Monday, July 31, 2006

More overheard in Austin

At the coffeeshop:

"I was stoned as shit." (coming from a table of 30 and 40-somethings)

"I only ever passed out at Willie's Picnic. I think I was allergic to something, and I smoked way too much pot."

And this conversation is classic:

Slacker1: Like take Moby. His shit isn't THAT good; it's just ok.

S2: Yeah, it's not original or anything.

S1: But's he's probably like a nice guy, so people just help him out.

posted by Michelle @ 8:04 PM, 0 comments

Coming home

Though I had vowed not to visit Austin until my book was in the mail, my craving for Texas brisket overcame me. It's always nice being back in Austin, though. I never really feel at home in Atlanta. And, there's something nice about being able to walk into the Riverside Thundercloud to a reception not unlike Norm's at Cheers. I can pretend to be a cool hipster rather than nerdy professor for a bit.

I've been getting some work done, but not enough. (I never seem to get enough work done... I could work 26 hours a day and it wouldn't be enough.)

Anyway...some tidbits overheard at the coffee shop today:

Barista: You gonna do the crossword?

Random Austin guy: Naw...there's a lot of government encoding and innuendo....

There was also this exchange, with same barista

Random Austin guy 2: Yeah, it's like a sleeper film....

B: I'll have to check it out.

RAG2: Yeah. Jennifer Tilly...She's more like a campy actress.

B: Yeah.

I love Austin.

posted by Michelle @ 3:54 PM, 0 comments

Sunday, July 30, 2006

AMLO calls for permanent protests

In today's mass demonstration, Lopez Obrador has called for permanent installations of protestors until the election dispute is resolved.

Here's the AP version.

posted by Michelle @ 8:38 PM, 0 comments

Saturday, July 29, 2006

Gender and pension privatization in Mexico

Copies of my article are now online.

posted by Michelle @ 1:08 PM, 0 comments

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Note to self

Read this article about ISSSTE reforms later.

posted by Michelle @ 7:28 PM, 0 comments

Tuesday, July 25, 2006

Progress

10 pages of typed notes. And a bad headache because some of the library and second-hand books bought in the D.F. on unions and employer organizations in the 50-70s in Mexico are filled with DUST.

On the other hand, I've managed to gather much of the data that I needed to finish this chapter--enough anyway to write it up while I wait for remaining ILL items.

Oh...and I came across two other paper ideas...one entirely new and another one that occurred to me while writing my dissertation, but which I had forgotten about in the interim. How is it that some people run out of research ideas, when I seem to have more than I know what to do with? (Granted, not all of my ideas are APSR-like ideas, but at least they are ideas.)

posted by Michelle @ 11:18 PM, 0 comments

Progress

No writing, but over the last two days I have waded through a foot high stack of photocopies and thin paperbacks gathering additional data/evidence regarding labor union/state relations at the end of the 1960s and early 1970s in Mexico.

Now, if only the library would send me e-copies of the articles that I requested over the weekend, I could put this Chapter to rest.

As it stands, I'll do what I can with what I have now, and add additional data/evidence as it trickles in.

posted by Michelle @ 12:26 AM, 0 comments

Monday, July 24, 2006

So you want to get a Ph.D.? Part III

Earlier posts covered reasons for getting a Ph.D. and why it matters where you get your Ph.D.

How to figure out which program may be right for you.

Come up with a list of the types of research questions that interest you most. Is your interest in American government? European politics? International relations? List your favorite undergraduate classes and topics. What about them interested you? What would you like to learn more about?

Armed with this list of your interests, do some research on the top programs (use any of the ranking tools, though none are perfect and some are outdated). Look at the department websites. See if you recognize faculty names from things you've read in your upper-level classes. Poke around. Find the names of faculty working on the area(s) that you are interested in. Look at the description of the graduate program.

