Academic Commons Search Results
http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog.rss?f%5Bdepartment_facet%5D%5B%5D=Political+Science&f%5Bsubject_facet%5D%5B%5D=Statistics&q=&rows=500&sort=record_creation_date+desc
Academic Commons Search Resultsen-usHow Many People Do You Know in Prison? Using Overdispersion in Count Data to Estimate Social Structure in Networks
http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:185364
Zheng, Tian; Salganik, Matthew J.; Gelman, Andrew E.http://dx.doi.org/10.7916/D800011WMon, 30 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0000Networks—sets of objects connected by relationships—are important in a number of fields. The study of networks has long been central to sociology, where researchers have attempted to understand the causes and consequences of the structure of relationships in large groups of people. Using insight from previous network research, Killworth et al. and McCarty et al. have developed and evaluated a method for estimating the sizes of hard-to-count populations using network data collected from a simple random sample of Americans. In this article we show how, using a multilevel overdispersed Poisson regression model, these data also can be used to estimate aspects of social structure in the population. Our work goes beyond most previous research on networks by using variation, as well as average responses, as a source of information. We apply our method to the data of McCarty et al. and find that Americans vary greatly in their number of acquaintances. Further, Americans show great variation in propensity to form ties to people in some groups (e.g., males in prison, the homeless, and American Indians), but little variation for other groups (e.g., twins, people named Michael or Nicole). We also explore other features of these data and consider ways in which survey data can be used to estimate network structure.Statistics, Social researchtz33, ag389Political Science, StatisticsArticlesSegregation in Social Networks Based on Acquaintanceship and Trust
http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:154740
DiPrete, Thomas A.; Gelman, Andrew E.; McCormick, Tyler; Teitler, Julien O.; Zheng, Tianhttp://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:15339Tue, 20 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0000Using 2006 General Social Survey data, the authors compare levels of segregation by race and along other dimensions of potential social cleavage in the contemporary United States. Americans are not as isolated as the most extreme recent estimates suggest. However, hopes that “bridging” social capital is more common in broader acquaintanceship networks than in core networks are not supported. Instead, the entire acquaintanceship network is perceived by Americans to be about as segregated as the much smaller network of close ties. People do not always know the religiosity, political ideology, family behaviors, or socioeconomic status of their acquaintances, but perceived social divisions on these dimensions are high, sometimes rivaling racial segregation in acquaintanceship networks. The major challenge to social integration today comes from the tendency of many Americans to isolate themselves from others who differ on race, political ideology, level of religiosity, and other salient aspects of social identity.Statisticstad61, ag389 , thm2105, jot8, tz33Political Science, Sociology, Statistics, Social WorkArticlesBayesian Statistical Pragmatism
http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:154737
Gelman, Andrew E.http://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:15340Tue, 20 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0000I agree with Rob Kass’ point that we can and should make use of statistical methods developed under different philosophies, and I am happy to take the opportunity to elaborate on some of his arguments.Statisticsag389 Political Science, StatisticsArticlesMultiple Imputation with Diagnostics (mi) in R: Opening Windows into the Black Box
http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:154731
Su, Yu-Sung; Yajima, Masanao; Gelman, Andrew E.; Hill, Jenniferhttp://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:15342Tue, 20 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0000Our mi package in R has several features that allow the user to get inside the imputation process and evaluate the reasonableness of the resulting models and imputations. These features include: choice of predictors, models, and transformations for chained imputation models; standard and binned residual plots for checking the fit of the conditional distributions used for imputation; and plots for comparing the distributions of observed and imputed data. In addition, we use Bayesian models and weakly informative prior distributions to construct more stable estimates of imputation models. Our goal is to have a demonstration package that (a) avoids many of the practical problems that arise with existing multivariate imputation programs, and (b) demonstrates state-of-the-art diagnostics that can be applied more generally and can be incorporated into the software of others.Statisticsag389 Political Science, StatisticsArticlesR2WinBUGS: A Package for Running WinBUGS from R
