Heavy Lifting - thoughts and web finds by an economist
|I also contribute to Division of Labour||Load HL's Front Page|
Friday, December 07, 2007
Following up on my rant concerning "comprehensive plan" and "comprehensive reform," I thought I owed it to the other candidates to see exactly how "comprehensive" they have been during the campaign.
I combined each candidate's full name, e.g. Rudy Giuliani, with, alternatively, the term "comprehensive reform" and "comprehensive plan." I gathered these data and combined with a Republican indicator, the current-day support as reported by CNN (admitedly potentially not accurate) and the total cash raised thus far as reported by Open Secrets.
Here's the rank ordering of our candidates on the total Google hits of the two search terms combined:
Of course, many google hits are repliations of the same story but if the number of duplicates is proportional to the number of original stories and the level of support the candidate has then you might be able to use the number of "comprehensives" per dollar raised as a yardstick.
Sens. Clinton and McCain are clearly the two candidates that are the most often associated with the term "comprehensive reform" or "comprehensive plan." Sen. Obama and Rudy Giuliana and Sens. Edwards and Thompson are also near the top. Those candidates who are the least associated with the term "comprehensive" are Sen. Dodd and Rep. Gravel and Duncan Hunter.
Plotting the log of the total number of "comprehensives" against the log of total cash raised you find a positive correlation (which is not the same as causation!):
If you run a naive regression model, one obtains:
The result suggests that Republican candidates are not significantly different than Democrat candidates in their association with one or both terms. However, a one percent increase in the number of dollars raised yields a 0.42 percent increase in the number of "comprehensives" in Google. This, as I say, is not a test of causation, but the strong correlation makes you think there might be something here.
Perhaps candidates offer more "comprehensives" as they gather more money, in essense "paying off" their contributors with promises of milk and honey. On the other hand, candidates offering more comprehensive plans/reforms might cast a wider net and therefore gather more contributions.
The tounge-in-cheek measure of dollars per comprehensive puts Gravel in the clear lead.
The difference between "comprehensive reform" and "comprehensive plan" is striking in several cases. McCain is the most "balanced" in his association with the terms. Tancredo is much more loaded towards "reform" whereas Clinton and Biden are much more loaded towards "plan." I wonder what that means - "plans" might be less polarizing than "reform"?
Here, compratio is "comprehensive reform" as a percentage of total "comprehensives":
I have to be 100% honest. I've never been a fan of using Google hits as a representation of association.Post a Comment
I think the correlation your picking up is much more simple. Being more well-known causes a candidate to get more Google hits to raise more money. Even when you limit your search to just hits that include another term like "comprehensive plan", the more well-known candidate will have more hits just because that candidate has more hits overall.
You might mitigate this problem by instead using the ratio of restricted hits (those which are reported in conjunction with another term) to unrestricted hits.
Le Chai - galerie du vin
Posts that contain Craig Depken per day for the last 90 days.
Heavy Lifting's Main Page
Money I Found Today
Heavy Lifting - Firehose style (56k warning)
- Who is the most "comprehensive" candidate?
Modified maystar design
powered by blogger