Put together a list of 10 programs that you think might be good for you. List the names of the people working in 'your' area of interest at each school. List what you like/don't like about the Ph.D. program description (too many/few fields required, funding?, placement).

Then, talk to as many faculty members in your current institution as will give you time [during office hours] to get feedback on your first list. Show them your list of schools and list of names. Ask if they would add any schools to your list. Double check with more than one faculty member to make sure they are not biased. There should be good overlap between professors in the same area in the same department.

They know more than you do and may be willing to share. For instance, I was trying to decide between a particular top 10 program with no funding and a top 20 program with full funding. I talked to one of my undergrad advisors who told me that the primary Latin Americanist at the top 10 place had a reputation for being strange, arbitrary, and a bit uneven. They may also know about people who have recently moved or who are about to retire.

Your advisors may also be able to point out differences between two places that might not otherwise be apparent. For instance, both UC-Berkeley and UC-San Diego have excellent Ph.D. programs and a number of people studying Latin America. They are, however, worlds apart in certain respects. Depending on a student's interests, quantitative inclinations, etc. one might be better than the other.

That's why it's important, once you've narrowed your selection to five/six schools that you do a little research on the types of research being done by the faculty in the area you wish to study. [If you can't be bothered to do that much research, then how would you ever hope to finish a Ph.D.?]

Get the faculty names from the department webpage and use Google Scholar to look up their work. Usually, you can read the abstracts of the articles for free (if you're not currently in school), and that will at least give you an idea of the types of things they study and how often they seem to publish.

After you've narrowed it down, go back to your undergraduate faculty advisor (during office hours) and show them your new list.

Questions I think all students should be able to answer about the programs to which they are submitting applications:
Are all students admitted funded, or do students have to scramble/compete for funding once they arrive?

How competitive is admission?

Where have recent Ph.D.s been placed, particularly in your field of interest?

What are the degree requirements? Do students seem to finish in a timely fashion?

Are there enough faculty in your field and other secondary fields of interest?

Do those faculty train graduate students? [You can look up Ph.D. dissertations online by advisor through Dissertation Abstracts.]

Naturally, I didn't have the answers to all of these questions when I applied for a Ph.D. and most of them I didn't even think to ask. But, they are things I wish I had known. I'm not sure I would have made any different choices, but I got lucky.

Maybe later in the fall I'll post about application essays and funding.

posted by Michelle @ 9:55 PM, 10 comments

Sunday, July 23, 2006

Recent progress

Reviewed and reorganized Chapter 4. I realized that I have some research work to do on part of that chapter and that the other parts are better than I remember.

Today's goal, writing some of the bridges for the revised parts and taking notes for the parts to be cleaned up.

posted by Michelle @ 12:55 PM, 0 comments

Thursday, July 20, 2006

So you want to get a Ph.D.? Part II

Subtitle: (Advice for those thinking about Ph.D.s in Political Science)

I imagine the process is similar in other social sciences, but there may be important differences.

Since a Ph.D. is a means to an end, you should begin by identifying what 'end' you are seeking. I ask students what type of academic position they would like. Do they want to primarily teach? Do they want to primarily do research? Do they want to keep their options open?

Many students think they want to primarily teach, but then I explain the different types of teaching options. There is community college, small state university, liberal arts college or university, a range of research state universities, and then flagship state universities and/or private top-flight universities. All positions will include some teaching, but some more than others. And, as another undergrad advisor once pointed out to me, you can still be a good teacher at a research university--it just won't be valued as much as your research. Pay will also vary, and often inversely with the emphasis on teaching.

If students don't really know what type of professor they'd like to be or whether they'd really like to be in a research-driven position, I suggest that they work on the assumption that they might prefer more money and more research. If you come from a strong Ph.D. program and begin with a strong research record, you will have more options on the job market.

The job market, or how markets work with little information.