http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:154734
Sturtz, Sibylle; Ligges, Uwe; Gelman, Andrew E.http://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:15341Tue, 20 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0000The R2WinBUGS package provides convenient functions to call WinBUGS from R. It automatically writes the data and scripts in a format readable by WinBUGS for processing in batch mode, which is possible since version 1.4. After the WinBUGS process has finished, it is possible either to read the resulting data into R by the package itself—which gives a compact graphical summary of inference and convergence diagnostics—or to use the facilities of the coda package for further analyses of the output. Examples are given to demonstrate the usage of this package.Statisticsag389 Political Science, StatisticsArticlesWhy we (usually) don't have to worry about multiple comparison
http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:129500
Gelman, Andrew E.; Hill, Jennifer; Yajima, Masanaohttp://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:9795Wed, 12 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0000Applied researchers often find themselves making statistical inferences in settings that would seem to require multiple comparisons adjustments. We challenge the Type I error paradigm that underlies these corrections. Moreover we posit that the problem of multiple comparisons can disappear entirely when viewed from a hierarchical Bayesian perspective. We propose building multilevel models in the settings where multiple comparisons arise. Multilevel models perform partial pooling (shifting estimates toward each other), whereas classical procedures typically keep the centers of intervals stationary, adjusting for multiple comparisons by making the intervals wider (or, equivalently, adjusting the p-values corresponding to intervals of fixed width). Thus, multilevel models address the multiple comparisons problem and also yield more efficient estimates, especially in settings with low group-level variation, which is where multiple comparisons are a particular concern.Statisticsag389Political Science, Statistics, Columbia Population Research CenterWorking papersRich state, poor state, red state, blue state: What's the matter with Connecticut?
http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:125297
Gelman, Andrew E.; Shor, Boris; Bafumi, Joseph; Park, David K.http://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:8568Wed, 17 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0000For decades, the Democrats have been viewed as the party of the poor, with the Republicans representing the rich. Recent presidential elections, however, have shown a reverse pattern, with Democrats performing well in the richer blue states in the northeast and coasts, and Republicans dominating in the red states in the middle of the country and the south. Through multilevel modeling of individual-level survey data and county- and state-level demographic and electoral data, we reconcile these patterns. Furthermore, we find that income matters more in red America than in blue America. In poor states, rich people are much more likely than poor people to vote for the Republican presidential candidate, but in rich states (such as Connecticut), income has a very low correlation with vote preference.Political science, Statisticsag389Political Science, StatisticsArticlesBayesian hierarchical classes analysis
http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:125300
Leenen, Iwin; Mechelen, Iven van; Gelman, Andrew E.; Knop, Stijn dehttp://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:8569Wed, 17 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0000Hierarchical classes models are models for N-way N-mode data that represent the association among the N modes and simultaneously yield, for each mode, a hierarchical classification of its elements. In this paper we present a stochastic extension of the hierarchical classes model for two-way two-mode binary data. In line with the original model, the new probabilistic extension still represents both the association among the two modes and the hierarchical classifications. A fully Bayesian method for fitting the new model is presented and evaluated in a simulation study. Furthermore, we propose tools for model selection and model checking based on Bayes factors and posterior predictive checks. We illustrate the advantages of the new approach with applications in the domain of the psychology of choice and psychiatric diagnosis.Statisticsag389Political Science, StatisticsArticlesBayes: Radical, liberal, or conservative?
