voting
grrlscientist | May 13, 2008tags: fox news, subliminal suggestion, voting behavior, politics, streaming video
This streaming video shows a rather clumsy attempt by FauxSnooz to subliminally influence American voters. [1:15].
So .. do you think this might work by influencing innocent minds to vote against a person's best interests?
mikethemadbiologist | March 13, 2008As I watch the Democratic primary lurch closely towards self-destruction, I keep asking myself why are so many Democrats projecting their fantasies onto two candidates whose feet are definitely made of clay? Granted, this has been going on since the start of the silly season (italics added):
...what I'm seeing is that many who identify strongly with a candidate hold opinions that are very different from the candidates. Now, there's [nothing] wrong with that per se: if your guiding star is to beat the Republicans, because you think any Democrat would be preferable to a Republican, then so be…
mikethemadbiologist | March 9, 2008And in a Republican stronghold no less:
Twenty minutes after unofficially becoming the Fox Valley's newest congressman-elect, Democrat Bill Foster surprised the raucous crowd at Long Island Sound Banquets in Aurora when he entered from a rear door. Seconds later, chants of "Foster, Foster" clearly announced the former Fermilab scientist was now a congressman.
Foster's party entrance befitted the stunning win over perennial GOP bridesmaid Jim Oberweis. He topped Oberweis by just more than 5,000 votes, unofficially, across the 14th Congressional District to fill the remainder of retired Rep.…
mikethemadbiologist | March 5, 2008I haven't checked yet today, but, on Democratic sites, no doubt, there will be all sorts of "BREAKING" and "UPDATE!!" posts about yesterday's primaries. But there's one story that will probably get lost in all of the primary madness, and it should concern Democrats and anyone else concerned with the integrity of voting. Voting in Ohioan Democratic strongholds is still fucked up:
Obama's campaign pressed to extend voting by one hour in two Ohio counties....
"Due to reports of ballot shortages in Cuyahoga and Franklin counties, we requested a voting extension in those counties," said Obama…
mikethemadbiologist | February 23, 2008A very quick thought about Oliver Willis' observation that African-American turnout will likely be very high in the Democratic Texas primary (also see Amanda and Sonia).
One of the things that did Tom DeLay in was excessive gerrymandering (gerrymandering is where voting districts are shaped in such a way to guarantee victory for a given party). Most of this is done with sophisticated computer simulations, but, like any simulation, they're only as good as their assumptions.
Many Texas congressional districts were designed to allow Republicans to win ~55-45%. While that maximizes the number…
mikethemadbiologist | February 23, 2008...let's elect more scientists to office. A good place to start would be physicist and congressional candidate Bill Foster, one of the developers of the Irving-Michigan-Brookhaven proton decay detector. Darksyde has a good description of Foster's research. Go here to find out more about Foster.
mikethemadbiologist | February 14, 2008A while back I came across a survey that reported more people would not vote for a 72 year-old than for a Mormon (which, given the bigotry against Mormons, is pretty remarkable). So, I wanted to figure out how likely it was that each of the remaining candidates would keel over in office. Who knows? Maybe the public does know something after all.
Using these mortality tables developed by the CDC, I figured out what the probably would be that a given candidate would die in office. Here are their ages upon assuming office for reference:
Obama: 47
Clinton: 60
Huckabee: 53
McCain: 72
And here'…
mikethemadbiologist | February 13, 2008Really. Democrat Donna Edwards beats Corrupticrat Al Wynn.
Edwards crushed Wynn 60-36, even though Wynn was supported by the Democratic 'leadership', including Pelosi. When precinct by precinct results are released, it will be very interesting to see if voting for Edwards is correlated with voting for Obama.
Chalk one up for the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy.
Oops: I was so excited I made a typographical booboo. All better now.
mikethemadbiologist | February 7, 2008The Blue Devil wonders why Obama is raising more money than Clinton. One reason is that Obama supporters, on the whole, are significantly wealthier than Clinton supporters.
If you look at three big donor states, California, Massachusetts, and New York, on the whole, Obama has less support as you go down the income ladder. Wealthier people have more money to give, particularly since many mid-sized and small contributions are often 'impulse buys.' When you're treading water, you don't give to candidates on a whim.
This pattern also holds up in poorer states.
I'll leave it to you to figure…
mikethemadbiologist | February 6, 2008...and that's a good thing.
As long as the primaries continue, we can delay the full-blown onset of Compulsive Centrist Disorder. It also means that the candidates will have to spend their time talking at (yes, at, not to) voters instead of the pundits and media dahlings, which can only be for the better.
