The Left Gets A Pass....Again

So we hear a lot about the "anti-science" views of the conservative Right.  The folks who deny evolution to the point of claiming that Neanderthals and dinosaurs roamed the same earth, at the same time.

Fair enough.  That's pretty bad.

But why don't we hear about the anti-science views of the Left?  I don't mean just the market-deniers who believe in magic and think that a benevolent Lord called "DeState" will take care of them, either.

What about the Truthers?

The GMO-nuts?

The vaccine-deniers?

On the last of these, there is quite a funny video.  Dr. House (of Cards):

A Homeless Man in Hoboken?

I'm not sure this is legit.  Some legs may be being pulled.

I don't doubt that a homeless man got beaten up, and I'm sorry about that (in Hoboken?  In HOBOken, a homeless man?  Seriously?).

But the breathless "You should all be afraid of the very scary black people!" news reporters is a bit much.

Angus and Mungowitz are the new Black

Wow!  Some respect, from the WP.  Sort of.  Libertarians are cool!

Of course, EJ Dionne is predictably idiotic.  I really think that there is no set of empirical facts that could make ol' EJD recant his fervent mancrush on Obama.  Yo, EJ:  Libertarianism is a DIRECTION.  You are trying to defend your guy by fabricating criticisms about what you imagine to be the DESTINATION.

Jon Stewart on Arias Trial

Nancy Grace the engorged tragedy tick

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

Links Post: Narcissus Edition

Narcissus was supposedly so taken by his own image reflected in the surface of a pond that he starved to death.  I don't need a pond; I have the google!

1.  Interesting piece on "liberal bias" in academics, in the Chronicle of Higher Ed.  Author is kind enough to quote me....

2.  Article by the amazing Rob Christensen, on the Gov Debate in NC.  Author is kind enough...

3.  When this video came out, from Learn Liberty, about majorities, I got a number of emails, asking why I didn't say anything about gay marriage.  But....I already had, four months earlier.  C'mon, people, the google is your friend!

4.  Finally.... a giant Munger family conspiracy?  Really?

Interview con la bonita Carolina del Mercurio

My friend Carolina Alvarez sent an email asking about the Republican primary follies in the US. I replied that, since I was in Santiago, we should meet for coffee. But no time today, and her deadline for El Mercurio is tomorrow. So, today the "interview" and tomorrow the coffee. Here were her questions, and my answers, a KPC "Read it before you can buy it on the street!" special!

—Even though Romney still needs almost the double of delegates he now has, last night primaries allowed him to sustain a momentum he is carrying since March. Do you think this was check-mate, or a turning point?

The US primary system for choosing presidents is a war of attrition, not a battle. It is a war of logistics, and planning ahead.

It is important to remember that in 2008 the Democratic race between Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton was not decided until May. Romney is in a better position now, April 5th, 2012, than Obama was on April 5, 2008. I did an analysis of the delegate counts, based on this information. For the Democratic candidates in 2008. On April 5, 2008:

Obama--52% of delegates up to that point
Clinton--47%

Same date, 2012

Romney--58% of delegates up to this point
Santorum--25%

It's not even close! Romney is FAR ahead of Obama at the same date. One difference is the super delegates, and timing. By this time, Obama had 70% of the delegates he needed for the nomination, while Romney has only 56% of the delegates he needs. That's because the Republican primaries have decided only about half the delegate totals, while by this time the Democrats had held more primaries, and so had determined 70% of the total.

Let's put it in futbol terms. On April 5 2008, Obama led Clinton by a score of 3-2 with ten minutes left in regulation time.

On April 5 2012, Romney leads Santorum 3-1, at halftime. So, Romney has a bigger lead, but there is more game left. Still, a 3-1 lead is a very big lead. Romney can just hang back and play defense at this point, and can continue to run out the clock. All he needs to do is split the remaining primaries 50-50, and he will win.

—Rick Santorum vows to stay in the race. How important is for him to compete in his home state (next 24th), and what does he win staying longer in the race?

Santorum is not popular in Pennsylvania. It is not assured he will win. The polls say he is ahead, but Romney will spend money on ads in Pennsyslvania. And Santorum lost his own Senate seat there. If Santorum loses in Pennsylvania, it will hurt him, but it will not kill him. Santorum will in any case stay on until Texas, May 29,whether he wins or loses in Pennsylvania. The Texas primary has LOTS of delegates, and Texas is very conservative, a good place for Santorum. If Santorum wins Texas, he can claim that he is still viable. If Santorum loses Pennsylvania AND Texas, then he might think about quitting.

