Soccer Team Goes Green

Iran’s national soccer team, competing in World Cup qualifiers today in Seoul, wore green wristbands.  But what does it all mean??  As CNN reports, (1) “the team does not normally wear green bands,” (2) “green is the campaign color of Moussavi and has been widely worn by his supporters who have staged massive rallies in Tehran before and after last week’s presidential election,” and yet (3) though many are viewing the team’s bands as a sign of support for Moussavi, that has not been confirmed.

Of course it can’t be confirmed. We can’t say for sure the players were trying to send a message, but if they were, based on the Ahmadinejad/Khamenei regime’s response thus far, they would be putting themselves and their families at risk. For the people of Iran and the global audience of millions, though, the message was heard loud and clear.

More Iranian Election Result Analysis

I’m sure you’ve all read Silver’s latest post on the election results.  If not, it seems to continue the analysis trend that we’ve seen (i.e. 1. No conclusive proof (can there ever be?), 2. Data anomalies that bolster suspicions of election rigging).

The detailed anomalies that people point out are very interesting, but from an outsiders perspective what seems really suspicious to me is that there’s so much uniformity in the 2009 results.   (more…)

Brotherly Love

South Korean news sources are reporting that aides of Kim Jong-un (left in the picture), the 26-year old son of Dear Leader Kim Jong-il and reported heir apparent to the North Korean “throne, last week attempted to assassinate his half-brother, Kim Jong-nam (right), who lives in semi-exile in Macao.  The son appears to have inherited the father’s renown paranoia — the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree — as by all accounts the elder Kim Jong-nam was disinherited by the father when he was caught trying to enter Japan to visit Disneyland Tokyo on a falsified passport.

More on North Korea later.

Better Data, More Sophisticated Analysis

Walter Mebane at the University of Michigan is one of the best authorities anywhere on the statistical analysis of electoral fraud. He’s produced a quick analysis of the Iran election results (PDF). Interestingly, his analysis of town-level data (which is measured at a finer level of aggregation than Silver’s province-level data) shows that there’s actually a pretty close relationship between Ahmedinejad’s 2005 and 2009 vote proportions:

In general, combining the 2005 and 2009 data conveys the impression that a substantial core of the 2009 results reflected natural political processes. In 2009 Ahmadinejad tended to do best in towns where his support in 2005 was highest, and he tended to do worst in towns where turnout surged the most.

On the other hand, there’s a curious pattern of outliers in the 2009 data that does not appear to be typical of election results — either in general or in the particular case of Iran in 2005.

Finally, for the truly geeky among us, it’s worth taking a look at Mebane’s work on detecting fraud through a clever use of Benford’s Law. This doesn’t pay off in the Iran case (the data are too highly aggregated), but it’s a pretty neat idea.

Meanwhile, in Albany…

State judge Thomas McNamara just did the prudent thing and dismissed the court case in the squabble over the state senate leadership. At this point they’re tied 31-31, without a lieutenant governor to break the tie. A power-sharing agreement might be negotiated, but they’re scheduled to finish the session in less than a week. I think this is the kind of thing that the above “facepalm” meme was invented for.

One counterexample

OK, as I’ve said in my last posts here and here, most elections follow predictable localized patterns. Districts that voted more heavily for a particular candidate or party in one year tend to vote for that candidate or party more heavily in other years. In the U.S., these patterns persist not only from election to election, but for decades. In my first post, however, I did point out that demographic or political changes of massive proportions could shake this pattern up. Here’s a good example of how this has happened in this country: New Orleans. (more…)

More on the Iran election point

This is perhaps overkill, but here are a few more illustrations of the phenomenon I was pointing out below. (more…)

“Developing Story” - MSM’s Demise

Andrew Sullivan posts an astute comment from a reader:

Reading your blog over the past 30 something hours makes me realize why the MSM is really finished. I mean, this point has finally hit home.You are blogging real time events, with descriptions, evaluation, analysis, and eye witness accounts. You are gathering information from a myriad of sources and putting it out there for a cohesive message.CNN, NY Times, et al are merely running an article about “thousands” of protesters.

Currently the headlines at a few major news websites are: (more…)

More on Iran

To reinforce the point Vshawnt makes below, here’s an illustration of how well Bush’s 2000 vote percentage by state predicts his 2004 vote percentage by state. (The very low percentage case is DC, in case you’re wondering.) The R-squared here is  .96, meaning that 96 percent of the variation in the 2004 percentages can be explained by the 2000 percentages. Compare that with Silver’s R-squareds of between .10 and .22.

Update: Just ran a few more of these for kicks, and the R-squared for a regression of 2004 Bush vote by state on Reagan’s 1980 vote by state is .66. So there’s a high degree of correlation between elections nearly a quarter-century apart. This is American politics rather than Iranian politics, but it’s implausible to me that provincial support for Ahmadinejad would change so radically in Iran absent a big shift in population and/or a dramatic political realignment.