http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:125306
Gelman, Andrew E.http://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:8571Wed, 17 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0000Statisticsag389Political Science, StatisticsArticlesRejoinder: Struggles with survey weighting and regression modeling
http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:125312
Gelman, Andrew E.http://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:8573Wed, 17 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0000I was motivated to write this paper, with its controversial opening line, "Survey weighting is a mess," from various experiences as an applied statistician.Statisticsag389Political Science, StatisticsArticlesComment: Bayesian Checking of the Second Levels of Hierarchical Models
http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:125303
Gelman, Andrew E.http://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:8570Wed, 17 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0000Bayarri and Castellanos (BC) have written an interesting paper discussing two forms of posterior model check, one based on cross-validation and one based on replication of new groups in a hierarchical model. We think both these checks are good ideas and can become even more effective when understood in the context of posterior predictive checking. For the purpose of discussion, however, it is most interesting to focus on the areas where we disagree with BC.Statisticsag389Political Science, StatisticsArticlesStruggles with survey weighting and regression modeling
http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:125309
Gelman, Andrew E.http://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:8572Wed, 17 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0000The general principles of Bayesian data analysis imply that models for survey responses should be constructed conditional on all variables that affect the probability of inclusion and nonresponse, which are also the variables used in survey weighting and clustering. However, such models can quickly become very complicated, with potentially thousands of poststratification cells. It is then a challenge to develop general families of multilevel probability models that yield reasonable Bayesian inferences. We discuss in the context of several ongoing public health and social surveys. This work is currently open-ended, and we conclude with thoughts on how research could proceed to solve these problems.Statisticsag389Political Science, StatisticsArticlesPartisans without constraint: Political polarization and trends in American public opinion
http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:125291
Baldassarri, Delia; Gelman, Andrew E.http://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:8566Mon, 15 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0000Public opinion polarization is here conceived as a process of alignment along multiple lines of potential disagreement and measured as growing constraint in individuals' preferences. Using NES data from 1972 to 2004, the authors model trends in issue partisanship--the correlation of issue attitudes with party identification--and issue alignment--the correlation between pairs of issues--and find a substantive increase in issue partisanship, but little evidence of issue alignment. The findings suggest that opinion changes correspond more to a resorting of party labels among voters than to greater constraint on issue attitudes: since parties are more polarized, they are now better at sorting individuals along ideological lines. Levels of constraint vary across population subgroups: strong partisans and wealthier and politically sophisticated voters have grown more coherent in their beliefs. The authors discuss the consequences of partisan realignment and group sorting on the political process and potential deviations from the classic pluralistic account of American politics.Political science, Statisticsag389Political Science, StatisticsArticlesPredicting and dissecting the seats-votes curve in the 2006 U.S. House election
http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:125294
Kastellec, Jonathan P.; Gelman, Andrew E.; Chandler, Jamie P.http://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:8567Mon, 15 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0000The 2008 U.S. House elections mark the first time since 1994 that the Democrats will seek to retain a majority. With the political climate favoring Democrats this year, it seems almost certain that the party will retain control, and will likely increase its share of seats. In five national polls taken in June of this year, Democrats enjoyed on average a 13-point advantage in the generic congressional ballot; as Bafumi, Erikson, and Wlezien (2007) point out, these early polls, suitably adjusted, are good predictors of the November vote. As of late July, bettors at intrade.com put the probability of the Democrats retaining a majority at about 95% (Intrade.com 2008). Elsewhere in this symposium, Klarner (2008) predicts an 11-seat gain for the Democrats, while Lockerbie (2008) forecasts a 25-seat pickup. In this paper we document how the electoral playing field has shifted from a Republican advantage between 1996 and 2004 to a Democratic tilt today. In an earlier article (Kastellec, Gelman, and Chandler 2008), we predicted the seats-votes curve in the 2006 election, showing how the Democrats faced an uphill battle in their effort to take control of the House and, their victory notwithstanding, ended up winning a lower percentage of seats than their average district vote nationwide. We follow up on this analysis by using the same method to predict the seats-votes curve in 2008. Due to the shift in incumbency advantage from the Republicans to the Democrats, compounded by a greater number of retirements among Republican members, we show that the Democrats now enjoy a partisan bias, and can expect to win more seats than votes for the first time since 1992. While this bias is not as large as the advantage the Republicans held in 2006, it will likely help the Democrats increase their share of seats.Statistics, Political sciencejpk2004, ag389Political Science, StatisticsArticlesDiscussion of the Article "Website Morphing"
http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:125288
