Peter Lutz > Recent Status Updates

The first 6 chapters of this book are enlightening, and then you get to chapters 7 and 8 and your jaw hits the floor. I already think it’s a must-read before having made it halfway through.

I promise I’m getting through this, it’s just so dense… (and I need better reading habits) really quite good though, you can tell Kotkin went extraordinarily deep with his research

Silver is really good at explaining complex statistical concepts in layman’s terms, and the vignette format for predictions in many fields keeps it fresh. What’s not to like?

Don’t judge a book by its cover! Pretty bland so far with not much inside reporting; feels too much like a recap of Trump’s post-presidency just using publicly available articles. Most of the scoops are about the nuts and bolts of Trump finances and campaign staff… boring. Maybe it will get better but it’s a breezy read that isn’t offering much new or juicy.

Very very good stuff, what else is there to say?

Making for a quick read so far, because it’s repetition of some stuff political junkies would already know, but also because it connects that info with political science concepts and international comparisons. The parallels between France’s February 6 parliament riot and our January 6th are scary.

This is a fun little read--Carleton is a casual writer and he wants to reach both nerds and analytic-skeptics. He sets up a few heuristics and runs with them for the rest of the book; e.g. "what if things were a little different?" is useful for telling the story of new trends in baseball because the changes in the game have been gradual and involve asking some basic questions that make you think.

What a delight to read. Murray has a gift for engaging writing, and he sets out the pre-convention political conditions in a straightforward yet entirely comprehensive way. As a history junkie I already know the outcome, but I’m still itching to power through the chapter on the presidential balloting.

Wish I could get through this faster—a fascinating look into the internal machinations of the Liberal Party. Some of this may be retreads if you’ve read the Pammett/Dornan election book series. Jeffrey argues that party disunity, so valued throughout the party’s history, led to their long period in opposition (although I’m only at 1997). Ideology seems to be a bigger cleavage than federalism, though.

A quick but highly enjoyable read on the manipulation of language. Montrell does a really good job of making the leap from normal to cult-enamored seem pretty small. Minor tweaks to language can stack, and our cognitive biases smooth out the transition. The writing is lively, so it’s a bit addictive to read.

An eminently readable account of the many ways Congress has tried to reform the Electoral College, and the many ways they have failed. Don’t look for any arguments trying to convince you of why we should or shouldn’t have the EC, but this is about as good of a summary as one can do. I feel that I am not spoiling much when I say the two biggest reasons presented are partisanship and racism.

So far, a novel and under-discussed view of the end of the USSR: Gorbachev blew it. He could’ve followed the conservative, economic-but-not-political approach started by Andropov, but his ideological purism combined with erratic decision-making put too much grease into the gears of change. I’m still not sure if I buy this theory wholesale, but it is compelling.

Perlstein really seems to pick up his step with Nixonland compared to Before the Storm. He’s quicker with an insightful (and sometimes un-insightful but silly) anecdote; he’s playing with reader perspective; (see: Wednesday, August 28, 1968) he’s honing in a lot more on student activity and cultural history; you can tell this is a labor of love, and he’s trying to do a LOT at once. But it’s perfect. Omg.