A Rigged Election by the Numbers

The news from Iran has been fascinating to follow this weekend.  It seemed to me that Ahmadinjad was effectively doomed in the run-up to Friday’s voting, so I was surprised that the results seemed to be so blatantly skewed against popular sentiment.  But, how can you ever know for sure when the government seems determined to use violent force and censorship to enforce the results?

Nate Silver seems to have a pretty compelling case (more…)

New York Senate Mess in Context

The bizarre power struggle in Albany continues. Looks like a judge is giving the parties the weekend to iron things out, and on Monday we’ll either have a deal, or a court ruling.

Interestingly enough, the case of defecting party members swinging the chamber majority to the other party is actually not all that uncommon, especially (obviously) in situations in which the chamber is close to evenly divided. In the mid-1990s, California’s Assembly Speaker Willie Brown, a Democrat, worked out a deal with a few Republicans to remain in charge, even with a Republican majority. Something similar happened in Virginia in the late 1990s. And just this year, Tennessee State House Democrats colluded with a renegade Republican to elect a speaker that Republicans opposed.

What is unusual is that this has happened at this point in the session. Usually deals get worked out in the organizational stages of a legislative session — in December or January — and then stick. In New York’s case, a deal *was* worked out in December, but came unstuck this week for some reason.  To provide a bit of perspective on the situation, check out the views of these political scientists, a smart bunch indeed.

Stalling for Time

That’s what the Democrats appear to be doing in New York. Shutting off the lights didn’t work, so now it’s locking the chambers and suing to stop the Republicans from taking over. It’s all so silly that it must just be a delaying tactic to allow them to regroup and deploy their real strategy, right?

Meanwhile, the Republican “reform” caucus appears set to meet this afternoon, whether or not they get into the Senate chamber. One thing’s for sure: Governor Paterson is “not going to go knock down the doors of the Senate and open them up.“

Anonymous Blogging

As an anonymous (or “pseudonynymous?”) blogger, I’ve found myself somewhat drawn to the story of the “outing” of liberal blogger who writes under the pseudonym of Publius (more here and here).  Have you all heard of it?  Long story short, the National Review’s Ed Whelan and Publius go back-and-forth on the Sotomayor nomination, Whelan loses his sh*t and outs him.  Recriminations ensue, some of it mind-bogglingly stupid, and Whelan, amazingly considering the source, reconsiders and apologizes.

This whole episode gives me the opportunity to print Andy Sullivan’s takedown of Jonah Goldberg, opining on the outing of his colleague Whelan, takedown of Jonah Goldberg, which captures the essense of conservatism in a nutshell:

Actually, I think one can discern the likely endurance of Jonah Goldberg’s professional work, as opposed to the “amateur” commentary of Publius. And it has gained prominence not because it pierces through the discourse despite anonymity, but because a ready frattish sense of humor, a dash of nepotism, a right-wing welfare state, and a team-player’s mentality allow such a writer to prosper. All Jonah needed to know was that Whelan was on his “team”. An argument in defense of him was thereby necessary, even if it is transparently stupid. What Publius does is much harder and far deeper. Anonymity and all.

Prisons and Politics

The whole uproar about bringing Guantanamo prisoners to US prisons really baffled me.  I can understand the crude politics of it, but I guess that I still haven’t come to terms with the conclusion that Americans are as crude and simple-minded as those politics would indicate.

Over at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick has a interesting teaser article that highlights the utter absurdity of Americans getting worked up over the transfer of Guantanamo prisoners, while they seem to be ambivalent about the very real crisis in our domestic penal system.  (more…)

Democrats overthrown in Albany

New York state politics have been nothing but captivating this year. Yesterday’s bombshell was the overthrow of Democrats’ slim majority in the State Senate after two renegade NYC Dems, Pedro Espada Jr. and Hiram Monserrate, threw their hats in with the Republicans. A few brief reactions:

1) As Eric Kleefeld at TPM puts it, this was more about (former) Democratic Majority Leader Malcolm Smith’s failure to placate pivotal Democrats with special favors than it was about any larger issue. Espada and Monserrate (along with two other Democrats) nearly prevented Smith from taking control way back in December. Why they weren’t lavished with special benefits after that, I do not understand.

2)  Sheldon Silver (Democratic Speaker of the Assembly) is a big winner. He’s the only person in Albany who seems firmly in charge of his domain. Smith and Governor Paterson were taken by complete surprise, and their blustering protestations only make them look weaker.

3) Gay marriage in New York, more or less dead for this session anyway, is particularly dead now.

4)  On a more speculative note, could this herald a weakening of the “three men in a room” model of leadership in Albany? Along with changing the leadership, Republicans have promised to decentralize Senate decision-making and to equalize resources available to members. There’s some justifiable skepticism of this, but time will tell.

Sotomayor

Does Sotomayor’s reaction to well-wishers’ advice that she “break a leg” suggest that she will take an overly literal view of Constitutional law?

No-News Monday from the New York Times

Today’s articles that aren’t really news include: Abortion protesters are not sure what to protest next, now that the guy they were protesting is dead; health care might be bipartisan, but might not, and might hinge on the top Senators on the Finance Committee, or might not; and Larry Summers is a jerk.

“This has been another episode of He’s Not George W. Bush”

Too funny, and too true…

Growing strains on higher education

The auto companies and financial institutions get all the attention these days, but there’s also trouble on the horizon in my industry: higher education. The nature of the problem differs depending on the type of institution, but almost all kinds of schools are feeling the strain. (more…)

BREAKING! Vicious Lake Monster Sighted in Vermont!

Up here in the north country, the big news is that over the weekend a Burlington resident captured a 2-minute video of the legendary “Champ,” our region’s version of the Loch Ness Monster. Speculation about the creature’s nature and motives abound, but can it be a coincidence that the same week the beast appeared, GM went bankrupt AND we get the first Osama bin Laden audio tape in many months? Just sayin’.

Developing….

Divide and Conquer

Politico’s lead story today “Stealth War: Barack Obama sabotages Republicans”, reinforces (albeit in a partisanly ominous tone) the point I was making the other day that the Obama WH is executing a strategy to perpetuate the split in the GOP between hardliners (Cheney, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.) and moderates (Collins, Snowe, Powell, Schmidt).

The article digs into the geographic aspect of that strategy (more…)

Jeff Sessions

Today’s  laugh-out-loud line regards this commentary by Matthew Yglesias about Jeff Sessions, who as the Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee is the Republican’s point man on the Sotomayor nomination:

Watching the Senator from Alabama’s press conference, I’m comforted by the fact that whatever our ideological disagreements this is a man who’s made it in life without any preferential treatment. One hundred percent meritocracy in action. America is a beautiful place.

Touche.

Worthy?

Any thoughts about whether or not Richard Wolffe’s new book on Obama, “Renegade” will be a worthwhile investment?  I don’t have cable anymore, but what little I did see last year of Wolffe on MSNBC, didn’t impress me.   Besides, it seems to be a bit early to have sufficient perspective for a historical account of the 2008 election.  Thoughts?

About those Activist Supreme Court Liberals…

Uh, not so much. Cass Sunnstein addresses the “myth of the balanced court,” which is a point I was sort of trying to make the other day:

Here is another way to demonstrate the point. In 1980 Stevens often operated as the Court’s median member; in many cases he (along with Powell) was the Justice Kennedy of that era. But Stevens is frequently described as the most liberal member of the current Court. If he qualifies for that position, it is not because of any significant change in his own approach, but because of a massive shift in the Court’s center of gravity. [. . .] A widely unknown fact: Between 1984 and 2000, the Court overruled more than 40 precedents, specifically rejecting the law as it was understood in 1980. And on many more occasions, the Court significantly reoriented the law without overruling particular decisions.

Obama the Cautious

I like the politics of the Sonia Sotomayor pick a lot — Republicans oppose the pick, as vshawnt has suggested, at great risk to their future political prospects — and I’m taking it as a given, without proof of course, that Obama has done his homework, vetted her, and verified that she is a reliable liberal voice. But aside from the fact that she would be the first Hispanic justice, and a woman to boot, Sotomayor is very much a conventional pick. She has not authored many, if any, controversial opinions in her distinguished career, unlike say a Kathleen Sullivan or Diane Wood, and there is nothing in her record that suggests she is a strong and impassioned defender (and I hate to delve into cliches here but I’m writing this as fast as I can) of the weak against the strong.

As it turns out, the US Chamber of Commerce, the uber-lobby which positions itself as a representative of the little guy even though it’s corporate America (i.e., the Fortune 500 multinationals) that pays the bills, is actively considering whether to endorse Sotomayor’s nomination. The Chamber, in fact, endorsed the man Sotomayor is succeeding — David Souter — and through Souter is frequently labeled a liberal, I’d argue without delving into the case history that the Chamber has been quite pleased with Souter. For what it’s worth, the Chamber also endorsed Clinton nominees Breyer and Ginsberg, and again, I wouldn’t be surprised if they have been largely happy with what they’ve gotten.

Long story short, it isn’t necessarily a bad thing to be endorsed by “business” or to be “business-friendly,” but it would be ironic that given all that’s been said — and again, it’s hard to dispute that Sotomayor will be a good justice –the one area in which Sotomayor might come up a little short is in the “empathy” column.

Upon further reflection, the Sotomayor pick really reminds me of Obama’s pick of Biden as VP.  Nothing substantively to get too excited about, but a safe, politically astute pick. A pick, rooted at its core, by caution. So, while I’ll nitpick this aspect of the Sotomayor choice, it’s hard to argue that Obama seems determined to establish a political movement with long-term viability — which the Sotomayor pick exemplifies — and though it’s still early, he seems to have the recipe down.  But though I like my desserts nice and sweet, I’ll have to settle for half a tablespoon of sugar instead of the full serving called for in the recipe, that is, if I want to have any desserts at all!