Gelman, Andrew E.http://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:8565Mon, 15 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0000The article under discussion illustrates the trade-off between optimization and exploration that is fundamental to statistical experimental design. In this discussion, I suggest that the research under discussion could be made even more effective by checking the fit of the model by comparing observed data to replicated data sets simulated from the fitted model.Statisticsag389Political Science, StatisticsArticlesThe playing field shifts: Predicting the seats-votes curve in the 2008 U.S. House election
http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:125285
Kastellec, Jonathan P.; Gelman, Andrew E.; Chandler, Jamie P.http://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:8564Mon, 15 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0000The 2008 U.S. House elections mark the first time since 1994 that the Democrats will seek to retain a majority. With the political climate favoring Democrats this year, it seems almost certain that the party will retain control, and will likely increase its share of seats. In five national polls taken in June of this year, Democrats enjoyed on average a 13-point advantage in the generic congressional ballot; as Bafumi, Erikson, and Wlezien (2007) point out, these early polls, suitably adjusted, are good predictors of the November vote. As of late July, bettors at intrade.com put the probability of the Democrats retaining a majority at about 95% (Intrade.com 2008). Elsewhere in this symposium, Klarner (2008) predicts an 11-seat gain for the Democrats, while Lockerbie (2008) forecasts a 25-seat pickup. In this paper we document how the electoral playing field has shifted from a Republican advantage between 1996 and 2004 to a Democratic tilt today. In an earlier article (Kastellec, Gelman, and Chandler 2008), we predicted the seats-votes curve in the 2006 election, showing how the Democrats faced an uphill battle in their effort to take control of the House and, their victory notwithstanding, ended up winning a lower percentage of seats than their average district vote nationwide. We follow up on this analysis by using the same method to predict the seats-votes curve in 2008. Due to the shift in incumbency advantage from the Republicans to the Democrats, compounded by a greater number of retirements among Republican members, we show that the Democrats now enjoy a partisan bias, and can expect to win more seats than votes for the first time since 1992. While this bias is not as large as the advantage the Republicans held in 2006, it will likely help the Democrats increase their share of seats.Political science, Statisticsjpk2004, ag389Political Science, StatisticsArticlesBayes, Jeffreys, Prior Distributions and the Philosophy of Statistics
http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:125279
Gelman, Andrew E.http://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:8563Mon, 15 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0000I actually own a copy of Harold Jeffreys's Theory of Probability but have only read small bits of it, most recently over a decade ago to confirm that, indeed, Jeffreys was not too proud to use a classical chi-squared p-value when he wanted to check the misfit of a model to data (Gelman, Meng and Stern, 2006). I do, however, feel that it is important to understand where our probability models come from, and I welcome the opportunity to use the present article by Robert, Chopin and Rousseau as a platform for further discussion of foundational issues. In this brief discussion I will argue the following: (1) in thinking about prior distributions, we should go beyond Jeffreys's principles and move toward weakly informative priors; (2) it is natural for those of us who work in social and computational sciences to favor complex models, contra Jeffreys's preference for simplicity; and (3) a key generalization of Jeffreys's ideas is to explicitly include model checking in the process of data analysis.Statisticsag389Political Science, StatisticsArticlesFully Bayesian computing
http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:125246
Kerman, Jouni; Gelman, Andrew E.http://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:8557Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0000A fully Bayesian computing environment calls for the possibility of defining vector and array objects that may contain both random and deterministic quantities, and syntax rules that allow treating these objects much like any variables or numeric arrays. Working within the statistical package R, we introduce a new object-oriented framework based on a new random variable data type that is implicitly represented by simulations. We seek to be able to manipulate random variables and posterior simulation objects conveniently and transparently and provide a basis for further development of methods and functions that can access these objects directly. We illustrate the use of this new programming environment with several examples of Bayesian computing, including posterior predictive checking and the manipulation of posterior simulations. This new environment is fully Bayesian in that the posterior simulations can be handled directly as random variables.Computer science, Statisticsag389Political Science, StatisticsArticlesSampling for Bayesian computation with large datasets
http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:125252
Huang, Zaiying; Gelman, Andrew E.http://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:8559Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0000Multilevel models are extremely useful in handling large hierarchical datasets. However, computation can be a challenge, both in storage and CPU time per iteration of Gibbs sampler or other Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithms. We propose a computational strategy based on sampling the data, computing separate posterior distributions based on each sample, and then combining these to get a consensus posterior inference. With hierarchical data structures, we perform cluster sampling into subsets with the same structures as the original data. This reduces the number of parameters as well as sample size for each separate model fit. We illustrate with examples from climate modeling and newspaper marketing.Statisticsag389Political Science, StatisticsArticlesWhat does "Do campaigns matter?" mean?
