RE: The Vote-Cost of Scandal
I don't believe Gary Hart was ruined by "scandal", per se. First, he supported a very unpopular, but I think kinda OK, 50 cent/gal tax on gasoline. When gas about $1/ gal (including taxes). This made the unsure very unsure. Only second did he publicly claim something like he would never cheat/ have an affair ... and reporters are welcome to follow him ... and then he did have an affair and it was seen by the reporters who followed him. It wasn't even so much hypocrisy, like Bennett's critics of his (because his gambling) moralizing -- it was Hart's public "lie". "I am honest, no affairs, you can follow me" ... what a joke. I actually think this was most like George I "read my lips" ... followed by a tax increase, and a total loss of credibility. And as I write this, the flap about WMDs is because Bush II, and Blair, essentially guaranteed that Iraq had them. Not finding them becomes a threat to their ability to guarantee anything; no trust, no vote. Clinton's scandal(s) did not materially affect his supporter's trust in him on the issues. Tom Grey --- Steve Miller wrote: > Maybe what angers voters is not the scandal, but hypocrisy. Someone who is > perceived as "liberal" on social issues is less of a hypocrite for having an > affair than is someone who runs on a "family values" platform. Gary Hart was a liberal in good standing, but he is the textbook case of a politician ruined by a scandal. Clinton is probably a bigger hypocrite given his effort to co-opt the family values stuff. -- Prof. Bryan Caplan
Re: The Vote-Cost of Scandal
But at least I've explained away Packwood, Livingston, etc. ;-) on 6/3/03 12:23 AM, Bryan Caplan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Steve Miller wrote: > >> Maybe what angers voters is not the scandal, but hypocrisy. Someone who is >> perceived as "liberal" on social issues is less of a hypocrite for having an >> affair than is someone who runs on a "family values" platform. > > Gary Hart was a liberal in good standing, but he is the textbook case of > a politician ruined by a scandal. Clinton is probably a bigger > hypocrite given his effort to co-opt the family values stuff.
Fw: economists find evidence for "Bronx effect"
RACE, POVERTY, AND PERSONAL INJURY AWARDS For years lawyers have talked about "the Bronx effect," the idea that juries from high-poverty areas with large minority populations favor injured plaintiffs. But anecdotes aside, little hard evidence has been brought forward one way or the other. The paucity of analysis on the role of race and poverty in the American tort system -- and growing interest in tort reform -- makes a new study published in the JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES (v. 32 (1), Jan. 2003) all the more interesting. According to the study's authors, economists Eric Helland and Alexander Tabarrok, research director of The Independent Institute, tort awards are significantly higher in counties and jury districts that have high black and Hispanic populations and poverty rates. Among Helland and Tabarrok's findings: * As white poverty increases, jury awards decrease; but as black poverty increases, jury awards increase. * A one percent increase in the black poverty rate is associated with a three to ten percent increase in the average size of a personal injury award. * A one percent increase in the Hispanic poverty rate is associated with a seven percent increase in the average size of a personal injury award. * Forum shopping for high-poverty minority counties could raise awards by hundreds of thousands of dollars. See "Race, Poverty, and American Tort Awards: Evidence from Three Datasets," by Eric Helland and Alexander Tabarrok http://www.independent.org/tii/lighthouse/LHLink5-22-1.html (Requires university subscription to the Journal of Legal Studies). http://www.independent.org/tii/lighthouse/LHLink5-22-2.html (Scroll down for link to working paper pdf.) Also see: "Home Cooking a Class Action," by Alexander T. Tabarrok (5/5/02) http://www.independent.org/tii/news/020508Tabarrok.html The Independent Institute archive on litigation http://www.independent.org/archive/litigation.html
Re: The Vote-Cost of Scandal
