The Rocket Science of Statistical Political Analysis

Disclaimer: I must admit, this is a very difficult topic for me to write on convincingly for the simply fact that I'm not quite convinced I know what I'm talking about. This is my first political science class ever and for the most part I'm trying my best to gain at least something from the onslaught of incredibly complex information. To understand statistics is one thing. To make a convincing argument based on a subject I know so little about is another. I have done all the readings and have studied the material, yet I feel like I am studying rocket science and now I need to explain the probability as to why or why not the rocket will fly.

In our textbook titled Parties, Politics, and Public Policy, the authors make the broad statement that, as a general rule, the choices and direction of the major party we lean or affirm with, directs our opinion regarding the issues at hand. I believe this statement is misleading at best. A closer look at the impact of ideological issues clearly demonstrates that party allegiance began to polarize since 1973 (as a side note, it is interesting to me that this year coincides with the Roe v. Wade decision). According to Larry Bartels, "regional alignment in the south and the influence of ideological extremists in both parties... have combined to produce a marked polarization of the national parties... (Partisanship and Voting Behavior, 44)." Many political scientists point to the shift of the ideological underpinnings of the Democratic party- most notably civil rights and abortion- as the primary culprits for this "realignment". If this is the case then there must certainly be social issues at work, aside from party identification, to initiate the shifts we see today.

Fast forward to the 2008 presidential and congressional elections (Please see this exit pole). There is a clear pattern of "strong identifiers" voting according to party which is to be expected, but what's more interesting to note is the moderate/other voting patterns. I understand this voting strata to be unidentified with a major party or at best a weak-identifier. In the category titled as "Voting by Party ID", the moderate vote clearly shifted in favor of Democrat, but not by a striking number. Look two more sections down under the heading titled "Voting by Ideology". When comparing these two categories, the shift in voting pattern among the moderate/other is the most striking statistic in that it is almost a two to one ratio in favor of Democrat. Why such an extreme shift? Once again, we have to look at the potential social issues which are swaying the rank and file voters. When polled, most voters agreed that they disapproved of Bush's handling of the Iraq war. See this article. Since the beginning of the war, his approval rating dropped 40 points. Its no surprise that the following election marked a clear shift away from the incumbent party. This is indicative of a public that has a moral agenda and votes accordingly.

The point I'm making here is that, aside from the party hard-liners, political views are ideologically based. The hard line party followers will always vote according to party, but the rest of the public (independents, moderates, weak leaners) vote according to their moral compass. In light of this, I believe the argument of Heatherington and Keefe is shaky at best. Our values are instilled by our perceptions of the world and our concept of right and wrong and thus reflected in our political actions- not the other way around. These values are established through a vast array of psychological, religious and social experiences accrued throughout a lifetime and are not easily explained through empirical statistical analysis. Statistics may be a good gauge for comparing patterns of voting over time, but do not altogether explain the motives that initiate the shifts. They are simply too complicated... Kinda like rocket science.



Alas, the rocket has taken off. Perhaps its the fluctuation in the fin ratio used to dampen wind friction. No, no, no... Its the composition and density of the alloy used in the cone. No, no, no... the fuel dispersion/weight compilations are just wrong... No, No, no... Ah Phooey!

Its all about positioning isn't it?

When considering exactly what role the minority party has in our democracy you have to first look at their motives. As we have already learned, the primary goal of either party is to maintain or regain power. In this regard, the minority party, although not in power, has the ability to move in a different direction than the majority. They can stand against the issues the majority party favors as a means to strategically define their position in order to regain the majority in the future (the epitome of bipartisian politics). Examples of this could be seen in opposition to bail-outs or economic policies favored by the current majority party- the Democrats.

If the bail-outs prove to hyper-inflate the dollar and essentially make a bad situation worse, the Republicans, by opposing the ever increasing cash handouts, could strategically reinforce their position as the party that had it right all the while. What I'm getting at here is opposition voting. Its true that the Republicans can do little to stop the Democratic "juggernaut", but if the tide turns as they think it will, they will have strategically placed themselves in a position to regain power. After all, this is basically the exact strategy the Democrats used during the Bush years. They opposed many of his policies, most notably the Iraq war, and as a result, when public opinion turned, they regained power.

Please check out this article. It is older (pre-Obama) but I think it exemplifies my point clearly. Notice how Nancy Pelosi makes it quite clear that this is actually the brain child of the Bush administration. Yet most of the Republicans opposed it. Strange. Of course the fallout from the massive bailouts has yet to make its full economic impact, I suspect that in the future, congressional elections will again favor the Republicans and I don't think it will take 40 years this time.