http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:125249
Bafumi, Joseph; Gelman, Andrew E.; Park, David K.http://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:8558Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0000Scholars disagree over the extent to which presidential campaigns activate predispositions in voters or create vote preferences that could not be predicted. When campaign related information flows activate predispositions, election results are largely predetermined given balanced resources. They can be accurately forecast well before a campaign has run its course. Alternatively, campaigns may change vote outcomes beyond forcing predispositions to some equilibrium level. We find most evidence for the former: opinion poll data are consistent with Presidential campaigns activating predispositions, with fundamental variables increasing in importance as a presidential election draws near.Political science, Statisticsjb878, ag389Political Science, StatisticsArticlesFitting Multilevel Models When Predictors and Group Effects Correlate
http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:125243
Bafumi, Joseph; Gelman, Andrew E.http://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:8556Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0000Random effects models (that is, regressions with varying intercepts that are modeled with error) are avoided by some social scientists because of potential issues with bias and uncertainty estimates. Particularly, when one or more predictors correlate with the group or unit effects, a key Gauss-Markov assumption is violated and estimates are compromised. However, this problem can easily be solved by including the average of each individual-level predictors in the group-level regression. We explain the solution, demonstrate its effectiveness using simulations, show how it can be applied in some commonly-used statistical software, and discuss its potential for substantive modeling.Statisticsag389Political Science, StatisticsArticlesGoing beyond the book: Toward critical reading in statistics teaching
http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:125240
Gelman, Andrew E.http://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:8555Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0000We can improve our teaching of statistical examples from books by collecting further data, reading cited articles, and performing further data analysis. This should not come as a surprise, but what might be new is the realization of how close to the surface these research opportunities are: even influential and celebrated books can have examples where more can be learned with a small amount of additional effort. We discuss three examples that have arisen in our own teaching: an introductory textbook that motivated us to think more carefully about categorical and continuous variables; a book for the lay reader that misreported a study of menstruation and accidents; and a monograph on the foundations of probability that overinterpreted statistically insignificant fluctuations in sex ratios.Political science, Statisticsag389Political Science, StatisticsThoughts on new statistical procedures for age-period-cohort analyses
http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:125234
Gelman, Andrew E.http://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:8553Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0000Statisticsag389Political Science, StatisticsArticlesWhy we (usually) don't have to worry about multiple comparisons
http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:125258
Gelman, Andrew E.; Hill, Jennifer; Yajima, Masanaohttp://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:8561Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0000Statisticsag389Political Science, StatisticsPresentationsWhy we (usually) don't have to worry about multiple comparisons
http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:125255
Gelman, Andrew E.; Hill, Jennifer; Yajima, Masanaohttp://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:8560Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0000Statisticsag389Political Science, StatisticsPresentationsWhy we (usually) don't have to worry about multiple comparisons
http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:125225
Gelman, Andrew E.; Hill, Jennifer; Yajima, Masanaohttp://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:8550Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0000Applied researchers often find themselves making statistical inferences in settings that would seem to require multiple comparisons adjustments. We challenge the Type I error paradigm that underlies these corrections. Moreover we posit that the problem of multiple comparisons can disappear entirely when viewed from a hierarchical Bayesian perspective. We propose building multilevel models in the settings where multiple comparisons arise. Multilevel models perform partial pooling (shifting estimates toward each other), whereas classical procedures typically keep the centers of intervals stationary, adjusting for multiple comparisons by making the intervals wider (or, equivalently, adjusting the p-values corresponding to intervals of fixed width). Thus, multilevel models address the multiple comparisons problem and also yield more efficient estimates, especially in settings with low group-level variation, which is where multiple comparisons are a particular concern.Statisticsag389Political Science, StatisticsArticlesProtecting minorities in binary elections: A test of storable votes using field data
http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:125276
