Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.

Clinton’s lead now more than a million votes UPDATED

As I explained last week, Donald Trump was elected to the Presidency despite having fewer votes than Hillary Clinton. She has already set a record for the biggest popular vote victory despite losing the Electoral College; according to CNN, she now (11/17/16 5:00am EST) leads by about 1,045,000 votes, roughly twice the margin of Al Gore’s victory over George W. Bush in 2000. This equates to 0.8% of the popular vote.

Moreover, Clinton’s lead will only increase in the coming days. The CNN infographic cited above shows that only 78% of California’s votes (where Clinton leads by roughly 3 million votes) have so far been counted. Her raw vote margin will continue to climb there until the votes are all counted.

People have raised two primary arguments against my position that having the Electoral Vote trump the popular vote is undemocratic. The first takes the view that Trump won under the rules as they are: If the popular vote were determinative, he would have campaigned more in California, New York, Texas, and other population centers, and, in his mind at least, he would have recorded an even bigger victory. The problem for this claim, as Josh Marshall has pointed out, is that Clinton would have also campaigned more in those states. Increasing voter turnout usually improves Democratic electoral fortunes, so electing the President by popular vote means that Democratic margins would increase, not decrease.

The second argument claims that focusing on the Electoral College as the reason for Clinton’s loss lets her off the hook for her weaknesses as a candidate and a campaigner. And there is no doubt that she had her weaknesses. The problem with this view is that the existence of the Electoral College is a necessary condition for her to have lost. None of her campaign’s other problems would have led her to lose the election if the Electoral College did not overweight the Wyomings of this country relative to the Californias. This structural disadvantage that populous states face is one of the biggest threats to democracy in America. And we’ve got to do something about it, soon.

Update: It’s now over 1.5 million, according to CNN.  California still only has 83% tallied. Some sources have Clinton’s lead over 2 million now. Something is seriously wrong with this picture.

Cross-posted from Middle Class Political Economist.

Comments (44) | |

Welfare Rates and Stereotypes of Immigrants in Denmark

Here is the introduction to an interesting paper. It covers some similar to ground to some of my recent and upcoming posts but uses data on immigrant groups to Denmark:

Stereotypes, that is, people’s beliefs about groups1, are often assumed to be exaggerated and inaccurate (Jussim, 2012). However, whether this is so is rarely examined. The existing body of research reveals that stereotypes are usually fairly accurate and rarely ex- aggerate real differences (Jussim, 2012; Jussim et al., 2015). Demographic stereotypes tend to be among the more accurate. As far as we know, only one prior (pi- lot) study has examined stereotype accuracy in Den- mark (Kirkegaard & Bjerrekær, 2016a). The study was small (N = 48 after quality control), had a strongly unrepresentative sample but was preregistered. It found that stereotypes were fairly accurate (median correlational accuracy score = .51), but the results are hard to generalize to the overall population. The present study is a replication and expansion of the prior study using a large, nationally representative sample.

Please forgive any odd formatting. Through the miracle of the modern US service economy I am without internet except for my phone and will remain so at least through the weekend. It also means that I only went through the paper on my phone. Still, I am not seeing anything obviously wrong with the paper. I like that they made their data available, were crystal clear on methodology, and pre-registered what they were going to be doing before they did it. My only quibble is that their “large” sample only contained 484 observations once they cleaned up the data. There is wrong with 484 observations. I often work with much less, but I wouldn’t call that a large sample.

Here is the abstract, which I think is more clear after you read the introduction reproduced above.

A nationally representative Danish sample was asked to estimate the percentage of persons aged 30-39 living in Denmark receiving social benefits for 70 countries of origin (N = 766). After extensive quality control procedures, a sample of 484 persons were available for analysis. Stereotypes were scored by accuracy by comparing the estimates values to values obtained from an official source. Individual stereotypes were found to be fairly accurate (median/mean correlation with criterion values = .48/.43), while the aggregate stereotype was found to be very accurate (r = .70). Both individual and aggregate-level stereotypes tended to underestimate the percentages of persons receiving social benefits and underestimate real group differences. In bivariate analysis, stereotype correlational accuracy was found to be predicted by a variety of predictors at above chance levels, including conservatism (r = .13), nationalism (r = .11), some immigration critical beliefs/preferences, agreement with a few political parties, educational attainment (r = .20), being male (d = .19) and cognitive ability (r = .22). Agreement with most political parties, experience with ghettos, age, and policy positions on immigrant questions had little or no predictive validity. In multivariate predictive analysis using LASSO regression, correlational accuracy was found to be predicted only by cognitive ability and educational attainment with even moderate level of reliability. In general, stereotype accuracy was not easy to predict, even using 24 predictors (k-fold cross-validated R2 = 4%). We examined whether stereotype accuracy was related to the proportion of Muslims in the groups. Stereotypes were found to be less accurate for the groups with higher proportions of Muslims in that participants underestimated the percentages of persons receiving social benefits (mean estimation error for Muslim groups relative to overall elevation error = -8.09 %points). The study was preregistered with most analyses being specified before data collection began.

I imagine they separated Muslim groups because those are relatively recent and numerous in a country like Denmark, and despite laws to the contrary, often stereotyped. But not necessarily discriminated against:

It can be seen that even the most extreme nationalists in this sample are still not biased against Muslim groups in their ratings because the regression line does not cross 0.

There are a few figures in the article (I will let you look them up) that could have come from my recent posts, even though it looks at welfare by national origin in Denmark and I have been looking at income levels by national origin in the US. Looking at a graph, It seems that countries whose emigrants perform well in the US perform well in Denmark, and those that do poorly in one country do poorly in the other. At a glance the big difference seems to be the lack of Central American immigrants in Denmark in large enough numbers to show up in their graph.

