bought and sold

[push_loud_pens]

HOUSE MEMBERS VOTING 'YES' ON BAILOUT RECEIVED 54% MORE MONEY FROM BANKS AND SECURITIES FIRMS THAN MEMBERS VOTING 'NO'  -- This wasn't the Dems capitulating, it was the Dems voting their way their masters told them to. (House Democrats split their votes on this bill, 140 voting Yes and 95 voting No. Democrats voting Yes received an average of $212,

Comments

[push_loud_pens]

VOTED N MEAN

YES 205 $231,876.88
NO 228 $150,982.00

DEMS

YES 140 $212.699.84
NO 95 $107,993.44

REP

YES 65 $273,181.28
NO 133 $181,688.11

All statistically significant within a 95% confidence interval, all but Republicans broken out separately statisticaly significant to a 99% confidence interval, and even then it is close

Haven't tried getting rid of the outliers (which i'd probably set at those that gott less than $20,000 or more than $1mil) but don't think it would change the results

[push_loud_pens]

actually it would probably strengthen the results since it would crank down the std deviation a bit but regardless clearly a statistically significant correlation there

silly model i am working on now

DV
vote yes/no

IV
money from banking lobbyists
party affiliation
up for election/not
gender
personal net worth

any other ones to throw in the mix? i might do one regression with just party affiliation and money from banking lobbyists, since just looking at scatterplots i think it might actually be the case that the money your received from lobbyists carried more weight than party affiliation

[push_loud_pens]

hmmm, based on what I can tell so far, with pretty limited analysis, is that party affiliation explains about 28% of the variance in voting and contribution amount explains about 22%, but not sure those are correct, especially with the outliers left in -- i wish there was a clean dataset for the other variables - not really feeling the love to manually type them in for all 4xx members of the house

[push_loud_pens]

never mind that's totally wrong. i'll try to come up with some weighted average of lobbying money vs party affiliation, even though that over simplifies things greatly

also looks like more progressive dem=more likelihood of voting no
more fiscally conservative rep=more likelihood of voting no

also perhaps just commonsense there