—Finally: Republicans changed the rules to have longer primaries, in part to excite voters —thinking perhaps in a contest like the one Democrats had in ’08. But many have pointed out that in the end this prolonged competition did more damage than good to the party, since President Obama is already campaigning. How much is the damage caused to the potential Republican nominee by “friendly fire” and how much has the President won?

Wait, "prolonged competition"? As I noted above, Obama was not selected until the end of May, six full weeks from now. Romney is FAR ahead of Obama, in terms of competition. The Democratic Party actually benefitted from the excitement and interest generated by the contested primary. It helped the Democrats to have a race that ran through the end of May.

So, this will likely help the Republicans, too. One difference, which was a product of the court system, is the very late Texas primary. The federal court system forced Texas to move its primary to the end of May, because the court rejected the Texas redistricting plan. That is a problem, because Texas has so many delegates (155, more than 13% of the TOTAL required to win) and it's so late. The Republican choice may not be made until June, for that reason. But that's only a week or so later than the Democrats in 2008, and the long competition helped the Democrats, so it may help the Republicans.

If the long competition does NOT help the Republicans, I think that will be because the candidates are weak, not because the competition was strong. As Clinton-Obama showed in 2008, a strong competition between good candidates is actually helpful.

Predictions

I have predicted that predictions by ecoomists will be wrong.

Interesting article, with a similar point.

Boston Globe Article

Did a fun interview with Donovan Slack (yes, a woman named Donovan) for the B-Globe. Here is the article...

Excerpt:

Today’s visit is the latest in a string of presidential trips to battleground states since he introduced his jobs bill in September. The White House has said the forays are designed to take the president’s case for passage of the legislation directly to the public with hopes of pressuring Congress to pass it.

Congress has so far passed only one small piece of his bill, a measure signed by Obama yesterday that will provide tax credits to businesses that hire veterans. The rest appears mired in partisan gridlock on Capitol Hill, a logjam the president hopes to loosen by pushing his case directly to the public.

“We’re hopeful that the pressure from the American people is ultimately going to prevail,’’ one of the president’s top economic advisers, Brian Deese, said in an interview yesterday.

But some analysts say the destinations the White House has chosen for the trips appear to target electoral votes in the 2012 election rather than congressional votes to pass the jobs bill.

Shortly after unveiling the legislation, Obama held an event on a bridge that connects Ohio and Kentucky, the home turfs of House Speaker John Boehner and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, both Republicans. But his itinerary since then has included Colorado, Michigan, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania, which do not have similar connections to GOP leadership on Capitol Hill but are all critical battleground states in next year’s presidential election.

It appears that he has “completely abandoned the idea of legislative accomplishments and switched to electoral accomplishments,’’ said Michael Munger, a Duke University political science professor who was a Libertarian candidate for governor of North Carolina in 2008.

Some analysts say it is a necessary tactic for the president.

“Taking his case to the folks in swing states makes obvious sense looking forward to 2012,’’ said Christopher Parker, a political science professor at the University of Washington.

Parker and others believe the logjam in Washington will not ease until the 2012 election is decided and the public gives a mandate to one side or the other to take action. Right now Republicans will not approve large amounts of new spending without an equal amount of cuts, and they are vehemently opposed to tax hikes. Democrats want new spending to accelerate economic recovery, including what is in the president’s jobs bill, but will not make deep spending cuts without new tax revenue.

"Makes obvious sense looking forward to 2012"? Prof. Parker, it's 2011. He is Prez NOW. There has never been a President, in my memory, so utterly indifferent to legislative accomplishment, or to the state of the nation. He does not enjoy working on legislation, doesn't care about policy, and doesn't like having people disagree with him. Much more fun giving campaign speeches to hand-picked audiences, 'cause they will stay say "Yay! You are the MAN!" Even though Prez O is NOT the man. Even Chris Matthews recognizes that Prez O is a nebbish.

The Thrill is GONE, Baby

Chris Matthews breathlessly comes to the conclusion most of us came to two years ago.

Still, let's be fair: Mr. Matthews gets it right. Our President has zero interest in policy, or change, or addressing any serious problem. He likes to play golf, and he likes to speak to cheering crowds. Obama makes Carter look like Lyndon Johnson, when it comes to effectiveness. As Mr. Matthews put it, and he put it well: "When was the last time a member of Congress heard from him? ...He does not enjoy their COMPANY."