Unrelated silly thought of the day: Have Fox News host ScienceDebate 2008. Kidding.
mikethemadbiologist | February 4, 2008I've been relatively undecided about whom to vote for in Feb. 5 primary--and for the first time EVAH! I actually get to decide who the Democratic nominee will be. I was leaning towards Edwards. Since 2004, he was the most liberal candidate on most issues, even though his political record before then was spotty (I think that of all 'big three' Dems; why everyone was saying how strong the Democratic field was still mystifies me). Now, that Edwards is out, I plan on voting for Obama. Here's why:
Obama is far less hawkish than Clinton. In retrospect, I don't think Clinton voted against her…
mikethemadbiologist | January 20, 2008After the New Hampshire primary, I wrote:
The most surprising thing is that, looking at the exit polls for Iowa and NH, it really seems that Clinton and Edwards were competing for the same electorate. The storyline was that Edwards and Obama were duking it out for the "change" vote. Not so much. Sadly, we might not be so post-racist after all. If you prefer a less cynical speculation, voters might actually want candidates to talk about things other than 'hope', like healthcare.
Chris Bowers at Open Left ("The World's Slowest Loading Website EVAH!") has crunched some numbers:
Obama is…
mikethemadbiologist | January 17, 2008Other than Atrios, I'm the only one who thinks Romney would be the hardest Republican for Democrats to beat. Here's why.
The Somerby Effect. One thing to keep in mind is that the traditional media narratives, while trivial for all politicians, are strongly biased against Democrats ("Obambi", obsessive hatred of the Clintons, "The Breck Girl"). Second, on a factual claim, a counter-argument always receives less attention than the original argument because political reporters are stupid and ignorant (not necessarily true of beat reporters), and after adding in the bias, if a Democrat has to…
mikethemadbiologist | January 9, 2008I'm not sure why people are shocked by last night's results; it wasn't that surprising:
As I laid out here, Iowa had a much higher percentage of 18-29 voters than did New Hampshire, probably because the calendar, combined with the time involved in caucusing, meant that students home on break would be able to attend between 6-10 pm on a work night.
What is interesting in that NH had more late breaking voters than Iowa. In Iowa, the late breakers went for Edwards and Clinton, while in NH, they split between Clinton and Obama.
The most surprising thing is that, looking at the exit polls for…
mikethemadbiologist | January 8, 2008If more stable exit polls come in, and younger voters did show up, I'll take back what I'm about to say (I dig data):
The percentage of younger voters in Iowa was absurdly high.
I told you.
According to ABC News, it looks like about 17% of the New Hampshire electorate was under 30, while in Iowa, the under 30 electorate was 22%. Something to keep in mind.
mikethemadbiologist | January 6, 2008But Obama supporters should keep something in mind that Jon Swift wrote:
The biggest loser of all was Hillary Clinton. If she can't win in Iowa, where can she win? In every contested race since 1972 (Bill Clinton ran unopposed in 1996), the winner of the Iowa caucuses for the Democrats has gone on to be elected President, except for 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 2000 and 2004 when the winner did not go on to be elected President. Iowans have an uncanny ability to predict which Democrat can win in the general election, which means Hillary's campaign may be doomed.
Snark aside, I wonder…
mikethemadbiologist | January 3, 2008Nature magazine has a good summary of where each of the candidates (Democratic and Republican) stand on a variety of science-related topics. It might be useful.
mikethemadbiologist | November 23, 2007...or run an empire. Paul Waldman, in a fit of coastal pique, critiqued the myth of the informed Iowa voter as a reason to switch the primary calendar. But what's really bothered me about the Iowa primary is the entire caucus process. While I'm not a believer in the idea that a different political voting process would yield dramatically better governance, the Iowa caucus procedure is so stupid that I'm willing to make an exception (italics mine):
Unlike the Republican caucuses in Iowa, which are fairly simple, akin to a straw poll, the Democratic caucuses are arcane, rule-bound Party…
laelaps | October 8, 2007The finalists for the CollegeScholarship.com $10,000 scholarship have been announced, and SB's [I stand corrected, excuse the faux pas] Sb's own Shelley of Retrospectacle is one of them! Make sure that you go over to the voting page (the contest from here on out depends on votes from readers like you) and vote for Shelley (and tell all your friends too).
Also of note are two other science bloggers in the long list of 20, The Big Room (and little things in it) and Anthropology.net. I was hoping to make the finals myself, but even though I didn't make it I have something to shoot for next time…
mikethemadbiologist | October 4, 2007Paul Waldman debunks the myth of the conscientious Iowa primary voter (italics mine):
As you read this, some of the most important and powerful people in America are crawling through the Hawkeye State on their knees, pretending to know more than they do about corn, pretending that the deep fried Twinkie they had back at the state fair was just dee-licious, pretending that ethanol is the key to our energy future, and pretending that every precinct captain and PTA chair they meet is the very heart and soul of our nation, whose opinions the candidate is just dying to hear. And the good people of…