The logic of voting “the person, not the party” in federal elections has never been very strong, but in our present highly polarized national politics it is down right stupid. Paul Krugman’s recent praise of the South Carolina voters who just elected Mark Sanford to Congress makes this point quite concisely. Continue reading
The latest poll in the Markey-Gomez US Senate race has surely dampened some the enthusiasm of Massachusetts Republicans, but one comment by the pollster, David Paleologos of Suffolk University, may have created some unnecessary confusion. He was quoted in the Boston Globe story about the poll as saying, “[t]he coattail effect will be beneficial to Markey, and that’s a problem for Gomez,” Continue reading
I listened with interest to Professor Ubertaccio’s remarks on the Clash Over the People’s Pledge kerfuffle between Ed Markey and Gabriel Gomez. Markey is calling for Gomez to sign the pledge to limit outside spending in the race, Gomez refuses. Tim Buckley, spokesman for the Massachusetts Republican Party, calls Markey a hypocrite for taking money from industries he oversees, Markey replies that every dime he has raised has been publicly disclosed.
Does disclosure matter? Continue reading
Interesting stuff on themonkeycage symposium on 2012 campaign effects. First, John Sides argues that despite all the media hype, the Obama field organization was barely more effective than that of Romney. “Yet, as some academics have pointed out – the final vote margins were very close to predictions that would be obtained with no effect of the campaign, indicating that, perhaps, the new campaign techniques had minimal effects or that Obama’s advantage was neutralized by an equally savvy Romney campaign.” Sides goes on to argue that both candidate’s mobilization campaigns were effective in increasing turnout, but that there was not much difference in effectiveness. Pundits and even academics overestimated the Obama advantage.
Professor U comments on the clash over the People’s Pledge in the Massachusetts Senate race.
Media stories on the US Senate race between Democratic Congressman Ed Markey and Republican Gabriel Gomez are breathlessly describing Gomez as a 2013 version of 2010 Scott Brown: independent, moderate, handsome, wears a cool jacket, and a grave danger to the Democrats (which also describes 2012 Scott Brown). Why, Public Policy Polling shows Markey with only a four point lead! Danger for the Democrats? Continue reading
Gabriel Gomez is not the second coming of Scott Brown, he who seems to be spending a good deal of time lately in New Hampshire. And June 2013 will not be a replay of January 2010. With respect to Dame Shirley Bassey, it’s not all just a little bit of history repeating. Continue reading
Before The GOP goes gonzo for Gomez as Gabrielle Gurley puts it in Commonwealth Magazine, they should read Jeff Jacoby’s realistic Sunday column in the Boston Globe. To Gomez’s refrain that he has always been a Republican, Jacoby writes: “He has yet to tell voters why — and why they should find that attractive.” But that is the problem here – Massachusetts voters do not find the Republican Party to be attractive, especially its national variant.
No one has studied Where the votes are in Boston longer or with more precision than Larry DiCara, so read his article in CommonWealth Magazine to prep for the mayoral race, with a field that may be larger than the entrants in the Kentucky Derby.
Check out themonkeycage.org this week for a symposium on campaign effects in the 2012 presidential election. There is a lot of talk among political scientists about how media and pundits overemphasize campaigns (TV ads, Elizabeth Warren’s hair or glasses) while ignoring data that really matter in politics. More on this and how to predict the Gomez-Markey outcome in Professor Cunningham’s post tomorrow.
President Obama should just knock heads and force those Republicans to do the right thing on gun control and other issues, right? That is the “West Wing” view of the world promoted by Maureen Dowd and others, but it has nothing to do with the real, limited powers of the president, writes Seth Masket at MischiefsofFaction.
Adam Liptak of the New York Times reported yesterday on an academic study finding that the Roberts Supreme Court is the most business-friendly Court since WWII. I know, you’re shocked.
The reason I expected Sullivan to win the Republican primary is because I knew that the primaries (on both sides of the isle) would be decided by each party’s “base.” In low turn out primary elections, it is hard to imagine it going any other way. Gomez’s victory did not contradict this assumption; it contradicted my assumption about who the “base” of the Massachusetts Republican Party is. Continue reading
The MassPoliticsProfs are attending the annual meeting of the New England Political Science Association today but I leave you this to ponder: What is the value of political science? A recent paper by Ronald Rogowski of Princeton has a discouraging answer: politicians ignore social science research unless it confirms their own biases or those of their constituents. They don’t like a lot of research because it disproves their favored positions.
I first found the paper on the indispensable themonkeycage.org.
According to the paper abstract “The sole area which politicians do attend closely to scholarly research is where it assists their own efforts at electoral success (e.g. effect and duration of political advertising). But politicians equally ignore the expertise of climatologists, physicists, biologists, economists and even spies, where that expertise contradicts their own preferred policies.”
I feel so used.
Check out Prof. Rogowski’s article Shooting (or Ignoring) the Messenger here.