It was not always thus. Mr. Matthews, at one point not so long ago, had a good feeling in his tingly parts, and all the way down his leg, at the mere THOUGHT of putting the words "President" and "Obama" in the same sentence.

There was NEVER any reason to expect BHO to be an effective, or even engaged President. I admit, given the choice between Obama and McCain, again, I'd pick Obama, still. But it would be nice to have some better choices.

(Nod to the Blonde; BHO never sent a thrill up HER leg, either)

Noticias

Some links where I said things, and other people wrote them down and put them on the internet.

1. Politico: On the President's 50th birthday.

2. Duke News Tip: WWE Smackdown!

3. Chinese news magazine San Lian Lifeweek: (Specific article here, on the budget deal) Entire mag

4. The Hill, about the debt ceiling vote.

UPDATE: A commenter notes that there have been other such instances in the past, and my poor record as a predictor of future events should impeach the value of future such predictions. An example, here, in Time. I actually said, "BHO is unelectable!"

Good one....and a fair point. No way you should make trades based on my predictions, and in fact you can likely make money by doing the opposite of what I suggest. I'd thank that brave commenter, but s/he showed the courage of her/his convictions by remaining anonymous. Not so brave after all...

Dick Cheney's Erdos number

Yes, he has one, and it's probably lower than yours my friend:

"Cheney's Erdos number is no more than seven. He wrote his American Political Science Review article with Aage Clausen, who has coauthored with Greg Caldeira, who has co-authored with me, who has co-authored with Keith Krebiel, who has co-authored with John Ferejohn, who has co-authored with Peter Fishburn, who has co-authored with Erdos."

The "me" in the above quote is Tim Groseclose, one of the greatest Okies ever, and the quote comes from his awesome new book: "Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind" which drops tomorrow from St. Martin's press. The book is, as Tyler likes to say, self-recommending.

I could have had an Erdos of five, but I was such a crappy co-author that Tim kicked me off the project.

Update: Tim informs me that I'm not kicked off the project, it's just "indefinitely on hold".

Video on Gas Price Hypocrisy

It is remarkable to watch how the ideological bias of the media condihttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.giftions the response to higher gas prices. And the president's scorn for SUVs is impressive, especially since this is his ride.

We have talked before about how higher prices may have some useful effects. In particular, we are not going to "run out" of oil, even though the peak oil harpies shriek about it.

But you can't say the effects of X are bad if Republicans are in power, but good if Democrats are in power.

All The News That Fits Our Ideological Bias?

Being The New York Times: The Political Behaviour of a Newspaper

Riccardo Puglisi
B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, April 2011

Abstract: I analyse a dataset of news from The New York Times, from 1946 to 1997.
Controlling for the activity of the incumbent president and the U.S. Congress across issues, I find that during a presidential campaign, The New York Times gives more emphasis to topics on which the Democratic party is perceived as more competent (civil rights, health care, labor and social welfare) when the incumbent president is a Republican. This is consistent with the hypothesis that The New York Times has a Democratic partisanship, with some "anti-incumbent" aspects, in that - during a presidential campaign - it gives more emphasis to issues over which the (Republican) incumbent is weak. To the extent that the interest of readers across issues is not systematically related with the political affiliation of the incumbent president and the election cycle, the observed changes in news coverage are consistent with The New York Times departing from demand-driven news coverage. In fact, I show that these findings are robust to controlling for Gallup data on the most important problem facing the country, which I use as a proxy for issue tastes of Times' readers.

-----------------------

Partisan bias in economic news: Evidence on the agenda-setting behavior of
U.S. newspapers

Valentino Larcinese, Riccardo Puglisi & James Snyder
Journal of Public Economics, forthcoming

Abstract: We study the agenda-setting political behavior of a large sample of U.S.
newspapers during the 1996-2005 period. Our purpose is to examine the intensity of coverage of economic issues as a function of the underlying economic conditions and the political affiliation of the incumbent president, focusing on unemployment, inflation, the federal budget and the trade deficit. We investigate whether there is any significant correlation between the endorsement policy of newspapers, and the differential coverage of bad/good economic news as a function of the president's political affiliation. We find evidence that newspapers with pro-Democratic endorsement pattern systematically give more coverage to high unemployment when the incumbent president is a Republican than when the president is Democratic, compared to newspapers with pro-Republican endorsement pattern. This result is robust to controlling for the partisanship of readers. We find similar but less robust results for the trade deficit. We also find some evidence that newspapers cater to the partisan tastes of readers in the coverage of the budget deficit. We find no evidence of a partisan bias - or at least of a bias that is correlated with the endorsement or reader partisanship - for stories on inflation.

