1.05.2009

Why Are There No Black Senators?

When the House of Representatives convenes tomorrow, it will contain 39 African-American members, not including non-voting delegates in places like the Virgin Islands and the District of Columbia. This number, representing about 9 percent of the Congress, falls somewhat short of the fraction of African-Americans in the population as a whole -- a truly representative House would have about 55 black members -- but perhaps not dramatically so. The situation at first glance would appear to be much better than it was prior to 1990, when there were generally only about 20 black members in the House at any given time.

The districts these 39 Congressmen serve, however, are not very representative at all. All 39 contain a higher percentage of African-Americans than the population as a whole, ranging from Keith Ellison's district in Minneapolis, which is just barely more black than the national average, to Jesse Jackson Jr.'s on the South Side of Chicago, which is 68 percent African-American. About 64 percent of the members -- 25 of 39 -- come from districts that contain an outright black majority. The districts are also much more Democratic than the country as a whole, with an average PVI of D +25; only Sanford Bishop's district in Georgia, which has a PVI of D+2, is anywhere close to the national average.

The chart below estimates the percentage chance that the Representative in a given Congressional District is black given the African-American population in that district, as based on a logistic regression. The chances of having a black Representative are virtually nil until the African-American share of the population hits 25 percent, at which time it begins to accelerate rapidly until the black population hits 60 percent, after which point having a black congressman is virtually certain.



The problem with this is that, while there are a decent number of Congressional Districts that have African-American populations of 25 percent or more, only six states do, and five of the six are culturally conservative areas in the Deep South. Suppose that we treat each state as though it were a Congressional District and evaluate its chances of having a black congressman based on two factors: its African-American population and its Partisan Voting Index.

State          Black    PVI    Prob
------------------------------------
Maryland 28.9 D +9 15.2%
Mississippi 37.4 R +8 9.0%
Louisiana 31.6 R +6 5.6%
Georgia 29.8 R +6 4.3%
Delaware 20.7 D +7 4.3%
New York 15.5 D +15 3.9%
South Carolina 28.6 R +7 3.3%
Alabama 26.3 R +9 2.1%
Illinois 14.8 D +7 1.5%
North Carolina 21.4 R +5 1.5%
New Jersey 13.6 D +8 1.5%
Virginia 19.6 R +3 1.4%
Michigan 14.1 D +4 1.1%
Florida 15.4 D +1 1.0%
Tennessee 16.8 R +3 0.8%
Arkansas 15.6 R +3 0.7%
Connecticut 9.5 D +9 0.6%
Massachusetts 6.1 D +14 0.5%
If the states were Congressional Districts, then the most likely one to elect a black Representative would be Maryland, which nevertheless has only a 15 percent chance of doing so. All other states are below 10 percent, and in most cases, the probabilities are very small indeed.

Of course, the states are effectively big Congressional Districts for purposes of electing senators and governors. Suppose you added up the probabilities of each state electing a black congressman, and then multiplied it by two since each state gets to elect two senators. How many black senators would you expect? You'd expect there to be about one -- or more precisely, 1.2. And you'd need to halve that number to estimate the expected number of black governors, which would be 0.6.

If one looks at the composition of the House of Representatives, then, one shouldn't be surprised that there are so few black senators and black governors, because states are far more heterogeneous (racially and otherwise) than individual Congressional Districts, and African-Americans are by and large not getting elected to the House outside of a certain number of highly black, largely homogeneous, and often heavily gerrymandered Congressional Districts in the urban North and the rural South.

The question, of course, is why African-Americans aren't getting elected in these districts. Racism is undoubtedly part of the answer, but it probably can't be a complete one now that the country has just elected Barack Obama to the White House.

It would be helpful to know where in the chain the link has been broken. Are African-Americans declining to become candidates in swing districts? Are they becoming candidates, but losing their party's nomination? Or are they winning the nomination, but losing in the general election? I don't have this sort of information handy, and so I cannot say for sure.

I suspect that a lot of the problem, however, is that as Congressional Districts have become more and more gerrymandered, leading to the creation of more and more majority-minority districts following the 1980 and 1990 censuses, the black political apparatus has become more and more 'ghettoized'. Black candidates have not had to develop a message that appeals to white voters, because most of them don't have very many white voters in their districts (about half the nation's African-American population is limited to the 60 blackest Congressional Districts). Nor do they have very many conservative voters in their districts, and so they have not had to develop a message that appeals to conservatives, even though the black population itself is far more diverse in its political views than is generally acknowledged.

Because they are not very representative of their states as a whole, moreover, these districts are also not likely to be very good launching pads for ascension to the Senate or to the governor's mansion. Do I think Jesse Jackson Jr. would have some trouble winning statewide office? I do -- but I also think that Pete Stark, who lives in a mostly white and Asian but extremely liberal district in the Bay Area, would have trouble becoming a senator in California.

Conversely, of course, the majority-minority districts drain black voters from surrounding districts, and so white politicians have not had to develop messages that appeal to black voters. This may be particularly problematic for Republicans, who went from winning 16-18 percent of the black vote for the Presidency in the 1970s to only about half of that now.

Democrats ought to be mindful of these things when redistricting occurs again after 2010, aggressively challenging Republicans on both the wisdom and the legality of creating ghettoized Congressional Districts. Majority-minority districts harm Democrats by creating surplus Democratic votes, and in the long run, they probably hurt African-Americans too.

132 comments

Brad said...

Redisticting in red states is just as important, if not moreso. The TX redistricting process has caused under-representation of minorities in TX for decades.

andrew said...

Redistricting is a disease to our democracy. Some really smart minds need to find a solution to this vexing problem. Perhaps some sort of non-partisan commission? Computer-generated, random districts?

Brad said...

Cluster bombs in high population areas full of kids. Nice, or incredibly cruel.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/04/israel-cluster-bombs/

Julian said...

In the end, I agree with your analysis on majority-minority districts, but can we please not blame "ghetto" Black members of Congress for the effects of tribal voting among Whites? The issues of the day simply aren't polarizing enough to explain tribal voting, and I think that upsets some (White) people. Barack Obama worked very hard to convince people that he wasn't (actually) Black, but his policies aren't that much different from Jesse Jackson Jr.'s.

And, in the name of some modicum of due respect, can you please refrain from disparaging Black members of Congress by calling them "ghetto"? I don't think you would say Richard Shelby wins because he's a redneck.

STepper said...

This was a great analysis. Not counterintuitive, but it does explain the problem.

I remember voting for Tom Bradley for Governor and along with most other people I was shocked about the result when an underqualified politically inept Rethuglican beat him. It was something we liberals all chalked up to the racism of our society at the time. Of course, only a few years later we elected two liberal Jewish women to the US Senate in the same general election.

While we've made great strides with BHO, it will take another 2 or 3 generations for our society to become color blind and gender blind. And it will take 7 or 8 more generations in the South.

liberal_defender_of_freedom said...

It's going to take at least another generation of prominent African Americans entering the workforce to look to when it comes to financial and political backing. Most everything still works on the good ole boys network. Until there's more African Americans in those networks, they won't find enough of the backing to go statewide unless, of course, they are an exceptional candidate and have the presentation of Obama.

These things take time. I would assume in another 40-50 years when these newer generations are at their peak in the workforce, a true diversity in the Senate will exist.

Dave Barnes said...

Trenchant analysis as usual.

John said...

An important thing to look at, however, is how many African-Americans hold a state-wide office. If they can win state-wide offices below Governor or Senator, could they not win either of those two positions?

Anthony Palmer said...

Hi Mr. Silver. Long time reader, first time poster.

Gerrymandered districts are hurting Blacks and Republicans at the same time. Republican congressional candidates don't have to worry about making inroads with Black voters because they have marginal numbers in their districts. Likewise, Black (Democratic) congressional candidates can continue to talk about issues like reparations and easily bandy about charges of racism because they are preaching to a choir that is made up of people like them.

This leads to polarization and a sense of mistrust between the two groups. That probably benefits Republicans at the presidential level, especially in Southern states because a lot of districts there consist of one or two majority-Black districts and a bunch of other overwhelmingly conservative and overwhelmingly White districts.

This results in a lot of Whites thinking that most Black politicians are like Jesse Jackson Jr. or Jim Clyburn while a lot of Blacks think White politicians are racially insensitive.

I think Republican JC Watts of Oklahoma (now retired) would be a good case study because he found a way to repeatedly get elected regardless of race. I actually think he'd have a better chance of being elected as a senator than Jesse Jackson Jr.

http://www.theseventen.com

mhz said...

Thanks for the link to "Pete" Stark. Is he truly the only "out" atheist in the entire congress? WOW-

Meatless said...
This post has been removed by the author.
syphax said...

I know he's not a Senator, but I was surprised to see that this article didn't even mention MA governor Deval Patrick...

Meatless said...

Julian: He was using ghetto in the correct, formal sense (a quarter of a city in which members of a minority group live especially because of social, legal, or economic pressure, or a situation that resembles stuff, from merriam-webster). Not in the urban dictionary sense.

Meatless said...

Resembles such, not stuff. Bleh, I wish you could edit comments.

Rudy said...

Such analysis highlights the counterproductivity of tribal voting, and why it persists once it's engrained. Any candidate who positions such that they are viewed as the "black" candidate or the "white" candidate automatically is alienated from trust within other communities for fear of being an unprincipled representative beyond racially-biased positions. Only candidates not pandering to the lowest common denominator can succeed in attracting votes among all tribes.

Most elected black House members have been elected just this way, essentially terminating their ability to transcend race-based politics in an effort to appeal to a necessarily broader swath of voters in a Senatorial election.

George said...

Suppose you added up the probabilities of each state electing a black congressman, and then multiplied it by two since each state gets to elect two senators.

Then I would fail at stats! You can't just add probabilities. If you assume that the probabilities are independent (which is not totally unreasonable), then the probability of no state electing a black senator is equal to the product of the probability of each state not electing a black senator.

[(1-.152)*(1-.09)*...(1-.005)]^2

I squared the entire expression since each state elects two senators.

This gives a ~30% probability of no state electing a black senator.

How good a fit was your regression?

stanleys said...

would be curious, through a census block analysis, to see to what degree majority black districts are gerrymandered (non-geographically compact) and to what degree based on community housing patterns (people choosing to live with others of similar background). I would guess many of the urban district are the latter.

Iowa has a civil commission draw up districts, by law geographically compact; the plan then is voted up or down by the legislature. If the lawmakers vote it down, then the commission draws up a second plan for submission. I believe it's never gone to the third stage where politicians get more involved. Too bad all states don't use similar procedures.

Alex S. said...

Very, very interesting.
Indeed, there are several aspects of the political system that distort a true representation of the population. The districts are one of them. Parties are another. There are zero black republican congressmen at the moment. I believe that the chance of seeing a black republican senator in the next 30 years is close to zero. The partisan index might even be more important than the percentage of blacks. Only the Democrats account for the almost representative number of blacks in the House. The difference is simply staggering.
But there is another problem. Black people are only part of the political process since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There is a whole lot of organizational ground between the black community and the "white" political system. Blacks are not part of the political aristocracy that gives Caroline Kennedy and Jeb Bush their seats. Of course, the majority of senators still got their seats on their own merit, but the small percentage of "inherited" seats is non existent for blacks.
Jesse Jackson Jr. came close to be the first "aristocratically" elected Senator, because his father has been a member of the Democratic Party for decades, but there was a risk associated with him, even before he was candidate nr. 5 (and Nate thinks so, too). Well, that risk was his name and his skin-color, and his name was a risk because his father is a black civil rights leader, and racists don't like that... Jesse Jackson Jr. was not the safest choice because of (racism)².
Now, you could say that such a network of power is not desirable at all, but that is not my point, th epoint is that the lack of this network decreases the chance of a black senator even more than the partisan index already does. And there is not the chance for such a network because of racism.
However, the election of Barack Obama will mark an endpoint to the Civil Rights movement. There is no region in the country that has not been governed by a black man now. The backlash potential against upcoming black candidates will be smaller because the strength of racist sentiments along the lines of "enough is enough" or "they are going where they don't belong" will be much weaker.

mhz said...

@julian and Rudy-

What do you mean by tribal voting? Are you referring to the "religious right", Kennedy worship, Catholic pro-life voters, NRA voters all of the above? Is there a good link for the history of that term?



My best memory of door knocking for the Obama campaign was when a woman said "I am sorry, I am sorry, but I vote pro-life, I am sorry". She sounded so deeply torn and sad. I gave her a big smile and said, "that is ok you should vote your conscious- have a great day." She smiled back. A young boy a block away told me that Obama was going to take all our guns away- I said "no he isn't against hunting guns, he just wants to make sure that gangsters and mobsters don't have guns to hurt people." The boy looked at me somewhat relieved and said "Really?" his friend looked at him and said "yeah-that's right". I think these some of these people might be able to find a good seat at Obama's table in the next few years.

kevin626 said...

Anyone read this mess of an article in the WSJ talking about the Minnesota senate race. Basically accuses the secretary of state of stealing the election and that Franken is illegitimate without any real evidence.

Link - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123111967642552909.html

He claims that the rulings have been inconsistent. Except they have been VERY consistent. All the rulings so far have been on the side of counting more votes then discounting votes on technicalities.

There is also this quote, "This helps explain why more than 25 precincts now have more ballots than voters who signed in to vote." Is this true?

Juris said...

Hmmm. Maybe absentee voters didn't sign in? Sounds like a statement totally out of context.

MBR said...

It's pretty important to realize what Nate is actually saying when he is using the word "ghetto" and "ghettoized."

mhz said...

@kevin626-

I cannot find an author on that piece. Is that now the postion of the WSJ- They use the royal "we"

"But we can't recall a similar recount involving optical scanning machines that has changed so many votes, and in which nearly every crucial decision worked to the advantage of the same candidate."

Did they even try?

Scott D said...

Very interesting analysis, Nate. Your statistics explain the fact that there are so few black Senators, but obviously the situation is more complicated (as you acknowledge). Can you explain, for example, why Illinois has elected more black Senators than Maryland?

Rudy said...

@ mhz,

Yes, it is a catch-all for all types of identity-issue voters. Blacks comprise the biggest block. I don't know epidemiology of the term, but it is fairly common. Most commonly associated with lock-step voters following dictates by tribal leaders. You can find many, many references via search engines.

Geoff said...

Very interesting analysis.

There have been states that have experimented with non-partisan redistricting committees, but it seems to me that a big part of the problem is the whole idea of having geographical districts in the first place. It seems that these inevitably lead to gerrymandering or rotten boroughs.

Especially at the statewide level, it makes little sense to have two chambers that essentially duplicate each other (although some states, like Nebraska, and every single Canadian province do make do with just a single chamber). Why not try mixing things up at the state level with some kind of proportional representation system in one chamber (retaining districts in the other so people can have "their" representative)?

Let some of the third parties in with a few seats and make them have to be responsive. And create more politicians that have to appeal statewide instead of just to narrowly parochial (or even "ghettoized") concerns.

Samuli Lintula said...

If you want to have minorities (or "minorities" in sociological sense, such as women) and you want to stop gerrymandering, you will have to get rid off simple plurality/first past the post/winner-takes-all election system and move to proportional elections with more than one member elected per constituency.

Christopher said...

And it will take 7 or 8 more generations in the South.

Big deal? In the South, 7 or 8 generations is what, 50, 60 years?

JHS said...

I have not kept up with Voting Rights Act jurisprudence or with litigation following the 2000 census. But as of the 1980 and 1990 redistrictings, it was the consistent position of the Justice Department, in those areas where Justice Department approval was necessary, that the creation of majority-minority districts was a good thing, and required under the VRA. For just the reasons Nate gives, these positions were fairly popular with Republicans, who did not much mind concentrating predictable Democratic voters into a singe congressional district, leaving surrounding districts either majority Republican or balanced and winnable by Republicans. In states where Democrats were in control of the redistricting process, there was a strange-bedfellows alliance among the NAACP Inc. Fund, MALDEF, and the Republican Party to litigate to force creation of majority-minority districts. Sometimes these cases had nothing at all to do with race on their surface (and of course they NEVER have anything to do with partisan politics on their surface, perish the thought!). See the New Jersey case on the 1980 redistricting, decided by the Supreme Court in 1984, Karcher v. Daggett, for an example.

holy crapo said...

Burris is black and Obama doesn't want him.

Eric said...

@George

Adding probabilities is the correct way to find expected value in this case, which Nate very clearly stated is what he was doing.

Eru said...
This post has been removed by the author.
holy crapo said...

Seriously why would a black guy want to become a senator - so he can be the odd one out?

Eru said...

It's almost as if the purpose of the United States congress is give privileged white males power over everyone else, thus preserving the class divide that has existed since the founding of the colonies.

holy crapo said...

It's like why doesn't fivethirtyetc.com have a black contributor. Has Nate has created a little white nerd-ghetto for himself and 'minorities' can't get in - try as they might!

Juris said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Juris said...

Another approach is to look at political careers more broadly. Following up on the classic study "Ambition and Politics" by Joseph Schlesinger, it may be useful to look at the typical "penultimate office" of those (black, white, Hispanic) who both run for the Senate or who get elected to the Senate.

Where do Senators come from -- what was their previous office or career post? What might make them a "high quality" candidate for the U.S. Senate?

I would surmise that successful Senate candidates most often have a strong base and experience as a Congressman. Alternatively, I would guess that next most often they have held a statewide office of some kind.

In any case, they must first of all win a party primary nomination to be able to run at all.

I suspect that term limits are not helping anybody jump from state legislative office -- even state legislative leadership -- directly to the Senate, Barack Obama being an exceotion.

Somebody must have done an analysis of the career paths (and other characteristics) of those who win Senate seats. Somebody should look at how many African Americans and Hispanics (since they, too, are very underrepresented in the Senate) reach statewide elected offices ("penultimate offices" for the Senate, I would argue) that give them wider visibility and experience as grounding for a Senate run. How many served as governor (not many), lieutenant governor, secretary of state, etc.?

Anybody here know this literature?

mhz said...
This post has been removed by the author.
nkpolitics1279 said...

Regarding Black US Senators.

Blue States that have Black US House Members and Statewide Elected officials.

California
1)Barbara Lee- is too radical.
2)Diane Watson- too old
3)Maxine Waters- too old-too radical.
4)Laura Richardson- too inexperienced.

Illinios
1)Jesse White- too old
2)Bobby Rush- too radical
3)Jesse Jackson Jr- Strong pick for US Senate if he can seperate himself from his Father.
4)Danny Davis- too controversial.

Maryland
1)Anthony Brown- Strong candidate for US Senate.- Ivy League Graduate- Military veteran.
2)Donna Edwards- too unknown.
3)Elijah Cummings- too urban.
4)Albert Wynn- can win the general election if he can make it out in the primary.
5)Kweisi Mfume- too radical.

Massachusetts
1)Deval Patrick- won Statewide Office in the past.

Michigan
1)Caroline Cheeks Kilpatrick- Her son is a liability- too urban.
2)John Conyers- Too Old- Too Radical.

Minnesota
1)Keith Ellison- too radical.

New Jersey
1)Donald Payne- too old- too urban.

New York
1)Gregory Meeks- decent candidate for Statewide office.
2)Ed Towns- too old
3)Yvette Clarke- too unknown.
4)Charlie Rangel- too old-controversial.

Pennsylvania
1)Chakka Fattah- too urban.

Wisconsin
1)Gwen Moore- too urban.

mhz said...
This post has been removed by the author.
loner said...

Nate's history is insufficient and I don't have the time to recount everything now. The implementation of both Baker vs. Carr, decided in 1962, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 led, eventually, to an increase in African-American elected officials at the local and state level. Congressional districts are redrawn at least once every ten years and in a great many states the state legislatures (among others) have to approve them. As African-American voters became very reliable Democratic Party voters there were vying party interests tied into how areas with large African-American populations were redistricted. Initially, they were divided up to maximize the number of districts Democrats could reasonably be expected to win. As African-American political power grew (and as Republicans looked for ways to win the House) coalitions came into being that worked to increase African-American and Republican representation by keeping such areas as unified as possible.

States do not have movable boundaries, but many do now have a good and growing number of African-American public officials with varying ambitions and talents who will, probably, to a greater and greater degree as time passes compete successfully for elected statewide office.

mhz said...

@eric-

Where did Nate get his %chance in the graph and the %probabilities in the table. It is not that obvious to me.

For example where does the 0.5% probability of a AA Senator from MA come from?

Brooke/All MA Senators?

Richard Gadsden said...

The United States is not the only country that divides itself up into approximately-equal districts for election purposes.

Canadian ridings and British constituencies serve exactly the same purpose and the boundary systems for both of those are hugely less controversial than the US congressional districts.

Perhaps you could have a look at how the Boundary Commission for England (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pbc/default.asp) operates, just to contrast with the US practice. We have four such commissions - one each for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The English commission is by far the biggest and has many more examples than either of the other two - the only situation that England does not have is a very isolated territory (as Scotland does have in respect of its Western and Northern Isles).

Note that the VRA would probably have to be amended to allow for neutral redistricting.

Our (UK) rules are different from the US rules anyway. Here are the rules for the UK Boundary Commission:

1.
(1) The number of constituencies in Great Britain shall not be substantially greater or
less than 613.
(2) – repealed by the Scotland Act 1988.
(3) The number of constituencies in Wales shall not be less than 35.
(4) The number of constituencies in Northern Ireland shall not be greater than 18 or
less than 16, and shall be 17 unless it appears to the Boundary Commission for
Northern Ireland that Northern Ireland should for the time being be divided into 16 or
(as the case may be) into 18 constituencies.
2. Every constituency shall return a single member.
3. There shall continue to be a constituency which shall include the whole of the City of
London and the name of which shall refer to the City of London.
3A A constituency which includes the Orkney Islands or the Shetland Islands shall not
include the whole or any part of a local government area other than the Orkney Islands
and the Shetland Islands.
4. (1) So far as is practicable having regard to rules 1 to 3A-
(a) in England and Wales,-
(i) no county or any part of a county shall be included in a constituency
which includes the whole or part of any other county or the whole or part of
a London borough,
(ii) no London borough or any part of a London borough shall be
included in a constituency which includes the whole or part of any other
London borough,
(b) in Scotland, regard shall be had to the boundaries of local authority areas,
(c) in Northern Ireland, no ward shall be included partly in one constituency and
partly in another.
.
2
(1A) In sub-paragraph (1)(a) above “county” means in relation to Wales, a preserved
county (as defined by section 64 of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994).
(2) In sub-paragraph (1)(b) above "area” and "local authority" have the same meanings
as in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
5.
The electorate of any constituency shall be as near the electoral quota as is practicable
having regard to rules 1 to 4; and a Boundary Commission may depart from the strict
application of rule 4 if it appears to them that a departure is desirable to avoid an
excessive disparity between the electorate of any constituency and the electoral quota,
or between the electorate of any constituency and that of neighbouring constituencies
in the part of the United Kingdom with which they are concerned.
6. A Boundary Commission may depart from the strict application of rules 4 and 5 if
special geographical considerations, including in particular the size, shape and
accessibility of a constituency, appear to them to render departure desirable.

Kennyb said...

Coleman lost his appeal to get the Canvassing Board to count absentee ballots that were ruled illegal by certain (Republican) counties:

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/37093114.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUac8HEaDiaMDCinchO7DU

sugerfunk said...

I think a lot of this effect also has to do with racial attitudes that were more prevalent in the past and our tendency to continue electing incumbents indefinitely. Even in the mid-term election of 2006, when there was a drastic reshuffling of the Congress, 79% of incumbent Senators retained their seats.

As someone mentioned above, many African-Americans have won state-wide elections but not Senate seats. As more Senators retire over time, I would expect the racial makeup of the Senate to change.

nikip5555 said...

Nate, you didn't REALLY multiply by two the probability of a state electing a single black senator because the state gets to elect two senators?? The two elections are two separate trials of the same experiment -- so the probabilities don't just add! I am sure you meant something else besides "multiply by two" (and I'm sure you didn't literally "add" the probabilities from each state!). I know you don't want or need to get too technical in your blog posts, but perhaps a broader term like "combine the probabilities" would be better here...

On topic: there was a time not too long ago when the only way to get a black politician elected at all was to gerrymander to create majority-minority districts. Without these districts, the minority population would get outvoted every time everywhere and there would be exactly zero African-Americans in the House (or wherever).

Thinking bigger, this points to the advantages of a parliamentary system, under which, if I were (hypothetically speaking) a liberal in a largely conservative area, I could still cast my vote for a (hypothetical) Liberal Party and have that vote be useful in getting my party seats. In contrast, under our current US system, my vote is basically useless because I will never get 50% of my conservative neighbors to support a liberal candidate; hence I will never elect a representative who actually represents my views. I only get representation indirectly, because of the existence of districts such as Dennis Kucinich's, which have a high enough concentration of liberals to actually send one to Congress.

In short, majority-minority districts are how the U.S. compensates for the defects of a purely geographic system to give minorities something approximating the representation they would have under a multi-party parliamentary system. I agree that this method is very flawed, but I doubt it will change any time soon.

Statler N Waldorf said...

America is rapidly devolving into less a melting pot and more of a fruit salad.

Our neighborhoods were, oddly, less homogeneous before WW2. With a few exceptions, most places were sorta mixed with regard to income and therefore race and political opinion, but this changed as a result of well-intended housing projects, 'urban renewal', redlining, blockbusting, and a host of other means of separating the haves from the have nots, sometimes intentionally, sometimes not. Starting right around 1980, it looks to me like politics itself began to get compartmentalized as well, as the more civil debates of the Carter, Ford, and even Nixon era disappeared in favor of character assassination, divisive electioneering, and Lee Atwater's road to hell. The abandonment of the Fairness Doctrine promoted the compartmentalization of media, too. There had always been the party organ newspapers, but they were small in circulation, and the major press and the airwaves at least pretended to present both ends of the argument before. Now, there's no such pretension. And people now move to places where they will be around people who agree with them politically, geographically dividing us into Red and Blue patches, Chocolate Cities and Vanilla Suburbs, Gay districts and the rest of town.

So long as we do, what Nate has described here will continue to happen. The more trapped we are in our echo chambers, where all we see and all we hear is the yes men telling us our one-sided perspective is accurate, the less developed our positions become, and the harder they are to sell to the state or country as a whole. What sells in New Orleans is shunned in Shreveport, because nobody in Shreveport looks like anybody in New Orleans anymore.

What we have here is .... failure to communicate.

Dave Dial said...

Nate, you crack me up. Great analysis yet again. From Poblano to "Nate Silver".

I don't comment much, but I check your blog all the time.

Keep up the great work.

ecarlson said...

It should be noted that Nate did the correct thing in adding probabilities. The sum of the probabilities will give you the expected number of African American senators.

If we then use a Poisson distribution, we can get the probability of there being any number N of African-American senators. Though this doesn't work perfectly, it should work pretty well in this case.

If you expect to have mu black senators, the probability of having exactly zero is then e^-mu, where e is the base of the natural logarithm. In particular, if you expect to have 1.2 black senators, the probability of having zero would be about 30%, while the probability of having one is about 36%.

I can't tell how many black Senators we currently have, since I'm not sure the new Senate has been counted, and I'm not sure whether to count Burris or not. As far as I can tell, Blagojevich has the sole authority to appoint Burris, and the fact that the SoS refuses to sign it doesn't really affect that. But I'm still confused.

Douglas said...

Julian: he wasn't using the word "ghetto" as a black counterpart to the word "redneck." he was using it to refer to the process of balkanization. although it often has different meaning in colloquial speak, "ghetto" means simply an area, typically urban, that is heavily populated by members of a minority group.

i believe nate was being sensitive to the fact that the word is often used [incorrectly] to refer to urban, black culture, which is probably why he surrounded it by quotations. "balkanized" might have been a better word choice, but the word he chose was perfectly correct.

muddletoes said...

You rock, Nate. I've never seen this sort of analysis before, and it makes a lot of sense.

What's your take of Value At Risk accounting? That's a hot topic right now.

STepper said...

Statler - Please be careful about your use of the words "fruit salad." It will give DCM endless possibilities to change the topic.

J said...

I remember hearing a discussion on NPR among African-Americans about the importance of Obama's victory for other black politicians (or would-be black politicians), and they spoke of how many African-Americans decide against running for statewide office believing that they're unlikely to win, and instead focus on urban areas. Obama's victories in largely white states, they said, could change some of that calculus.

juvanya said...

I've been thinking about this as to why there are less females and dark-skinned individuals (I abhor terms like AA or Black that divide us arbitrarily by skin color). You have worked it out. Your strong suit is definitely math, while you are weaker in the general political reporting.

The solution to gerrymandering is quite simple: proportional representation. Essentially, seats are doled out based on how well a party does. It will simulate much greater turnout and more parties (which we really need). The democratic socialists across the country can pool their votes and be properly represented. Libertarians, Greens, and also Christians (for better or worse) would elect members.

The only people opposed to this are those who like the power they currently have.

mhz said...

Why are so many people offering Julian a definition of ghetto- Why would you assume that s/he does not understand that the word is used in multiple ways? I do not find it remarkable or unreasonable that someone could be concerned by a correct usage of a word with a very long and often horrific history. I think it is a useful request to ask that we find language that moves us forward rather than holds us back.

Statler N Waldorf said...

ST,

Well, first of all, I am a fruit, so I get to use the term with impunity.

Secondly, have you ever looked at a fruit salad? The grapes are all off in one corner, the pineapple slices in another, the peaches all clump in one spot, it's all very self-segregated.

Much like America.

Doverspa said...

Nate, you should really read about the Voting Rights Act and its effect on gerrymandering. I have similar concerns about the effect of racial gerrymandering, but it is required by the Voting Rights Act.

The VRA requires maximizing the number of ensured black congressmen rather than maximizing the number of possible black congressmen. So instead of making Congressmen appeal to both urban blacks and suburban whites, we get urban districts separated from suburban ones.

It's also not just a Southern thing. Look at Detroit, Philly, or any other major city and you see the same pattern in the post-VRA era.

It is a system that in the 80s and 90s the Rs and black Ds joined to support. You usually get one 90-10 D district and 3 60-40 R districts in a place like Charlotte or Richmond. Over time, the Ds have become competitive in some of those suburban areas (Philly, Chicago, NYC) but not all (Dallas, Houston, Orlando, Oklahoma City).

I think your overall analysis is quite interesting and I hope more Ds start to question the usefulness of the current VRA setup that creates racial separation in elections. And I would highly recommend you do some background research on the VRA to see how it still affects these decisions. It will help you appreciate the difficulty in changing the system, because really you have to be ready to vote against the VRA renewal in 25 years if you are going to have any negotiating power. And I don't know any Ds who are willing to even act like they will do so.

STepper said...

Statler - You are not a fruit, nor a nut. (And I hasten to add, neither am I a flake although I live on the left coast.)

More importantly, my fruit salads were more homogenated, have all turned into fruitcakes and are the best re-gifts I can find every holiday season. I have one that my law partner and I have given to each other since 1975. I got it back last month and it is now serving (once again) as a door stop.)

Goo thing your article disn't mention any ethnic neighborhoods or that would have given Brad another entree into something irrelevant.

Tim Roll-Pickering said...

Just to add to Richard Gadsden's post, there are no serious accusations of gerrymandering in the UK. There is an issue about malapportionment but it's really down to differential turnout in urban and suburban/rural areas and nothing partisan in the "redistricting" itself.

And we also have a growing number of non-white MPs including several who sit for overwhelmingly white constituencies and/or are in the mainstream of their parties, many of whom would be entirely credible candidates in future leadership elections. The British parliamentary system makes it harder for a person to go from being utterly unknown to Prime Minister in just four years, Obama-style, but we don't have the political ghettoisation effect.

nkpolitics1279 said...

After Carol Mosely Braun(D-IL) was elected in 1992.

We had black US Senate candidates in
1)Missouri-1994(US Rep Alan Wheat)ran against ex Governor John Ashcroft for the open seat vacated by John Danforth- Ashcroft creamed Wheat by a 60-35 percent margin - This was an during the 94 revolution.

2)Washington- 1994(Seattle Mayor Ron Sims)ran against Republican incumbent Slade Gorton who was a weak incumbent.

1996-
1)North Carolina- Former Charlotte Mayor Harvey Gantt lost to Jesse Helms.

When Mosely Braun lost in 1998.

2000-
When Paul Coverdell(R-GA)- Democratic Governor Roy Barnes could have appointed Sanford Bishop to the Coverdell seat instead of Zell Miller.
Bishop would have faced wingnut US Congressmans like (Jack Kingston,Mac Collins,Bob Barr,and Saxby Chambliss). Bishop would have won the 2000 Special Election. won re-election in 2004.

In 2002-
Texas- Ron Kirk ran against John Cornyn(R)for the open seat vacated by Phil Gramm.

In 2004-
In addition o Barack Obama-IL
Georgia- US Rep Denise Majette was a one term US Representitive running against a seasoned US Representative Johnny Isakson who was considered a moderate Conservative.

In 2006-
Tennessee- Ford narrow lost to Corker- for an open seat vacated by Bill Frist.

Maryland- Kweisi Mfume lost the Democratic nomination to Ben Cardin because of the issue of electable plus Republicans nominated the Black LT GOvernor Michael Steele. Had Albert Wynn- the Black Moderate DLC US Congressman from PG County ran in 2006- He would defeated Steele in the General Election.

2008.

Dan_L said...

Obama won the Senate and the White House in large part because he has transcended race. He did not run as "the black" candidate -- and that is key for a person of African descent to win when the electorate is predominantly white. Racism, sorry to say, is alive and well throughout the nation as is its close cousin racial bigotry upon which the Republican Party has built itself since the mid-1960s. (And there's no reason to expect racism and racial bigotry to disappear in our lifetimes -- it takes more than 50 years of half-hearted civil rights laws to undo the damage wrought by the first 300 years of "American" civilization on this continent. Change really is incremental.)

The Republicans have been very successful at defining black Democratic candidates as the "black" candidate in statewide elections, dooming them to defeat, often narrow defeat.

The number of Congresspeople of African descent would increase substantially if more Congressional districts were drawn with African-Americans as the swing vote rather than the gerrymandering to produce majority-minority districts. But for too many black politicians (who as a group as no different than white politicians) that would mean competing against a larger field of potential candidates, including folks who are not members of a minority group. They don't want to take that risk (just like the white politicians don't want to take any risks).

Statler N Waldorf said...

well, stepper, the only thing I've eaten today is oatmeal with some nuts, seeds, and fruit in it" Given that you are what you eat, and you have just eliminated fruit and nuts from the equation, that leaves seeds or oats. I've never really thought of myself as a seedy character, so you have successfully rendered me an oat. I shall not go and dress like the guy on the Quaker oats container.

Have you considered that that fruitcake could have another use? Have it run for public office. Try California Governator. Arnie's leaving soon, and so far Cali has elected fruitcakes like Reagan and Nixon, so I think it stands a good chance of winning ss long as you run it as a Republican.

Opus 132 said...

Obama selects Leon Panetta to head the C.I.A.

Somewhat surprising.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/panetta-to-be-named-cia-director/?pagemode=print

Fedor Karpelevitch said...

The core problem is the system single-member districts itself. It will always have trouble achieving good representation no matter how you slice it. The only real answer is multi-member proportional representation system such as STV-PR.

joel said...

Md would elect a black senator if we could get Mikulski to ever retire. I don`t think anyone has ever gotten over 40% of the vote against her.
The lt. gov Anthony Brown could easily be elected, possibly Donna Edwards because she represents the most populated area of the state and electing a black woman is a plus.
I`m sure Mikulski will go for another term so I guess we`ll have
to wait.
If Steele ever wants to get elected statewide he needs to become a democrat!

Nardwilly said...

Redistricting is a disease to our democracy. Some really smart minds need to find a solution to this vexing problem. Perhaps some sort of non-partisan commission? Computer-generated, random districts?

Lani Guiner, a Clinton Justice DEpartment nominee, developed an ingenious at large plan. She was condemned for it and otherthings. Her plan would ahve elected all congressman at large, with ecah person being able to vote ofr each seat in the state. One person could use all their votes of Jesse jackson, another on Danny Davis. I could give half my votes to Davis and half to Rahm. She postulated the state reps would be more diverse and more representative of the entire stste.

TomH said...

Steele almost became a black Senator in 06, losing 55-44; which for GOPer, in MD, is a strong run! Agree that when Mikulski (FINALLY!!!) goes, MD is ripe for a center-left black Senator, as Nate's analysis shows.

Opus 132 said...

THE FUN (?) BEGINS

"NY Times,January 6, 2009

Defiant Burris Heads to Washington to Claim Senate Seat

By KAREN ANN CULLOTTA and MONICA DAVEY
CHICAGO — Even as Senate leaders continued to challenge his appointment to the seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama, Roland W. Burris headed to Washington on Monday, setting the stage for a public showdown on Capitol Hill.

In a news conference at Midway airport in Chicago before his scheduled 2:20 p.m. flight to Baltimore, a defiant Mr. Burris told reporters that he was not concerned about the fact that the Illinois secretary of state, Jesse White, has rejected the paperwork that would officially send Mr. Burris to the Senate.

“Why don’t you all understand that what has been done here is legal?” he said. “I am the junior senator from Illinois, and I wish my colleagues in the press would recognize that.”

He later added, “This is all politics and theater, but I am the junior senator according to every law book in the nation.”

Senate leaders have repeatedly said that they intend to block Mr. Burris from joining the chamber, given his appointment last week by this state’s embattled governor, Rod R. Blagojevich. Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, has said that the Senate has the legal right to bar Mr. Burris from the new session, which begins Tuesday. And CNN reported Monday that an aide to Nancy Erickson, the secretary of the United States Senate, said that Ms. Erickson had rejected Mr. Burris’s certificate of appointment because, though it was signed by Mr. Blagojevich, it was not cosigned by Mr. White, as the Senate’s rules require."

Opus 132 said...

Burris made a mistake here.He should have waited until his Writ of Mandamus was granted,forcing White to sign the Certification.He would have been in a stronger position.

fred said...

WOOHOO!!!!

"AP NewsAlert

Minn. board certifies results showing Democrat Al Franken winning Senate recount

Staff
AP News

Jan 05, 2009 15:39 EST

Minn. board certifies results showing Democrat Al Franken winning Senate recount.
"

fred said...

Opus-

I think part of it is just to create more pressure on Reid. He will get his Writ, and the pressure will go up ANOTHER notch then.

Anyone know when the IL SC is taking this issue up?

Opus 132 said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Linden said...

Mule Rider...

You may wish to read the rest of the post.

GoldenAh said...

I'm surprised money (and black businesses) have been left off of the table here. Overall, the black community is business anemic. There are not enough and should be more.

However, Obama was able to tap into his (black post-Civil Rights generation) Ivy League network composed of multi-millionaires, plus one black billionaire. Guess where a lot of them live?

The Senate has lost two of its "poorest" members to the Executive Branch. It takes being a multi-millionaire and/or excellent media (PR) to make a decent run.

Plus a lot of these old bastards stay in office forever. There should be term limits for Senators.

wv: hirdisug - here to discuss this topic.

Kennyb said...

Opus,

I found these quotes from Burris more telling about the man than those in your linked article:

"[T]he Lord put his hands on the governor and said, 'this is the person that has to go to Washington,' and that appointment is legal," Burris said to hundreds of supporters assembled at the church. "That is all there is."
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/01/05/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4699765.shtml

"We are hoping and praying that they will not be able to deny what the Lord has ordained," Burris said. "I am not hesitating. I am now the junior Senator from the state of Illinois. Some people may want to question that and that is their prerogative."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28507873/

Steve said...

Here in Texas and other states subject to the Voting Rights Act, I believe we should do the following:

-have a computer first draw up a maximum number of majority-minority districts (consisting of a contiguous cluster of precincts).

- If this number of districts exceeds the minority group's proportion of state population, then a second iteration limits the number of districts to the minority's proportionate share of total representation. The districts can be rank ordered by percentage of minority group domination, and the list gets cut off once the right number of districts is reached.

-in the remaining unmapped territory, have the computer randomly draw the correct number of remaining districts, crossing as few county lines as possible.

This serves the purpose of assisting minority representation (still necessary given minority underrepresentation), while randomizing the distribution of partisans in the remaining districts.

This objective procedure can substantially prevent the evils occasioned by gerrymandering.

AxelDC said...

It is no coincidence that states like Mississippi and Alabama with large Black populations elect racist bigots to represent them. The whites feel threatened and what to keep the "darkies" in line.

It is also no coincidence that the states with the highest black populations have the strongest history of slavery, KKK membership and white supremacy. They are the children of those who enslaved the blacks in the first place!

nkpolitics1279 said...

For a Black candidate to win a US Senate Race in Illinios.
They need to get 80% of the popular vote in IL-1,IL-2,IL-7 CD- Black Majority Congressional Districts. 75% in IL-4-CD Hispanic Majority Congressional District. 70% of the popular vote in IL-5 (Emanuel-Northern Chicago District). 65% in IL-9(Schakowsky-Northern Chicago Suburban District). 60% in IL-3(Lipinski-SW Chicago Suburban District). 55% in IL-10(Kirk's Northern Chicago Suburban District-Lake). IL-12 and IL-17 Two Democratic Districts in Downstate IL. 45% in IL-6,IL-8,IL-11,IL-13,IL-14,IL-16- Republican Districts in Chicago Suburbs and NorthWest IL. 40% in IL-15,IL-18,and IL-19- Republican Districts in Downstate IL.

They will get 55% of the popular vote State wide.

In Maryland- They need to get 75% of the popular vote in MD-4,MD-7- Black Majority district. 60% in MD-5,and MD-8- The DC Metro Area Districts- 50% in MD-2,MD-3- Baltimore Suburbs District. 35% in MD-1(Eastern Shore) and MD-6(Western MD).

They will get 55% Statewide in MD.

Kennyb said...

Here's a question: Can the Dems put up anybody decent in California for the corner office?

Meg Whitman to run for governor of CA?

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2009/01/05/daily10.html

fred said...

Meg is a repub, and was a horrible campaigner for McCain, so unless she gets an infusion of charm and wit I think she is screwed.

STepper said...

Statler - I'm afraid that ham sandwich has been indicted!

A couple of days ago, maybe on Politico, was a post by one of the columnists who was rummaging through his old paperwork. he found and was tossing out (but apparently decided to keep) some campaign poster or broadside for Obama when he was running for Senate. The columnist posted a copy of the front and back (or 2 fronts, whatever).

It's interesting to read Obama dealing with local rather than regional issues. And, just as importantly, Obama stressing issues relevant to the AA community.

Apparently this was a statewide campaign poster or broadside, but if I were not lazy I would find it and post a link to it here. it fits in pretty well with what Nate has posted above.

Ed said...

Does anyone else see that this implies blacks are racist? The fact that at 50% black population there is an 80% chance of a black representative implies that blacks vote for blacks, whilst whites will vote for other races.

STepper said...

Okay, here it is, Obama's campaign literature when he ran for Senate. This will demonstrate how hard it is for an AA to win because Obama had to run as the "black" candidate, kinda.

http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.blogspot.com/2009/01/rothenberg-archives-obama-flier-from.html

Berkeley Bear in Illinois said...

If you look at Obama's whole career (read, for example, "From Promise to Power" by the Chi Tribune's main political writer), one advantage he had in running state wide was his recognition, early on, that he needed more than just the African American vote to win anywhere. He built a multiracial, multiethnic coalition in fundraising in the State Senate, then spent nearly two years softening up the white vote in downstate Illinois when he ran for Senate. He did the same thing in places like Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania - remember how all the talking heads said people there would never go for a black candidate? It didn't happen, because Obama never let himself get sucked into to being the "black" candidate.

In fact, the only time Obama got beat in an election was against Bobby Rush, who is about as radical and unelectable state wide as can be. What people like Rush, Maxine Waters, the late Julia Carson (although her grandson seems more moderate) tend to show, in my opinion, is that people want Congresspeople who fight for narrow, community driven issues, but people like that can't transcend that baggage in a statewide race.

tray said...

"The VRA requires maximizing the number of ensured black congressmen rather than maximizing the number of possible black congressmen"

No, that's not true. Some courts have interpreted it to say that, but others haven't, and in the 2006 reauthorization, Congress did arguably amend it to mean that, but it's just as arguable that they didn't.

Michael said...

"Does anyone else see that this implies blacks are racist?"

No, Ed. What it says to me is that in black-majority districts, a majority of the Democratic candidates are black, and whoever wins the primary is virtually guaranteed to win the general election. The fact is, when a white Democrat wins the primary, such as in Memphis, s/he tends to romp in the general election in black-majority districts, too.

Katharine Smith-Warren said...

How about discussing why there are so few women and Hispanic senators?

nkpolitics1279 said...

Looking at which Blacks/Hispanics can win a US Senate race in the near future.


California-2012(Loretta Sanchez)if DiFi retires.

Maryland-2010(Anthony Brown)if Mikulski retires.

New Mexico-2012(Ben Ray Lujan)if Bingaman retires.

Ohio-2010(Michael Coleman)if Voinovich retires.

Sammy said...

All these statistics about the probability of someone black being elected somewhere are after the fact probabilities - this is only true, GIVEN HOW POLITICS USUALLY WORKS. It does not go into the reason behind the reason.

Now the real reason is that the politics in black communities is very far from the norm, so any politicisn arising there really can't go anywhere - and the politics tends to alienate him from other voters. Additionally, blacks are almost straight Democratic party line voters so there is not much of additional source of black politicians.

Also - the conclusion you have is also actually wrong. It is interesting how your statistics are disproven by reality.

According to these statistics Illinois should have only a 1.5% chance of having a black senator or Governor - or maybe 5% multiplied by 3 - and yet it happened twice - in 1992 and 2004. In 1992, Carol Mosely Braun, who came from the Chicago machine won a 3 way primary - something like taht - and then, as the Democrartuic nominee, won the state, in 2004, Barack Obama had his major opponents, both in the primary and the general election, fall away because of leaked sealed court documents from bitter divorces.

Obama himself won the Presidency by managing to shake himself loose from his previous associations. He actually was stronger in the primaries in areas with few black votwers. Actually he was strongest in areas with few and with many but not so much in between. It is possible that only Obama could have taken half and more of the black vote away from Hillary Clinton. (blacks are very "regular" voters)

The calculation misses a subtlety - that a black who can become a candidate can easily get elected from an area with a low African American population - it just doesn't happen much because - in taht case there are very few eople who might fit the definition.

(It may be happening a bit less also because there may be a more pre-selection of candidates than in the late Twentieth century.

Talking about blacks getting elected in areas with few blacks - this has happened in the past. There was a Congressman from Connecticut who was elected as a Republican.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Franks

He first won in a 3-way race then was re-elected twice and could have been elected more had he not run for the Senate against a strong incumbent - Christopher Dodd.

And of course Edward Brooke was elected to the senate as a Republican from Massachusetts in 1966 and again in 1972 when he won in the same year that Nixon lost the state.

Script Maven said...

There are two different problems here, but both are caused by the single-vote ballot.

In statewide single-winner races, single-vote elections lead to a two party duopoly with minor 3rd parties, usually producing plurality winners. A strong centrist voting system such as Approval or Range Voting would enable independent voters to show their true preferences and fall back to a compromise.

In district elections, we should consider the real intent. If we want local representation, perhaps a single winner per district isn't very fair -- one could end up with a 50% plus 1 representative, leaving 49%+ unrepresented. It would be more representative to have a multi-seat district using proportional representation (using, e.g., Single Transferable Vote) instead. If you have 5 seats per district, you would end up with at least 5/6ths of the district represented, and >17% minorities could probably gain a voice.

Pssst said...

@nkpolitics

BTW, Ron Sims has never been mayor of Seattle. He's King County Executive, though when he ran against Gorton he was on the King County Council. (Another black politician, Norm Rice, was Seattle's mayor at the time.) Also, Gorton wasn't really "a weak incumbent" in the '94 election, because there was a huge wave of support for the GOP that year. In WA, six out of the eight incumbent House Democrats were unseated, including House Speaker Tom Foley. It would have taken a miracle for Sims to beat Gorton in such an anti-Dem year.

Statler N Waldorf said...

Slade Gorton vs Skeletor


You never see them in public together....

Coincidence? I think not. They are the same man!

nkpolitics1279 said...

Thanks for the update about Ron Sims. Regarding Slade Gorton. He lost re-election in 1986 for the other Wshington US Senate Seat to Brock Adams-who was implicated in as Sexual Harrassment charges- dropped out in 1992. Gorton made a comeback in 1988- when Washington's other Republican Senator Dan Evans retired. Gorton narrowly defeated Mike Lowry who later became Governor from 1992-1996. During the 1994 Revolution Gorton defeated Sims by a 56-44 percent margin.and in 2000 He lost re-election to Maria Cantwell- a former US Congresswoman who also lost in the 1994 GOP Year.

RivierRatt said...

Kennyb,

Yiiikes...Those "God appointed me" quotes don't sound any better from Burris than they did from Dubya.

RivierRatt said...

@Katharine Smith-Warren

About women and Hispanics in the Senate: there are now more women than ever in the Senate and the House. Two decades ago, there were two female Senators. Ten years ago, we had 10. Now, there are 17.

Considering that it takes years to build up a career that culminates in the Senate, that's remarkable progress for women. Women have made similar progress in the House and in Governors' mansions; and for the first time in history, there were two women taking major roles in the '08 presidential election. Finally, once Hillary's confirmed, women will be in a three-out-of-four streak in the Secretary of State post. That ain't chump change.

As for Latinos: I believe that, except for pockets like NM and South FL, they've only been players very recently. I expect to see more Latinos in positions of power in the future (Bill Richardson's fading star notwithstanding).

Obamaalltheway said...

I am AA and am totally disgusted by Burri and the other - whaat is his name again- playing the race card. that is the reel reason why blacks have it hard to get elected. BHO won because he did not play the race card. people including myself just hate that with reasons. him saying that there are no AA senator as a reason to keep Burris is just plein wrong, i am sorry I would never vote ofr Burris and the like. that is the reason why they lose, they have to stop playing the race card, it makes them feel petty and it is embarassing to me as an African woman who has learned to work hard to earn their place in society. i don't want people to hire me to fil a "quota' I want to deserve my position not be elected or chosing because I am black. sorry burris, I don't like you for that. plus too self serving and big ego.

nkpolitics1279 said...

For Blacks to win a US Senate Race.
They need to get elected to a lower Statewide Elected office.ie Lt Governor,Attorney General. They also have to win 80% White Majority Districts that are 50% Democratic.

Statler N Waldorf said...

One-hundredth!

Pssst said...

Interesting... I'd forgotten that Cantwell was one of the House members defeated in '94.

Yup, Slade was Senator Skeletor. I wish there were more GOP leaders who physically resemble cartoon villains...

Craig said...

It would be interesting to see an analysis of why jews and mormons seem to be so over-represented in the senate.

Jon said...

Looks like Craig beat me to the over-representation card. Nevertheless, I'd love to see that analysis, especially when those groups consist of such a smaller proportion of the populations of the states they represent. (How many Jews in WI?)

There's one huge factor that has gone overlooked here. DC, which deserves statehood, has no senators. That condition exists specifically because DC would elect Blacks to Congress; first Dixiecrats, and now Republicans find that an intolerable situation.

jd2718 said...

Way up above, George was right: Nate made a mistake figuring out the probability of a Black candidate winning at least one of two Senate seats in a given state.

For example, in Maryland, assuming Nate's 15.2% is good, the probability of neither seat being filled by a Black is (.848)(.848) = 71.9%, so the probability of at least one seat being held by a Black is 28.1%, slightly lower than what Nate got by doubling 15.2 to get 30.4%

Once each state probability is calculated, then, per Eric, adding the expected values is correct.

The difference is small for low probabilities, but enough to shift the expected value down a tick, to 1.1.

Richard said...

I see that a few others reacted the same way to Nate's adding probabilities. That's basic stats, Nate: what gives?

Robert said...

The general shape of the graph is imposed by the logit assumption which is restrictive. You might consider running a scobit (a command in STATA). Basically the assumption that the disturbance has an extreme value distribution (or a normal for the probit) is relaxed to allow skewed distributions so that the peak of the slope isn't at 50% probability.

Somewhat unusually this new estimator was introduced by a political scientist see this pdf
http://tinyurl.com/6uhaf2.

mhz said...
This post has been removed by the author.
mhz said...

@jd2719 (or anybody else)

Please do a quick walk through of where Nate got his Y-axis numbers for the graph and his third column for the table in his post. I am sorry if it is obvious, but I would like to see an example of the math he used to get those of percentages.

The Graph-
What data is he using and how is he treating it to get the "%chance that a Rep in a given Con district is AA".


The Table:
It is not obvious to me how the "Black" numbers and the "PVI" numbers can generate the %probabilities he reports.

one example for graph and one example for the table would do it I am sure.

PLEASE SOMEONE??

Aaron_UK said...

Based on his assumptions Nate is quite correct to multiply the "expected" numbers of senators per election by 2 - i.e. each senatorial election in Maryland should produce 0.152 black senators, so two elections produce 0.304.

This 0.304 is comprised of

0 senators 71.9% of the time
1 senator 25.8% of the time
2 senators 2.3% of the time

What is moot is whether the "first" result affects the second - e.g. if MD elects one black senator does that make it more or less likely to elect a second simultaneously.

With senatorial longevity being what it is a further exercise would be to look back to the date of the last change of senator and see what the PVI and Black %s were then in the respective states.

Oh, and I also second the comments about the UK's Boundary Commission - it's not perfect but it's an awful lot better than the US method.

Eden said...

@jd2718, Robert, others

Though this was already pointed out earlier, Nate is clearly giving the *expected* number of black senators, not the probability of getting at least one.

And, to drive the point home, even when looking at two senate positions in a given state, if you assume that each senate position will go to a black candidate with a given probability, the expected number of black senators for that state is twice that probability.

In short, give Nate a break, he knows his math!

M said...

I'd like to see some mention of incumbency and how that plays in. Incumbent are re-elected at astounding rates. How many states would vote for a black candidate but haven't had a race without an incumbent? Massachusetts comes to mind as a state where voters would elect a black candidate, but since their two Senators have been around since forever, they have never really had the chance.

Tim said...

I really don't understand how Congressional districts affect Senate elections. Your comparisons don't work.

I also don't understand why you never brought up the issues of incumbency. The biggest road block to change in Congress (House or Senate) is the incumbent advantage with money and coverage. This goes double for minorites who try to compete with the incumbent.

Your fancy statistics tell me nothing about the insitutional difficulties in running for the House or Senate. Gerrymandering is only one of many issues.

nkpolitics1279 said...

M- too answer your question. Carol Mosely Braun got elected in 1992 by unseating a Conservative Democratic incumbent US Senator in the primary. Mosely Braun lost re-election in 1998 to a Conservative Republican- Peter Fitzgerald- who retired in 2004-because he was going to lose re-election. Barack Obama get elected in 2004 in a open seat election.

In other states.
California- Boxer and Feinstein were both elected in 1992-
Connecticut- Dodd and Lieberman have been in the US Senate since 1988.
Delaware- Biden has been in the US Senate since 1972- His son Beau will be taking over his seat in 2010- He will occupy that seat for another 34 years. Carper was elected in 2000-
Hawaii- Both HI US Senators have been in the US Senate since HI been a State- Inouye since 1962-
Matsunaga from 1976-1990- Akaka from 1990.
Maine- Both Republican US Senators Snowe and Collins are Centrist Moderate Females.
Maryland- when Paul Sarbanes retired in 2006- NAACP chairman and former Baltimore Congressman Kweisi Mfume ran but lost in the Democratic primary to Ben Cardin -the senior Congressman from the Baltimore Area-because of the issue of electability. Mikulski has been in the US Senate since 1986- If she retires in 2010 or 2016 expect Lt Governor Anthony Brown to replace Mikulski.
Michigan- Carl Levin has been in the US Senate since 1978. Don Reigle was US Senator from 1976-1994- 1994 was a GOP year. Debbie Stabenow has been US Senator since 2000.
Minnesota- Wellstone has been US Senator since 1990-until his death in 2002- The Coleman's 2002 victory is a fluke. Al Franken is not up for re-election in 2014. Amy Klobuchar was just elected in 2006- She will be in the US Senate for a period of time.
New Jersey- Bradley and Lautenberg were in the US Senate during the 1980's and 1990's. from 1996-2000 it was Lautenberg and Torrecelli. (Torecelli and Corzine),(Corzine and Lautenberg)(Lautenberg and Menendez). Lautenberg is going to retire in 2014.
New York- Moynihan from 1976-2000- Clinton from 2000-2009 when she becomes Secretary of State. Caroline Kennedy will be US Senator for a long time if she is appointed. Schumer has been US Senator since 1998.
Oregon- Since Packwood and Hatfield retired in 1996- Wyden has been in the US Senate since 1996. Smith lost in 2008 to Jeff Merkley who is going to be in the US Senate for a long period of time.
Pennsylvania- Specter and Heinz were Moderate Republicans. When Heinz died in 1991- Harris Wofford took over lost in 1994 to Senator Sodomy. Sodomy lost in 2006 to Bob Casey jr- Casey will be in the US Senate for a long time.
Rhode Island- Pell has been US Senator from 1960-1996- Reed has been in the US Senate since 1996. The Chaffees have been in the US Senate since 1976-2006- Whitehouse will be in the US Senate for multiple terms.
Vermont- Leahy has been in the US Senate since 1974 running for re-election in 2010. Stafford(1970-1988)Jeffords(1988-2006) were moderate Republicans. Sanders was just elected in 2006.
Washington- Murray and Cantwell have been in the US Senate since 2000- They will be around for a couple of terms.
Wisconsin- Kohl and Fiengold have been their for a period of time.

Had H. Carl McCall ran for the 2000 NY US Senate Seat instead of Hillary Clinton.

Peter said...

1% of the US population is a black male with a HS diploma. 1%.

And yet somehow we are expecting there to be 12 senators or something? Yet, not a single mention of this fact by Nate. Madness. It all starts in school. Let's demand change in education, no more special interests.

If we expect to see more black members of government, esp US Senators, we must reform education. We must simply end the Democratic monopoly on education and start demanding accountability and results, or we need to replace teachers with better, more highly qualified and motivated, and better compensated teachers.

Douglas said...

mhz: because correct use of the word "ghetto" does not move us back - ignorance and hypersensitivity do. while we're on the subject, though, what exactly is the "horrific history" of the use of the word ghetto?

Thrasher said...

Silver's analysis is an excercise in deflection and yet another example of liberals in the chatter class avoiding the raw truth about white supremacy and racism in our nation..

Today in the chatter class the term of usage is to invoke "tribalism" of course such nonsense has not street cred or value in the real time.

Black americans are not brand new and the reason for an ALL WHITE Senate is a reflection of the myopic cultural underdevelopment of white voters in a our nation..

Silver's inferences mean nothing and cannot discount the lethal pathologies and legacy of our country's racism and white supremacy ..

The absence of Black candidates in national elections has always been because of the cultural blind spots of white voters one does not need diagrams etc to understand this truth..

aflindst said...

This is about statistics. I tried to skim over all the comments, but I don't think this has been said.

"The chances of having a black Representative are virtually nil until the African-American share of the population hits 25 percent, at which time it begins to accelerate rapidly until the black population hits 60 percent, after which point having a black congressman is virtually certain."

This explanation seems to follow the form of the plot presented, which is claimed to be a parametric model arising from logistic regression. A problem I see is that the sigmoidal shape is an artifact of the logistic regression model. It is simply the shape of the inverse logit function:

inv.logit(x) = exp(x)/(1+exp(x))

Perhaps a helpful plot to include would be an empirical probability function estimate based on sample proportions:

P(congressman black | popblack < p) ~= sum(I(congressman black|popblack < p))/sum(I(popblack < p))

And comment on the shape of that.

Unless the shape of the empirical function is approximately (relative to the sample size (435 I guess?)) sigmoidal in shape, a logistic regression may be invalid. Or at least it will not be as trustworthy as the empirical function for making claims about the shape of the "true" function. Please include this plot you are able.

You may have simply omitted discussion of the part where you check the shape, or I may be incorrect; in either case, excuse me.

mhz said...

@Douglas-Specifically I was thinking of the Warsaw Ghetto during the Holocaust years. I suspect there other examples that have less video footage associated with them.

mhz said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bjY6L_MUkY

Douglas said...

mhz: by that reasoning, then should we all refrain from using the words "cancer," "nuke," or "genocide" because they also refer to things that are, or have been at some point in the past, horrible?

the conditions in ghettos have often been, and sadly remain, horrible. that does not render the word "ghetto" offensive. a word that offends is not one that simply refers to something with negative qualities - it is one that is, e.g., profane, a slur, or has historically been used as an epithet.

i don't see that here and you haven't showed it to me.

mhz said...

@Douglas- got ya- Thanks


aflindst: Very helpful with the graph- any idea how NRS generated the probabilities in the table?



PS it is amazing what people can and do actually do.

http://vimeo.com/1778399

mhz said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Jeff said...

I said "no he isn't against hunting guns, he just wants to make sure that gangsters and mobsters don't have guns to hurt people."

It's already illegal for anyone to use guns to hurt people excluding self defense and defense of others. More laws and restrictions on gun ownership won't stop that kind of activity.

Criminals already break the law, and passing another law will not change that. The only people affected by gun control are those who obey the law in the first place.

可是你喔q said...

520聊天室
一夜情聊天室
一夜情貼圖區
一夜聊天室
一葉晴貼圖區
一葉晴貼影片區
丁字褲女優
丁字褲美女寫真
丁字褲美女影片
人之初貼圖區
八國聯軍情色網
八國聯軍論壇
十七歲女孩貼影區
又又處女貼影區
下載a片
上班族聊天室
大老婆俱樂部
大波霸美女影片
大眾論壇
女同志聊天室
女郎俱樂部
女郎貼影區
女狼俱樂部
女學生內衣照
女優天堂貼圖
女優王國
女優盒子
女優貼片
女優貼圖
女優電影
女優寫真
女優影片
小老婆俱樂部
小老鼠論壇
小弟弟情色網
小弟弟貼圖區
小弟弟貼影片
小弟弟貼影片區
小弟弟貼影片網
小弟弟貼影區
小弟弟影片
小杜情色網
小妹妹貼影區
小高聊天室
小說論壇
小賤人貼影區
小瓢蟲情色論壇
小瓢蟲論壇
小護士偷拍網
小魔女自拍天堂貼圖區
小魔女自拍貼圖區
小魔女免費影片
小魔女貼圖區
小魔女貼影片
不色不進貼影區
不穿內衣
中部人聊天室
內衣秀
內衣模特兒
內衣模特兒寫真
內衣褲
天天情色
天天幹貼圖區
天天網遊論壇
天天論壇
天生名模貼圖區
天堂私服論壇
天堂情色
天堂情色網
夫妻聯誼俱樂部
少女內衣
手工內衣
日本av女優
日本av女優免費影片區
日本a片
日本女優
日本內衣
日本正妹
日本正妹照片
日本正妹影片
日本美女
日本美女圖庫
日本美女寫真集
日本偷拍
日本情色女優
日本辣美女優
日本模特兒寫真
日本學生妹
月光論壇
月宮俱樂部
月宮貼圖區
比基尼
比基尼女郎
比基尼內衣
比基尼泳裝
比基尼泳裝外拍
比基尼泳裝美女
比基尼泳裝美女的影片
比基尼泳裝美少女圖片
比基尼美女
比基尼美女的奶
比基尼辣妹
比基尼辣妹照片區
比基尼辣妹圖片
比基尼辣妹影片
比基尼線
水美眉
北部人聊天室
卡通aa片
卡通aa片免費看
卡通a片
卡通a片免費看
卡通美女遊戲
卡通貼圖區
可愛美眉
只有貼圖區
台中人聊天室
台中聊天室
台論論壇
台灣 kiss 倩色網貼圖區
台灣 kiss 情網貼圖區
台灣av女優
台灣a片
台灣a片王
台灣kiss情色文學
台灣kiss情色文學區
台灣kiss情色網
台灣女優
台灣自拍偷拍
台灣客棧電影貼圖區
台灣美女
台灣美女 kiss 情網貼圖區
台灣美女貼圖
台灣美女貼圖區
台灣美女電影
台灣美女圖
台灣美女寫真貼圖區
台灣香腸俱樂部
台灣偷拍
台灣情色
台灣情色貼圖
台灣情色網
台灣情色網綜合論壇
台灣情色論壇
台灣無限貼圖區
台灣貼圖區
台灣賓館偷拍
台灣論壇
台灣論壇女生遊戲
台灣論壇好玩遊戲區
台灣論壇遊戲區
巨乳女優
巨乳美女
布蘭妮貼圖區
平面模特兒
打工正妹
本土a片
本土女優
本土偷拍
正妹大學
正妹大學宅男社
正妹日報
正妹地圖
正妹百人斬
正妹自拍
正妹空姐寫真
正妹星球
正妹相簿
正妹美食地圖
正妹無名
正妹無名相簿
正妹無名相簿分享
正妹照片
正妹圖
正妹圖片
正妹圖片或照片
正妹網
正妹裸照
正妹影片
正妹餐廳
正妹牆
交友啦咧聊天室
交友聊天室
交友貼影區
伊莉論壇
同志聊天
同志聊天室
同志貼圖區
名模露點
成人a片
成人偷拍
成人情色
成人情色小說
成人情色文學
成人情色貼圖
成人情色貼圖區
成人聊天室
成人貼圖區
成人影片
成人影城
成人影音
成人影音城
成人論壇
有閒俱樂部
百分百貼圖區
米克情色網
米克綜合論壇
自拍a片
自拍偷拍
自拍偷拍成人影片
自拍偷拍貼圖
自拍偷拍貼圖區

Ian said...