I explain that when most Ph.D. students go on the job market, their research record will be bare or minimal. Hiring departments must then weed through 100+ applications for their one position quickly. Since newbie Ph.D.s won't have extensive publication records, hiring committees seek to narrow the field quickly using the paucity of information available: Ph.D. granting department, principal Ph.D. advisor, dissertation topic (for fit), and grants or publications (if any).

Unfortunately, to make that first cut is a lot easier if you are an average Harvard Ph.D. than the best student ever from North Texas (and that's a growing/improving program....there are a lot less productive departments out there handing out Ph.D.s), for example. It pays to go to the best department possible to maximize your options on the job market.

You can think of it as an informal tier system among Ph.D. granting departments, where the top 5-10 are Tier I, through top 20-25 Tier II, and the rest in Tier III. [Also, the categorization into a particular Tier for each department or even subfield within a department may be debatable.] But Tier I schools usually only hire from other Tier I. Tier II would hire from Tier I and top students from Tier II programs. Tier III would hire from Tier II and top students from Tier III.

Non-Ph.D. departments are a little more tricky since there are a wide variety of these, e.g., state schools, liberal arts colleges, and even some flagship universities without Ph.D.s (like my Georgia Tech).

Of course, there are caveats or qualifications for "best" departments for a Ph.D. Remember that "best" refers to the department, not university. There are a handful of top universities with less than top departments of political science, and vice versa.

Also, if you're interested in African politics, only sometimes (i.e., a top 5 department) would it make sense to go to a top department that had no Africanist.

Usually, I recommend that students seek departments that are highly ranked and that have well-known faculty in their specific area of interest. Also, students should seek "well-known" faculty who are still publishing and working with graduate students--often this means highly productive Associate Professors or recently promoted to full Professor, or at least not someone in semi-retirement.

Like with undergrad, it's a good idea to apply to a couple of hard, medium, and easy programs each, with the understanding that if you only get into an "easy" program, you might consider moving after your M.A.

Next installment.... How to research Departments, what to look for in a Ph.D. program (or what questions to ask), and why I think you should never have to pay for your own Ph.D. training.

posted by Michelle @ 1:59 PM, 0 comments

Wednesday, July 19, 2006

Corrected proofs

I managed to finish and submit the corrected proofs for this paper, which has been haunting me since APSA 2001, where it was first presented.

It spent over two years total at this journal. In the first round of reviews, the paper received a very positive review with minor revisions and a one sentence review that said the paper was "wonky and descriptive." The former editor recommended revising on the basis of the first reviewer's suggestions, which I did. I sent it back, and the paper sat for about 10 months before the editorial assistant emailed me to say that they could not find a suitable second reviewer. At that time the editor was changing, and the assistant asked if I would like to give the new editor a chance to find a second reviewer or have the manuscript back. I asked for it back.

I then sent it to this journal in May 2003. When I received the reviews that Fall, one of the reviewers faulted me for not citing an article in this journal that appeared in July of 2003. (Yes, I should have cited an article before it had appeared in a highly specialized journal!) Of course, the article I did not cite (because I had not seen it yet) is an exemplar of the type of work I critique in my article, so it's no surprise the author of the July article reviewer did not like my theoretical approach.

Following that rejection, I sent the article to its proper home at Social Politics in October 2004. I received the conditional acceptance in September 2005. It will appear this fall, 2006.

posted by Michelle @ 8:20 PM, 2 comments

I love page proofs

Because it means I have something that will be published soon!

posted by Michelle @ 2:00 PM, 0 comments

So you want to get a Ph.D.?

At least once a year, some undergraduate or M.S. student comes to me asking where they should apply to study for a Ph.D. And every time, I respond by asking: "Why do you want a Ph.D.?"

For those that tell me they want to become a university or college teacher/professor, I then ask, "What kind of college or university? What kind of professor?" After that, I explain how the academic job market works, and we discuss what types of programs they would want in order to maximize the likelihood that they will be able to get the type of job they want. Then, we discuss their particular research interests, and I recommend programs that they should investigate further. Roughly 20-25% of the students in my office fall into this category.