Casella, Alessandra M.; Ehrenberg, Shuky; Gelman, Andrew E.; Shen, Jiehttp://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:8562Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0000Democratic systems are built, with good reason, on majoritarian principles, but their legitimacy requires the protection of strongly held minority preferences. The challenge is to do so while treating every voter equally and preserving aggregate welfare. One possible solution is storable votes: granting each voter a budget of votes to cast as desired over multiple decisions. During the 2006 student elections at Columbia University, we tested a simple version of this idea: voters were asked to rank the importance of the different contests and to choose where to cast a single extra "bonus vote," had one been available. We used these responses to construct distributions of intensities and electoral outcomes, both without and with the bonus vote. Bootstrapping techniques provided estimates of the probable impact of the bonus vote. The bonus vote performs well: when minority preferences are particularly intense, the minority wins at least one of the contests with 15-30 percent probability; and, when the minority wins, aggregate welfare increases with 85-95 percent probability. When majority and minority preferences are equally intense, the effect of the bonus vote is smaller and more variable but on balance still positive.Political science, Statisticsac186, ag389Political Science, Statistics, EconomicsWorking papersOne vote, many Mexicos: Income and vote choice in the 1994, 2000, and 2006 presidential elections
http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:125237
Cortina, Jeronimo; Gelman, Andrew E.; Lasala Blanco, Maria Narayanihttp://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:8554Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0000Using multilevel modeling of state-level economic data and individual-level exit poll data from the 1994, 2000 and 2006 Mexican presidential elections, we find that income has a stronger effect in predicting the vote for the conservative party in poorer states than in richer states -- a pattern that has also been found in recent U.S. elections. In addition (and unlike in the U.S.), richer states on average tend to support the conservative party at higher rates than poorer states. Our findings raise questions regarding the role that income polarization and region play in vote choice. The electoral results since 1994 reveal that collapsing multiple states into large regions entails significant loss of information that otherwise may uncover sharper and quiet revealing differences in voting patterns between rich and poor states as well as rich and poor individuals within states.Political science, Statisticsag389, ml2362Political Science, StatisticsArticlesWhat will we know on Tuesday at 7pm?
http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:125231
Gelman, Andrew E.; Silver, Natehttp://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:8552Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0000Political science, Statisticsag389Political Science, StatisticsArticlesBayesian Combination of State Polls and Election Forecasts
http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:125228
Lock, Kari; Gelman, Andrew E.http://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:8551Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0000A wide range of potentially useful data are available for election forecasting: the results of previous elections, a multitude of pre-election polls, and predictors such as measures of national and statewide economic performance. How accurate are different forecasts? We estimate predictive uncertainty via analysis of data collected from past elections (actual outcomes, pre-election polls, and model estimates). With these estimated uncertainties, we use Bayesian inference to integrate the various sources of data to form posterior distributions for the state and national two-party Democratic vote shares for the 2008 election. Our key idea is to separately forecast the national popular vote shares and the relative positions of the states. More generally, such an approach could be applied to study changes in public opinion and other phenomena with wide national swings and fairly stable spatial distributions relative to the national average.Political science, Statisticsag389Political Science, StatisticsArticlesSocial and political polarization, and some other topics in network analysis
http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:125159
Gelman, Andrew E.http://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:8542Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0000Statisticsag389Political Science, StatisticsPresentationsLa polarisation politique et comment étudier ça avec la statistique
http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:125086
Gelman, Andrew E.http://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:8531Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0000Statisticsag389Political Science, StatisticsPresentationsSome computational and modeling issues for hierarchical models
http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:125092
Gelman, Andrew E.http://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:8533Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0000Statisticsag389Political Science, StatisticsPresentationsImproving the Presentation of Quantitative Results in Political Science
http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:125095
Kastellec, John; Gelman, Andrew E.http://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:8534Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0000Political science, Statisticsag389Political Science, StatisticsPresentationsCulture wars, voting, and polarization: divisions and unities in modern American politics
http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:125089
Gelman, Andrew E.http://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:8532Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0000Political science, Statisticsag389Political Science, StatisticsPresentationsPosterior predictive checking and generalized graphical models
http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:125156
Gelman, Andrew E.http://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:8541Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0000Statisticsag389Political Science, StatisticsPresentationsLa philosophie et l'expérience de la statistique bayésienne
http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:125180
Gelman, Andrew E.; Shalizi, Cosmahttp://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:8530Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0000Statisticsag389Political Science, StatisticsPresentations