Andrew Gelman

Andrew Gelman on The most clueless political column ever--I think this Easterbrook dude has the journalistic equivalent of "tenure": P.P.P.P.S. When I attack someone too hard in a blog post, commenters often have the natural reaction to defend the poor guy. So for strategic reasons I probably should've been super-polite to Easterbrook here and then let the commenters rip him to shreds. But I just don't have the patience right now. This guy's column is just so abysmally bad, it has nothing to offer. Seems like Easterbrook has that effect on everybody.
John Mashey analyses emails from Wegman and Azen and yes, Wegman's defence against plagiarism charges is to say that he and his students plagiarized from Denise Reeves. Multiple times. Andrew Gelman says it best: The major conclusions [of the plagiarised paper] are that there are different styles of research collaboration; the methodological flaws are that the entire data analysis is based on four snippets of the collaboration network. There's no evidence or even argument that you can generalize from these four graphs to the general population, nor is there any evidence or justification of…
Stories and Stats: The truth about Obama's victory wasn't in the papers: Our story of the 2008 campaign confirms some parts of the journalistic narrative and refutes others. Yes, the economy was important; yes, young voters swung to Obama and the Congressional Democrats; yes, Obama did particularly well among minorities (Latinos and Asians as well as African Americans), even beyond the Democrats' usual strength among these groups; yes, the Democrats made new inroads among the most affluent voters. But no, working-class whites did not run away from Obama; and no, Obama did not redraw the…