this is very good. (and a remarkable claim you make; be sure you're
right!!) comments below.
for a paper like this (and for most of you), the protocol is that when the
paper is done and you hand it in to me, you also send a copy to the
author and ask for comments. you give the author the first chance to give
you comments before you submit it anywhere or even before you widely
distribute it. after all, you might be wrong in some way you don't
realize, and (like your mom told you) its how you'd like to be treated..
Gary
On Thu, 1 May 2003, Lanhee Joseph Chen wrote:
We would appreciate your comments and suggestions on
our title and
abstract...
"The Madness Behind the Methods: A Reassessment of Presidential Campaigns
and Electoral College Strategy"
I like the title, but you will eventually be caused to change it, I
imagine.
In Daron R. Shaw's frequently cited article, "The Methods behind the
Madness: Presidential Electoral College Strategies, 1988-1996," the author
asserts that presidential candidates rely on predictable factors to
determine electoral strategies that they then adhere to during the course
of their campaigns.
build up the argument a bit more. why is it important? i'd also clarify
this sentence since it is hard to read.
We contend that Shaw misrepresents the models he
contend -> demonstrate
also, don't speak about Shaw; speak about the article. that
depersonalizes the whole thing, which is a good idea. your goal is not to
kill Shaw; it is to kill the conclusions of the article.
uses. While he claims to employ
two-stage-least-squares (2SLS) and
he claims to employ -> his article reports what are supposedly
ordered probit regressions, we conclude that his
results are simply
derived from ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions. When we implement
conclude -> show
simply derived from -> in fact
drop the OLS abbreviation
the methods that Shaw purportedly uses, none of the
originally presented
findings materializes.
what does this mean? that the OLS results go away and the coeff's are now
0? or that the coeffs are the same but the se's are a bit bigger? OR
(better) is there a different substantive result. is there merely nothing
or can you demonstrate that there is some other kind of substantive
finding?
While campaigns may engage in systematic planning
of their campaigns and adhere to their pre-formulated strategies, we argue
that Shaw's work brings us no closer to verifying that conclusion.
drop "we argue...conclusion". this doesn't add anything. put in place
something about the substantive conclusions.
Gary
Best,
Lanhee, Andrew, and Tiffany
_______________________________________________
gov2001-l mailing list
gov2001-l(a)fas.harvard.edu
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/gov2001-l