In a message dated 6/3/03 12:32:32 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >Steve Miller wrote: > >> Maybe what angers voters is not the scandal, but hypocrisy. Someone >who is >> perceived as "liberal" on social issues is less of a hypocrite for having >an >> affair than is someone who runs on a "family values" platform. > >Gary Hart was a liberal in good standing, but he is the textbook case of >a politician ruined by a scandal. Clinton is probably a bigger >hypocrite given his effort to co-opt the family values stuff. In all fairness Gary Hart was a pro-gun, pro-free-trade Democrat from Colorado (where I lived at the time) and thus was not a libera in good standing. Leaders of the liberal East Coast and Midwestern Democratic Party bitterly resented Hart's positions on the issues and their allies in the news media took Hart apart over his perceived infidelties even as they apologized later for Clinton's. Which brings up another theory on why some politicians resign over scandals and some don't: that the mainstream news media has a heavy influence on public opinion, and that the same news media tend to favor liberals over conservatives, such that someone perceived by people in the media as conservative gets roasted while someone perceived as liberal gets cover sympathetically. LIkewise Bobby Byrd, kind of Democatic party pork-barrel, gets a total pass on having actually belongs to the KKK, while Trent Lott gets roasted for making one complimentary comment about Strom Thurmond's presidential bid made before most of the current population was even born. David Levenstam
Re: The Vote-Cost of Scandal
Steve Miller wrote: > Maybe what angers voters is not the scandal, but hypocrisy. Someone who is > perceived as "liberal" on social issues is less of a hypocrite for having an > affair than is someone who runs on a "family values" platform. Gary Hart was a liberal in good standing, but he is the textbook case of a politician ruined by a scandal. Clinton is probably a bigger hypocrite given his effort to co-opt the family values stuff. -- Prof. Bryan Caplan Department of Economics George Mason University http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] "But being alone he had begun to conceive thoughts of his own unlike those of his brethren." --J.R.R. Tolkien, *The Silmarillion*
New Journal - Econ Journal Watch
There is a new online journal that will start publishing in Jan. of 2004 that some of you may be interested in. The journal is called Econ Journal Watch and will essentially be a journal of comments on papers published elsewhere. It will also include discussion about the economics profession and the role of the economist in society. More information can found here: http://www.econjournalwatch.org/pdf/announcing_EJW.pdf Alex -- Alexander Tabarrok Department of Economics, MSN 1D3 George Mason University Fairfax, VA, 22030 Tel. 703-993-2314 Web Page: http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/ and Director of Research The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA, 94621 Tel. 510-632-1366
Re: The Vote-Cost of Scandal
Do I have to avoid a preference-based explanation? What if I dig up some evidence of trends in human behavior that support my claim? Maybe what angers voters is not the scandal, but hypocrisy. Someone who is perceived as "liberal" on social issues is less of a hypocrite for having an affair than is someone who runs on a "family values" platform. But I can only pretend to know how most voters think. Many surveys give me a good idea of *what* they think, but why is another matter. on 6/2/03 1:26 PM, Bryan Caplan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The Lewinsky scandal, according to most public opinion scholars, > actually increased Clinton's popularity. But even after Lewinsky, > politicians have continued to resign or drop out of races in the face of > similar scandals, and of course they did it for a long time before. > What is going on? > > 1. The usual rules do not apply to Clinton - the public will punish > other politicians for comparable actions. > 2. Politicians systematically overestimate voters' reactions. > 3. Public opinion has changed. Pre-Clinton, scandals mattered. Now > they don't. Politicians are still learning about this regime change.
The Vote-Cost of Scandal
The Lewinsky scandal, according to most public opinion scholars, actually increased Clinton's popularity. But even after Lewinsky, politicians have continued to resign or drop out of races in the face of similar scandals, and of course they did it for a long time before. What is going on? 1. The usual rules do not apply to Clinton - the public will punish other politicians for comparable actions. 2. Politicians systematically overestimate voters' reactions. 3. Public opinion has changed. Pre-Clinton, scandals mattered. Now they don't. Politicians are still learning about this regime change. -- Prof. Bryan Caplan Department of Economics George Mason University http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The game of just supposing Is the sweetest game I know... And if the things we dream about Don't happen to be so, That's just an unimportant technicality." Jerome Kern and Oscar Hammerstein, *Showboat*
