Nate Silver confounds me again

A pretty fascinating fivethirtyeight post from yesterday: The Palin Paradox: Women More Likely to Elected in Male-Dominated Districts.

His findings are exactly what it sounds like they are. Even when he isolates Democratic-leaning (and thus more likely to elect a woman at all) districts, "the most male-dominated from among these strongly Democratic districts elected women in 10 out of 15 instances. The 15 most female districts elected just 3 women."

So, "all told, after controlling for the district's partisan affiliation, male-dominated districts were more than twice as likely to elect a Congresswoman as were female-dominated districts."

What he doesn't have, of course, is explanation for this seemingly - counter intuitive phenomenon. But he has some interesting thoughts:

"It's possible, and maybe even somewhat likely, that there is some sort of latent variable affecting both the sex ratios and elections to the Congress that I haven't accounted for .... Perhaps in male-dominated areas, women are more likely to violate traditional sex roles including something like running for political office, which has traditionally been a male-dominated occupation -- the Sarah Palin frontierswoman caricature works well here. It would be interesting to know whether there more women actually running for office in male-dominated areas, or rather, whether they are winning more often when they do run. Or perhaps this is a phenomenon that goes beyond politics, and career growth is retarded for the dominant gender when there is an insufficient number of the opposite one. Or perhaps there is even something more Freudian: a lack of female companionship (or vice versa) triggers a yearning for it that is manifested in the way we vote."

A fascinating look at some banks.

Update: The link to the WSJ graphic is now included. Sorry about that.

The Wall Street Journal has posted a great "interactive graphic" that compares the 19 stress-tested banks on a number of criteria including new capital needed, tier 1 common capital ratio, and amount of TARP funding received.

A related aside: I love complex graphics along these lines and don't think that the value of such graphics can be overstated when one considers the graphics' ability to convey different depths of information for those of different intelligence and interest levels. Nate Silver does a great job with his graphics, for example "A Starry-Eyed Look at the 2012 Republican Field." The most cursory glance tells you nothing more than which candidates are present and which candidates might be similar to one another simply because there is little distance between them (basically the level of focus shown by someone who just wants to pretend to be smart around others, e.g. "I'd say Huckabee, Romney, Jindal, and Palin are the favorites."). The next level of information gets into actually looking at those axes and understanding what they imply. The third level takes into account the size of each bubble: the larger the bubble the greater the public support for that candidate. Finally, one can, as Nate suggests, consider the implications of the political 'gravity' exerted by each of these 'planets.' That is, one can imagine that when one politician gains support (that is, his planet grows) it must be pulling that support from elsewhere (that is, exerting a political gravity on the supporters of the other planets, pulling them away).

Honestly, this post did begin as a quick post only focused on that banks graphic; it spiraled out of my control once I started talking about the always riveting topic of graphics! I hope it all made sense.

what Nate's up to

predicting less important things, like the oscars, for new york magazine:

Oscar Predictions You Can Bet On!

A few quick links.

Let's get the blogging week started with a few interesting pages to check out:

• Nate Silver's writeup of "So Just Who Did Vote For The Bailout?" - A lot of interesting stuff in this one, including a statistical analysis of factors contributing to voting patterns on the first bailout bill last year and a brief discussion of the implications of writing one's own definitions of terms like Progressive.
• The Daily Beast - "The Best of Blago" - He is not only crazy; he has the ability to take legitimate literary quotations and warp them to suit his purposes. Wonderful spin, Rod.
• Bit.ly - An alternative to the Tiny URL service, Bit.ly has all of the same features, but is also copying (in their entirety), cataloging, and organizing all sites that users create shortened URLs for. It will take a while or the benefits to pan out (beyond the link-shortening, that is), but it should be interesting to see what researchers can pull off with that amount of information.
• Red Bull Snowscrapers - On February 5 a bunch of professional snowboarders will be jumping off a 90' ramp built in East River Park. Carly and I drove past this last week and saw the main ramp being built. The ramp is pretty cool, with the main support being provided by stacked shipping containers (see photo below). I kind of want to figure out a way to see this from afar so I don't have to hang out with a bunch of snowboarders to see one person jump this. Check out this site for more pictures of the actual ramps.
  

• Update: I also meant to include the fact that Texas dealt a blow to creationism in a recent schoolboard ruling.
  

The Democratic Senate Majority, Prisoner's Dilemma Style

Nate's got a particularly good article on how it's possible for 58 seats to be better than 59.

(In response to the article: of course, the moderate Republicans in question could work out deals with each other ahead of the vote)

Ziegler vs. Silver, Part 37

A show called The B Cast has an episode in which John Ziegler and Nate Silver debate Ziegler's recent polls that Ziegler claims prove Obama supporters are not well-informed about some of the negative aspects of Obama's past (e.g. Ayers, Wright, etc.). The episode is quite long, but I enjoyed it quite a bit. The bickering is kind of hilarious.

An interesting note on Ziegler: he was profiled in The Atlantic by David Foster Wallace in April of 2005. "Host," the profile, was later included in Ira Glass' The New Kings of Non-Fiction. I really enjoyed the descriptions of why he is a fantastic talk-radio host.