be increased.

- 13.4% foreign-born
- of those, 25% illegal, 44% naturalized, 25% permanent resident
- 1/2 not proficient in English

It's the immigration, stupid:
Polling on immigration often appears to be all over the place. Wording is crucial. When the choices are "deport everyone" and "secure the border and then offer a path to citizenship", the Cathedral can manufacture headlines to try and create an illusion of amnesty as a political winner. When the questions are more objectively designed, it becomes clear that restrictionism is the populist position.

Over the summer, Reuters approached the issue in the most straightforward manner I've ever come across. In terms of fleshing out public sentiment, the approach is bar none. Respondents were asked about what should be done with illegal immigrants in the US. Only two committal answers--"deport most or all of them" and "allow most or all of them to stay"--along with a third "unsure" cop-out option, were offered as responses.

World Publics Welcome Global Trade — But Not Immigration:
In both affluent countries in the West and in the developing world, people are concerned about immigration. Large majorities in nearly every country surveyed express the view that there should be greater restriction of immigration and tighter control of their country’s borders.
study  labor  politics  policy  society  regularizer  usa  gilens-page  poll  migration  proposal  values  managerial-state  nationalism-globalism  chart  multi  twitter  social  commentary  gnon  unaffiliated  right-wing  news  org:ngo  data  latin-america  demographics  language  assimilation  zeitgeist  🎩  attaq  anglo  backup  scale  sampling-bias  knowledge  intricacy  realness  org:data  world  developing-world  white-paper  database  analysis  sentiment 
july 2016 by nhaliday
Perspectives on Politics - Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens - Cambridge Journals Online
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.

I think this is the classic study that people usually cite
policy  class  politics  economics  government  study  data  political-econ  polisci  realpolitik  gilens-page  power  🎩  stylized-facts  causation  optimate  variance-components  social-structure  democracy  roots  managerial-state  social-choice  coalitions  madisonian  chart  vampire-squid  antidemos  exit-voice  volo-avolo  interests 
february 2016 by nhaliday

related tags

2016-election  ability-competence  africa  alt-inst  analysis  anarcho-tyranny  anglo  anglosphere  anomie  antidemos  asia  assimilation  attaq  backup  biases  britain  broad-econ  causation  censorship  chart  checklists  china  civic  clarity  class-warfare  class  clinton  cliometrics  coalitions  commentary  competition  confounding  contrarianism  corporation  correlation  corruption  cost-benefit  counter-revolution  cracker-econ  crime  criminology  critique  crooked  crosstab  cultural-dynamics  culture-war  culture  current-events  data-science  data  database  debate  democracy  demographics  dependence-independence  descriptive  developing-world  discussion  disease  diversity  domestication  eastern-europe  economics  econotariat  education  elections  elite  empirical  endogenous-exogenous  epistemic  error  essay  ethics  eu  europe  evidence-based  exit-voice  exploratory  fda  foreign-policy  gallic  garett-jones  gender  germanic  gnon  government  guide  hari-seldon  hi-order-bits  history  howto  hsu  ideology  incentives  inequality  info-dynamics  info-foraging  innovation  institutions  intel  interests  intricacy  iraq-syria  is-ought  islam  japan  journos-pundits  judaism  knowledge  labor  language  latin-america  left-wing  len:long  len:short  leviathan  links  list  lower-bounds  lurid  madisonian  malaise  managerial-state  maps  market-power  media  mediterranean  mena  meta:medicine  meta:prediction  metabuch  metameta  micro  microfoundations  migrant-crisis  migration  military  money  mostly-modern  multi  n-factor  nationalism-globalism  natural-experiment  neocons  network-structure  news  nl-and-so-can-you  no-go  noblesse-oblige  nordic  null-result  obama  objektbuch  optimate  org:anglo  org:biz  org:data  org:econlib  org:euro  org:lite  org:mag  org:ngo  org:rec  org:sci  organization  organizing  outliers  pdf  phalanges  pharma  piracy  poast  polarization  policy  polisci  political-econ  politics  poll  populism  power  propaganda  proposal  prudence  pseudoe  putnam-like  questions  quotes  randy-ayndy  rant  ratty  realness  realpolitik  redistribution  regularizer  regulation  religion  rent-seeking  rhetoric  right-wing  roots  sampling-bias  scale  scitariat  sentiment  sex  sexuality  shift  sinosphere  sleuthin  slippery-slope  social-choice  social-science  social-structure  social  society  sociology  spearhead  spreading  stagnation  statesmen  street-fighting  study  stylized-facts  summary  supply-demand  technocracy  terrorism  tetlock  the-bones  the-watchers  thinking  tools  top-n  track-record  trends  trump  truth  turchin  twitter  unaffiliated  universalism-particularism  urban-rural  usa  values  vampire-squid  variance-components  video  virginia-dc  visualization  volo-avolo  welfare-state  west-hunter  westminster  white-paper  winner-take-all  wonkish  world  zeitgeist  zero-positive-sum  🎩 

Copy this bookmark: