Jeff Maurer

Damn...CAPTCHAs getting hard.

In trying to understand why environmental groups oppose a bill that appears to be a big win for the environment, it helps to consider that The Groups get a lot of influence from people whose views were formed in the ‘60s. (link in next tweet)

@MattBruenig, I can’t tell you how pumped I am to see your statistical model that corrects for state lean in outcomes of competitive Senate races! When I published my finding last week that leftist Democratic Senate candidates underperformed non-leftists, you popped into the thread to declare my finding “not valid”. Obviously, I was shattered to fail to win the approval of you, the most exalted data scientist who has ever lived or ever will live.

Your objection was that my model failed to account for state lean. That is: A candidate in a bluer state might find it harder to over-perform than a candidate in a redder state. So, I ran a new analysis that corrected for state lean and found that leftists still underperform. You dismissed that, too. And that’s why I offered to buy you a steak dinner if you could pretty please produce a statistical model that corrects for state lean and fundamentally alters my finding that leftist Senate candidates underperformed in competitive races. Please, Matt, impart your wisdom on us! I am but a humble comedian, and I lack the God-like abilities of you, the most powerful Data Sorcerer in the universe.

And allow me to fill in the context, which will be tricky, because Twitter seems to have a weird glitch where every time you and I have an exchange, it gets deleted. That’s unfortunate, because it might look to some like you’re jumping into conversations to do your Data Batman routine and then destroying the evidence when the conversation turns against you. It *could* appear that way, though I’m sure that it’s just some bad code on Twitter’s end.

When I found that leftist Democratic Senate candidates (my proxy for “leftist” was “Bernie-endorsed”) underperformed other Democrats in competitive races, you declared that finding “not valid”. You noted that the leftist candidates come from bluer states on average, and declared the partisan lean effect to be so potent that I had wasted everyone’s time. You even bluntly informed me that “it’s math”, and then proceeded to dazzle me and any onlookers with some vintage Bruenig number-ifying! I was honored to witness it! Of course, the math was garbage, because it 1) Assumed that the electorate stays fixed from one election to another, which is obviously false, and 2) Precluded the existence of any other factors. But, utter horseshit aside, it was awe-inspiring to see the master at work!

And here’s where I really screwed up: I attempted to take your argument seriously and do an analysis that corrected for state lean. How hubristic of me, because surely you have already performed that analysis! After all: You spoke with such CERTAINTY, you were POSITIVE that the state lean effect was big enough to render my finding…what was your phrasing again?...ah yes: “Not valid.” Obviously, you would only feel that way if you already possessed sound statistics supporting your view! Otherwise, you would just be opining “from the gut”, i.e. exactly the same thing that you repeatedly accuse others of doing. So, really, I’m not asking you to *perform* an analysis; I’m asking you to please *share* the analysis that you have surely already performed! After all: If you hadn’t already done that analysis, then you would be a hypocrite talking out of your ass, which I know that you are not.

I ran a regression to see if there was a correlation between a state’s partisan lean and the margin the Democratic Senate candidate achieved in that state. There was a moderate correlation, so the question became: How big of a correction should be made for that effect? I made what I considered a very big correction – 1.4 “bonus” or “penalty” points for each point of partisan lean. I was trying to give your argument every benefit of the doubt – after all, you were CERTAIN that the effect was huge, and when an Analytics Prophet like you declares the existence of an effect, a shit-covered peasant like me must leave no stone unturned in pursuit of that truth! Alas, even that gigantic correction did not save the Bernie-backed candidates: Leftists in competitive races still underperformed normies by an average of six points.

I published this finding. You appeared in the Twitter thread to accuse me of “throwing out” the finding, which was odd, because you were commenting in the very thread in which the finding was published. Also, the results did not contradict my basic thesis that leftists underperformed. At any rate, you declared me not worthy of performing further data analysis, and I was shattered…shattered because you were RIGHT. I am not worthy to breathe the same air as you, The Great Khalessi Of Data, Exalted Be Thy Name! And that’s why I implore you to bestow on us the analysis that shows that when a sound correction for partisan lean is included, leftist Senate candidates do not underperform in competitive races.

I confess: I am too ignorant to even *conceive* of how you will do this! Because I ran the analysis with different levels of correction for partisan lean, and leftists underperformed at every spot on the dial. The problem is that the four Bernie-backed candidates come from states that aren’t *that* different from the rest of the sample. If the “correction” dial gets turned up, Flanagan does better and Lee does worse; you turn the dial down, the opposite happens. I could get the gap down to two by turning the dial up an absurd amount, but then I was simply measuring each state’s partisan lean: The Pearson’s r between candidate performance and state lean in that version was .94, which a Stats Oracle like you will know is sometimes called a “perfect” correlation.

And when the dial was turned way up, the model did weird things. I noted this and commented that I think a subtler effect is closer to reality, and that’s why you accused me of “throwing out” data. But even the “1.4 bonus points” model – in which leftists underperformed by six – caused partisan lean to wash out all other effects: All of the “worst” performers came from very red states and the “best” ones were in blue states (Pearson r = .87). Ten of 34 Senate candidates failed to over-perform Kamala on a night when the average performance was +16. And the Democrats’ breakout star was Rhode Island’s Jack Reed, a name I rarely hear mentioned in response to the question “Who is this generation’s FDR?” But I am so chastised by your accusation that I “threw out” data that if you declare this version of the model to be the preferred one, then I will agree it is so! Leftists underperformed by six – Bruenig hath declared it! And as giddy as I am to receive your data analysis, I also throbbingly await your article about how Jack Reed has ascended to a higher plane of political performance and we must all embrace Reed-ism.

I encourage you to act quickly. Because, in the absence of empirical evidence supporting your confidently stated beliefs, you *could* begin to look like a bullshit artist who uses numerical hand-waving to obscure reality. It could appear to some that your schtick is to parachute into any conversation that contains a finding that leftists might find uncomfortable, raise a statistical quibble – which is usually possible, because social science is imperfect – and therefore give leftists psychological cover to disregard the finding. Therefore, your function is to help leftists persist in their delusions…is how things *could* look to your critics. But boy will they have egg on their faces when you produce that statistical correction!

And I apologize profusely for annoying you with my ignorance. You are a God surrounded by mortals, and it must be frustrating to watch us struggle to perceive what’s in front of our nose while the entire universe dances to the subtle movements of your fingertips. When this analysis arrives, I pray that I will be able to comprehend it, and not stare in puzzlement like a dog trying to read Proust. Alas: The latter case will probably be true! Because I cannot conceive of how your arguments in this case could possibly be sound, and I pray that you will deign to enlighten me.

I may be part of a Jensen Huang-type Chinese honeypot scam, minus the part where the honeybot is a sophisticated, mysterious beauty. (article link in next tweet, no paywall)

How lame is it when lawmakers complain that legislation was "rushed through"? I can't remember any piece of legislation ever where people who don't like the bill DIDN'T complain that it was "rushed through". Meanwhile, voters obviously don't care.