Month: January 2008

The Diebold Effect And Clinton

A former skeptic examines the data from New Hampshire and finds strong evidence that, controlling for all other variables, the voting machines seemed skewed in a big way:

To my complete (and continuing) amazement, the "diebold effect" on Hillary’s votes remains after controlling for any and all of those demographic variables, with a p-value of <.001: that is, there are less than 1:1000 odds for this difference occurring through chance alone, and that’s after adjusting for variability in Hillary’s votes due to education, income, total population, and population density.

While this "diebold effect" varies in magnitude depending on the exact covariates used, it seems to center around an additional 5.2% of votes going for Clinton from Diebold machines. The same analysis shows a Diebold disadvantage for Obama of about -4.2%, significant with a p<.001, using the same covariates.

Dissent Of The Day

A reader writes:

As a long-time reader and big fan, I have to admit I’m disappointed by the turn your blog has taken recently. At your best, as in the Conservative Soul, you really do represent a conservatism of doubt, retaining a healthy dose of skepticism, willing to reconsider your opinions, always remembering that you might be wrong and admitting it when you are However, recently you have thrown all of that aside and become gushing, almost fanatic in your praise of Obama and in your contempt of the Clintons. Right now, I don’t see the difference between you and Hugh Hewitt, and that saddens me. Whatever Hillary does, you consistently show bad faith, interpreting her actions the way the Devil reads the Bible. Similarly, Obama apparently can do no wrong.

Moreover, if Obama ever does get elected, you’re setting yourself up for disappointment, just like you did with Bush. No man can possibly do everything you seem to expect of him. A healthy injection of skepticism would do wonders. Please take a deep breath and calm down. Useful mental exercise: Surely there must be something you like about the Clintons and something you dislike about Obama? Please, make your blog interesting again.

Here goes. I admire Hillary Clinton’s stamina, diligence and, at her best, pragmatism. Her political professionalism and discipline are amazing. At times, Obama seems to believe a little too much in his own messiah-ness, which is not the source of his strength. I don’t care for his proximity to organized labor. On the role of government, I’m far to his right. But after the GOP in the Bush years, I don’t feel like punishing the Democrats for being big government. I feel like punishing the Republicans. They’re the ones who’ve committed treason against conservatism, not the Democrats.

Substantively, I don’t have a massive policy case against Clinton if I don’t have one against Obama. They really do represent a very small difference. Clinton is also very able. Her work as a Senator for New York has been admirable. She’s straddled on the war but I don’t feel angry at her the way some of the netroots types do. God knows I have no leg to stand on. My case amounts to concerns that she would entrench a cynicism in politics that’s wrong for the times, that her polarization and trust issues are insurmountable, and that eight years in a White House should be enough for any power couple.

Does that help?

Buck Up

A reader writes:

Come on, that debate was meaningless last night. No one really said a thing of any substance and the entire racial issue was somewhat put to bed. The uncommitted vote in Michigan among blacks was at almost 70% which obviously augurs well for Obama. This thing will go past Super Tuesday. Let’s see what happens in Nevada and South Carolina. We already know how the Clintons will spin the Nevada loss but a big win in South Carolina will be a huge boost. Keep the faith.

Will do. I haven’t assumed a Clinton victory, despite the dispirited tone of this post. I’m just thinking out loud. In this campaign, God only knows what’s around the corner.

Chabon vs Cohen

Michael Chabon:

Alas for Mr. Cohen and for all of us, in the service of his own fear he resorts to employing the time-honored strategies (smear and guilt-by-association) and tactics (a false appearance of reasonableness, assumption of unproven conclusions, selective reference to facts not in evidence) employed by the very demagogues and masters of hate whom he is presumably trying to combat.

According to Chabon, Cohen’s attempt to associate Obama with Farrakhan has worked:

Having received a number of anxious emails from fellow Jews across the country, quoting from or including the entire text of the column, I can reassure Mr. Cohen that his efforts have not gone in vain.

More here.

Yglesias Award Nominee

"What about rendering unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser’s, and unto God that which is God’s? Mike Huckabee is going to force those of us who have wanted more religion in the town square to reexamine the merits of strict separation of church and state. He is the best advertisement ever for the ACLU. Even if you share his ultimate views on the definition of marriage, or the desirability of abortion on demand," – Lisa Schiffren, NRO. She meant Caesar. But we didn’t all take Latin.

I wonder if Huckabee might even get some movement conservatives to re-evaluate the merits of political secularism.