(Nod to Kevin Lewis)

Why Are Liberals So Condescending?

KPC friend, and my own good friend, Gerard Alexander had a piece in the WaPo that was good a year ago, and even better now. Worth reading. Excerpt:

It's an odd time for liberals to feel smug. But even with Democratic fortunes on the wane, leading liberals insist that they have almost nothing to learn from conservatives. Many Democrats describe their troubles simply as a PR challenge, a combination of conservative misinformation -- as when Obama charges that critics of health-care reform are peddling fake fears of a "Bolshevik plot" -- and the country's failure to grasp great liberal accomplishments. "We were so busy just getting stuff done . . . that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are," the president told ABC's George Stephanopoulos in a recent interview. The benighted public is either uncomprehending or deliberately misinformed (by conservatives).

This condescension is part of a liberal tradition that for generations has impoverished American debates over the economy, society and the functions of government -- and threatens to do so again today, when dialogue would be more valuable than ever.

ATSRTWT

K-Olbermann Favors Dems over Repubs! Who Knew?

This is garbage. You can watch Olbermann, or not watch him. But why in the world should he be prevented from making small, fully disclosed contributions well within the law? MSNBC donates millions of dollars in free air time to shill for Dems, just as Fox donates tens of millions of dollars in free air time for Repubs.

As Angus and I might have said in college....why can't we just all get a baung?

Jane Mayer is an Idiot

Wow, Jane Mayer is an idiot. A nice dismemberment. Here is the original article.

I thought the point about Hayek is a good one. If you were going to dismiss him as a crackpot, the inconvenient Nobel Prize thing....a real reporter would mention it. Ms. Mayer did not.

(Nod to Virginia Postrel, on FB of all things)

The Takeaway: It's 1936 Again in America

Got to talk with my BFFs John and Celeste at "The Takeaway" this morning. Meant I had to get up at 5 am to think about what I was going to say, but always fun to do that show. Here is the archive version....

Two thoughts on this problem:

1. One by Bruce Bartlett. I don't always agree with Bruce, but he makes some good points here. Bruce is always worth reading... (Lagniappe: Bruce B also wonders about my pal Tino Sanandaji, an interesting Iranian-Swedish grad student at UC's Harris School)

2. Another by Lawrence Reed. It was written in 1998, but it's truly prophetic, unfortunately.

Cool! Judge May ACTUALLY Be A Libertarian

Lots of the droolers on Fox News claim to be Libertarians. Glenn Beck, por ejemplo. Um... no. A deranged lunatic shovel murderer, perhaps.

But Judge Andrew Napalitono, who I have to admit has said some actual Libertarian things before, said.... some MORE Libertarian things. Can this be tolerated, in the land of "We distort, you deride"?

(Nod to Anonyman, now an ex-ex-Libertarian himself)

House Where Mungowitz Not Raped Torn Down

The house where the "Mungowitz Rape" never happened was torn down.

Mike Schoenfeld, communications god-king of Duke University, was asked if the house where Mungowitz was not raped held any special meaning for the University.

"Who?" said Schoenfeld. Sad, really, that he would pretend that this incident that never even happened had never happened. Typical.

Now, it's true that the problem with identifying the house as the place where Mungowitz was not raped, at least according to some observers, is that there is no reason to stop there. Other people, more famous people, were not raped there. George Washington was never raped in that house. More recently, Mahatma Gandhi was not raped there, on several occasions. In particular, Mr. Gandhi was not raped in the house on December 21, 1978, or any other earlier, or later, nights.

Most recently of all, Chrystal Mangum was not raped at that house.

In fact, we could make a really long list of people not raped there.

So, I hope that the media will start to refering to the house at 610 N. Buchanan Street in Durham as the "house where Mungowitz was not raped," since that is as good an identifier as the ones the media insists on using.

Can you help?

(Nod to BH)

MM on WAMC, With Allan Chartock

A (let's call it) "wide-ranging" interview with the very nice and interesting Allan Chartock, on WAMC's Northeast Public Radio. A huge audience, by my standards, on dozens of stations in MA, NY, and etc in New England.

My Cuomo bashing had started here....

And then used this way....

I was glad to get to clear this up in the interview. Andrew Cuomo did NOT cause the financial crisis. George Bush, Barney Frank, and Chris Dodd caused the financial crisis. Andrew Cuomo only helped. (Listen to see why I think so!)