In their conclusion, they find that on aggregate, Danish stereotypes vis a vis how different groups of immigrants to Denmark tend to be dependent on welfare tend to be pretty accurate.

So what does this article plus my posts imply about the economy? The degree to which countries produce emigrants who are culturally well adapted to contribute to the economy can vary dramatically. Immigrants can add to or subtract from productivity. One of the arguments for increased immigration is that the dwindling birth rate in many Western countries means those countries will require an influx of immigrants to keep their economies humming. But the data implies that this only works if immigration is done selectively. Otherwise, immigration can exacerbate issues in the economy.

Comments (30) | |

Alan Greenspan Forecasts Extremely Low Economic Growth for Germany, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Holland and Canada

Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, weighed in last week on one of the pressing issues facing the incoming Trump administration and the country — slow economic growth. Greenspan’s explanation is novel and bound to be controversial. To preview: He blames the welfare state and overall uncertainty for the slowdown. …

By scouring economic statistics, Greenspan thinks he’s discovered heretofore hidden relationships that explain weak productivity growth.

Tags: , , , , , Comments (18) | |

On Second Thought …

After reading this article in today’s NYT detailing how things unfolded in the theater before, during and after the Hamilton performance on Friday evening, I’ve concluded the obvious: that the cast and crew members and the overwhelming number of audience members are paid, professional protesters.

Tags: , , , , , , , Comments (7) | |

Trump Now Has His Joseph Goebbels. As Nominee for Attorney General.

I do not believe that this man will be confirmed.  Even despite this.

Things of this sort can change, bigly, once confirmation hearings begin.  And not just because of his brazen, lifelong white supremacism.  Also because, well, among other things, Florida voters just adopted an amendment to the state constitution legalizing medical marijuana.  Buy a yuge margin.

Read through the NYT editorial I’ve linked to.  No one—and I do mean no onewants this kind of thing.  Outside of Alabama and Mississippi, of course.

This choice is beyond-belief vile.  And by the end of his confirmation hearing, everyone will know the specifics. And that Donald Trump thought it would be fine to reward this man in this precise way for being the first member of Congress to endorse him.

So Jeff Flake, Joe Manchin and Susan Collins think he’s fine.   Then again, presumably they don’t plan to run for president.  Marco Rubio likely does, though.  And his own state, the largest swing state, just voted to legalize medical marijuana. And there’s also that large-Hispanic-population thing in his state.  Just one example.

Here’s betting that McCain won’t vote for him either.  He doesn’t plan to run for president, having already been there and done that, but there’s that little thing about Sessions’ support for torture of various kinds, including waterboarding.


UPDATED: Be sure to read this article published Friday at Yahoo News.  I didn’t see it until just now.

Updated 11/20 at 3:25 p.m.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , Comments (2) | |

White Supremacy as a Political Doctrine

Currently, Hillary Clinton leads POTUS-delictum Donald J. Trump by 1,677,000 votes. As we know, though, Trump has an overwhelming electoral college advantage. The original intent of the electoral college, according to Hamilton — the politician, not the Broadway musical — was to thwart the possibility of interference by a foreign power in choosing the chief executive.

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention.

According to NSA Director, Admiral Michael Rogers, that is exactly what happened this time around,  “There shouldn’t be any doubt in anybody’s mind,” Rogers said. “This was not something that was done casually. This was not something that was done by chance. This was not a target that was selected purely arbitrarily. This was a conscious effort by a nation-state to attempt to achieve a specific effect.” Fortunately, the electoral college was there to spare us from the election of that foreign power’s creature (sarcasm).

Be that as it may, I would like to distinguish between the original design and intent of the electoral college and the strategic preservation and capture of that admittedly flawed institution by proponents of white supremacy. It was no accident that attempts to amend the constitution to abolish the electoral college system were abortive. An important part of the story behind the white supremacist abuse of the electoral college has been outlined in Joseph Lowndes’s From the New Deal to the New Right and the Southern Origins of Modern Conservatism and in a 1996 Yale Law Journal article by Matthew Hoffman, “The Illegitimate President: Minority Vote Dilution and the Electoral College.

As teasers, I am presenting, below, an excerpt from chapter two of Lowndes’s book –“‘White Supremacy is a Political Doctrine’: Charles Wallace Collins and the Dixiecrat revolt of 1948” — and a section from Hoffman’s article — “Race, Presidential Politics and the Winner-Take-All Rule” — in a subsequent series of separate posts. White supremacist manipulation of the electoral college was intimately related to efforts to dismantle the collective bargaining framework established by the FDR New Deal. I hope to write on that issue later, after I have obtained more of the formative documents and analysis. But first, an excerpt from the chapter,”White Supremacy is a Political Doctrine”:

Comments (19) | |

Race, Presidential Politics, and the Winner-Take-All Rule (1 of 4)

The following excerpt from “The Illegitimate President: Minority Vote Dilution and the Electoral College,” by Matthew M. Hoffman is presented under the fair use Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act. The article was published in The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 105, No. 4 (Jan., 1996), pp. 935-1021. I have removed the extensive footnotes to facilitate presentation in the blog format. I will be posting one installment a day for the next three days followed by the fourth installment and table of contents on the fourth day.

Race, Presidential Politics, and the Winner-Take-All Rule

Comments (1) | |

Race, Presidential Politics, and the Winner-Take-All Rule (2 of 4)

The following excerpt from “The Illegitimate President: Minority Vote Dilution and the Electoral College,” by Matthew M. Hoffman is presented under the fair use Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act. The article was published in The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 105, No. 4 (Jan., 1996), pp. 935-1021. I have removed the extensive footnotes to facilitate presentation in the blog format.

The Free Elector Movement of 1960

Comments (0) | |