Congressional "packing" of black voters has hurt Democrats in the long run. Ruy Texeira has done some good analysis about how it has made many districts in the South uber-conservative (as the primary democratic voters, African-Americans or Latinos, are not present) and discourages black turnout. For example, if you are black and live in Mississippi, you know that the statewide officeholders will be Republican and your district will stay black Democrat, then you usually don't have to vote (Obama's presidential run being the exception). Stu Rothenberg also has pointed out that white voters have preconceived expectations of black Democrats--namely, they expect them to be much more liberal than the mainstream. Rothenberg adds that it's not necessarily wrong (for example, we expect most Southern white Republicans to be more conservative than the mainstream) of people to do that, that's just been the history of most black Democrats in America. Thus, in culturally conservative states most black candidates will have to fight the notion that they are "too liberal." The other issue facing black candidates is that most hail from urban areas, which can be a turn-off to suburban and rural voters in a statewide election (Obama's already been hailed as the first truly urban president since WWII). Again, most non-urban voters have preconceived expectations of city politicos (usually unfavorable) and many resent how much a city dominates their statewide affairs. Since most states require a broad coalition of urban/suburban/rural voters to win statewide office, most black candidates are in a bind. It's no surprise then that Illinois has had so much success in fielding black statewide candidates; Chicago is large enough to trump downstate white voters.

I am surprised that Maryland has lacked black representation, but then again it did recently have an Irish Catholic as mayor of mostly black Baltimore. New York is also a surprise, as many politicos have relied on NYC to override upstate opposition. I forsee both changing over time however.

Nathan said...

Okay, so reality check:

Who cares?

Seriously, if you only are assured of being elected if 60% of your district is of your race... isn't this actually -better off- than white candidates?

Sounds like racism to me, but not against blacks. Indeed, it sounds like racism against whites - even in as low as 25% black, you can get a black representative, but in only 60% black (as opposed to 75%) you are assured of getting a black rep.

Doesn't this seem like it is more racism on the part of blacks themselves? Not that people LIKE saying blacks are racist, but they are, and very much so. Its kind of ironic really, but perhaps unsurprising; they are poor and uneducated, a recipe for racism, and many blacks criticize whites for their lot in life (rather than, say, themselves).

There's a reason blacks have been down on the bottom for 140 years, and its not because white people are racists. Asians have come to this country and prospered, and we put them in interment camps during WWII. Clearly, racism isn't the problem.

The House of Representatives will ALWAYS have a over-representation of the most prevalent population group, simply because that population group is the most prevalent one; I would expect the same for the senate. Indeed, if electing someone of a given race is oh so important, the blacks are lucky they have as many reps as they do.

Racism cuts both ways, and I think this does more to make blacks look bad than whites.

King Politics said...

The comments about blacks being racist regarding congressional districts is ignorant. It bespeaks a lack of understanding of who runs for office, how the party's view primary elections, and the redistricting process. Whites rarely run in districts that are >60% black, so it's not an issue of blacks being racist and only voting for blacks.

egapre said...

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,潤滑液,自慰套,威而柔,威而柔,威而柔,威而柔,自慰套,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套,潤滑液,威而柔,FleshLight,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,跳蛋,按摩棒,FleshLight,充氣娃娃,情趣商品,情趣網站,情趣網站,潤滑液,性感內衣,充氣娃娃,按摩棒,情趣精品,跳蛋,情趣網站,情趣商品,跳蛋,FleshLight,充氣娃娃,情趣內衣,情趣精品,按摩棒,威而柔,自慰套,成人玩具,Nexus,lelo,聰明球,後庭,後庭g點,g點,美國fleshlight,STU訓練大師,Fleshgirls,Toys Heart,Tenga,日本 Vibratex,日本Toys Heart ,日本Tenga,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,整型,水噹噹,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,珠海,下川島,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家,搬家,搬家公司,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,網頁設計,土地貸款,免費資源,電腦教學,wordpress,人工植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,

David Lublin said...
This post has been removed by the author.
David Lublin said...

Hi Nate,

Great blog. I wrote a book on race and redistricting, The Paradox of Representation (Princeton University Press 1997) which also uses logit models like the one you present here. There is a real problem with your logit model. Due to the great increase in the number of black-majority districts, there has been a real decline in the number of 35-50% black districts since 1990. Of the few remaining ones, many have a combined Latino and black majority in which blacks dominate due to lower Latino turnout rates, often related to citizenship issues. Logit is sensitive to the results in the few cases in the range. As a result, your model indicates that it is easier for an African American to win than it actually is. Models from 1990 indicate lower probabilities of election at 40% black than in models from 1992 or any subsequent year. Models from state house and state senate races have similar results to U.S. House models from 1990. Great idea to look at Senate races in light of U.S. House probabilities though.

Chris B said...

The more black people vote the more black people will be put in power.

YoYo said...

豆豆聊天室 aio交友愛情館 2008真情寫真 2009真情寫真 aa片免費看 捷克論壇 微風論壇 大眾論壇 plus論壇 080視訊聊天室 情色視訊交友90739 美女交友-成人聊天室 色情小說 做愛成人圖片區 豆豆色情聊天室 080豆豆聊天室 小辣妹影音交友網 台中情人聊天室 桃園星願聊天室 高雄網友聊天室 新中台灣聊天室 中部網友聊天室 嘉義之光聊天室 基隆海岸聊天室 中壢網友聊天室 南台灣聊天室 南部聊坊聊天室 台南不夜城聊天室 南部網友聊天室 屏東網友聊天室 台南網友聊天室 屏東聊坊聊天室 雲林網友聊天室 大學生BBS聊天室 網路學院聊天室 屏東夜語聊天室 孤男寡女聊天室 一網情深聊天室 心靈饗宴聊天室 流星花園聊天室 食色男女色情聊天室 真愛宣言交友聊天室 情人皇朝聊天室 上班族成人聊天室 上班族f1影音視訊聊天室 哈雷視訊聊天室 080影音視訊聊天室 38不夜城聊天室 援交聊天室080 080哈啦聊天室 台北已婚聊天室 已婚廣場聊天室 夢幻家族聊天室 摸摸扣扣同學會聊天室 520情色聊天室 QQ成人交友聊天室 免費視訊網愛聊天室 愛情公寓免費聊天室 拉子性愛聊天室 柔情網友聊天室 哈啦影音交友網 哈啦影音視訊聊天室 櫻井莉亞三點全露寫真集 123上班族聊天室 尋夢園上班族聊天室 成人聊天室上班族 080上班族聊天室 6k聊天室 粉紅豆豆聊天室 080豆豆聊天網 新豆豆聊天室 080聊天室 免費音樂試聽 流行音樂試聽 免費aa片試看免費a長片線上看 色情貼影片 免費a長片 本土成人貼圖站 大台灣情色網 台灣男人幫論壇 A圖網 嘟嘟成人電影網 火辣春夢貼圖網 情色貼圖俱樂部 台灣成人電影 絲襪美腿樂園 18美女貼圖區 柔情聊天網 707網愛聊天室聯盟 台北69色情貼圖區 38女孩情色網 台灣映像館 波波成人情色網站 美女成人貼圖區 無碼貼圖力量 色妹妹性愛貼圖區 日本女優貼圖網 日本美少女貼圖區 亞洲風暴情色貼圖網 哈啦聊天室 美少女自拍貼圖 辣妹成人情色網 台北女孩情色網 辣手貼圖情色網 AV無碼女優影片 男女情色寫真貼圖 a片天使俱樂部 萍水相逢遊戲區 平水相逢遊戲區 免費視訊交友90739 免費視訊聊天 辣妹視訊 - 影音聊天網 080視訊聊天室 日本美女肛交 美女工廠貼圖區 百分百貼圖區 亞洲成人電影情色網 台灣本土自拍貼圖網 麻辣貼圖情色網 好色客成人圖片貼圖區 711成人AV貼圖區 台灣美女貼圖區 筱萱成人論壇 咪咪情色貼圖區 momokoko同學會視訊 kk272視訊 情色文學小站 成人情色貼圖區 嘟嘟成人網 嘟嘟情人色網 - 貼圖區 免費色情a片下載 台灣情色論壇 成人影片分享 免費視訊聊天區 微風 成人 論壇 kiss文學區 taiwankiss文學區

Nancy said...

I recently came accross your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I dont know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.


Joannah

http://2gbmemory.net

freefun0616 said...

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,

,