The rest usually give me one of the following responses to the first question (Why a PhD?):

"I like politics."

"I like school and am good at it."

"I am or want to be an intellectual."

"I am smart and [therefore] should get a Ph.D."

"I just want one." Or,

"I like reading interesting books and contemplating important issues."

[These reasons are not unlike those offered by future English Ph.D. students, though the job outlook for them is even more bleak. (Via.)]

For these students, I pass along something one of my undergraduate advisors told me when he learned I had been accepted to graduate school: a Ph.D. is not an end in itself, it is a means to an end, much like a union card necessary to get a particular job.

I point out that intellectual curiosity is not likely to sustain anyone through those dark nights sitting in front of a blank computer screen, and if at some point, you realize you can get the job you want without a Ph.D., you're likely to give up the Ph.D. because it's just so much work.

Then, I go on to explain how the job market works, how you have little to no choice over where you live for your first job(s), how important it is to go to a "top" program, and how hard you have to work to get tenure (no matter where you land in your first job--it's hard to get tenure everywhere, the expectations are just distributed differently). In essence, I do everything possible to disabuse them of the notion that being a faculty member is glamorous.

So that's the first half of the "So you [think you] want to get a Ph.D.?" talk.

At some point, I'll post the second half of the talk (about the job market, assistantships and why if you aren't offered one anywhere, you probably shouldn't be trying to get a Ph.D., and other of my personal opinions). It's a bit of tough love, but I hope it helps some of my students. If it scares them from getting a Ph.D., they probably didn't really want one anyway, and if they go on to a Ph.D. program, at least they are doing so with their eyes wide open.

And then, when I get random queries about grad school, I can just point them to my posts first. It will save us both time.

posted by Michelle @ 1:25 PM, 6 comments

Tuesday, July 18, 2006

More progress

Wrote 4-6 pages (?) and finished all but the conclusion of Chapter 3. I'm going to sleep on it, re-read the Chapter tomorrow, and write the conclusion when I'm fresh (or at least caffeinated).

posted by Michelle @ 12:17 AM, 1 comments

Monday, July 17, 2006

NPR blog?

I should really get my head out of the sand. How did I not know about this?

Back to the grindstone.

[Jeez, could I use more cliches?]

posted by Michelle @ 1:36 PM, 1 comments

Progress on Chapter 3

Progress is now harder to measure because it is more about revising than writing new pages. That said, I probably wrote about 4-5 pages total today (introductions, transitions) and completed revisions to bring Chapter 3 within 8-10% of completion.

Tomorrow: Write about 2-3 pages to wrap up two unfinished sections each, and another 4 pages of Chapter conclusions. Shouldn't be too hard, once I go back and re-read the revised Chapter.

posted by Michelle @ 12:49 AM, 0 comments

Sunday, July 16, 2006

Universal National Election Studies

At the Colombia Statistical Modeling blog, Gelman has posted a short summary and link to a statistical analysis of the 2000 election votes in Mexico. The paper has some interesting empirical findings but is a little short on theoretical or contextual analysis. [You know, the "why" question....] There's no clear theoretical or even Mexico-specific explanation for the observed pattern. This seems like a prime case of having the data and methods to run some cool models without doing the necessary research on Mexican politics to make good sense of the results. I'm sure journal reviewers (and Mexican specialists) who are impressed by the methods will help brainstorm explanations to explain the results...essentially doing the authors' work for them.

Given the availability of Mexican poll data, there's almost a cottage industry in testing hypotheses from American election studies on the Mexican data. Though there are exceptions, many studies are misspecified because in their rush to apply the their pet method to the new data, they forget to bother learning about Mexican politics. I'm not trying to make a case for Mexican exceptionalism; there probably are voting models that are nearly universal. But on the other hand, researchers need to understand that certain indicators that reliably measure something in the U.S. may not measure the same concept elsewhere. Just because decades of election studies have established the validity and reliability in the U.S. context doesn't mean that those same measures are sure to be valid and reliable elsewhere. We need much more work testing basic measurement in the Mexican context, IMHO.

I don't want to accuse Gelman of not doing his homework, but if he has, it's not evident in the draft of that paper.

posted by Michelle @ 4:48 PM, 2 comments

Almost 1 million turn out at Zocalo

Today is the second of three planned assemblies in the Zocalo called by Lopez Obrador. Again, he is calling for a full recount to restore public confidence in the electoral results.



See more images.

Elsewhere, some are criticizing both sides for the negative campaigning and the consequent polarization.

posted by Michelle @ 4:30 PM, 2 comments

Online publishing

Inside Higher Ed reports on a plans at Rice to start an online UP. The lead paragraph explains:

It’s hard to attend scholarly meetings these days without someone talking about the “crisis of scholarly publishing,” which goes something like this: Libraries can’t afford to buy new scholarly books; in turn, university presses can’t afford to publish books no one can buy and so cut back on their sales of monographs; in turn, junior professors can’t get their first books published and have a tough time getting tenure.

In a discipline as conservative (read: risk averse and incredibly status conscious) as political science, I can't imagine tenure committees buying into online publications for junior faculty members' tenure cases. And even Munger admits that books are harder to publish now.

posted by Michelle @ 2:22 PM, 3 comments

TMI

Can put you in a bad mood. Sometimes it's not good to know how little you're paid.

posted by Michelle @ 10:26 AM, 3 comments

Wal-mart Mexico seeking larger market share

Though already in first place, Wal-Mart is trying to gain even more market share in Mexico.

Have I mentioned that Wal-Mart is the single largest private employer in Mexico?

posted by Michelle @ 9:59 AM, 5 comments

Friday, July 14, 2006

La Maestra finally expelled from PRI

I thought this had already happened. Elba Esther has five days to appeal.



posted by Michelle @ 12:08 AM, 5 comments

Thursday, July 13, 2006

Watch the new video posted by Lopez Obrador

Fast forward through the EDOMEX vote tabulations to the comparison of various campaign slogans/commercials of Calderon and those paid for by third parties (meaning...non-political parties).

I don't claim to know Mexican electoral law, so I couldn't say whether the third party videos cross the line.

But it is interesting to observe the similarities between Calderon's message and those of some of the third parties. Studies have been done of the rhetoric and style of campaign videos in the U.S., and I am not familiar with similar studies on Mexico. These videos suggest a good place to start. (If the video disappears from AMLO's site, I'll post it to youtube later.)

posted by Michelle @ 8:51 PM, 0 comments

Lopez Obrador posts 2 more videos

Lopez Obrador has posted two more videos to his website, alleging that both illustrate instances of fraud. This time, the videos come from Tabasco & Puebla and Guanajuato (again) & Tlaxcala.

I have not watched them, so I offer no comment on their content.

Updated to add: Plus video of Mexico state and commercials.

posted by Michelle @ 3:41 PM, 0 comments

Progress

I'm not sure how many pages I wrote/revised today (my guess would be between 6 and 12), but I have finished mostly complete versions of 2 chapters (one is about 8K words, the other about 16K). I've sent them to three trustworthy and kind colleagues who have offered to read them.

Now, I turn to revising several empirical chapters, which should go more quickly than the writing of these last two has gone.

posted by Michelle @ 1:11 AM, 4 comments

Tuesday, July 11, 2006

Response to video presented by AMLO

As regular commenter, Jose, points out, the local precinct official in the video corroborates the IFE explanation that he was moving incorrectly cast ballots from one box to another, which is permitted by law. That seems reasonable. As Jose points out, the PAN has already questioned the credibility of other AMLO claims...suggesting if he'll stretch the truth with the video, why not others?

Given the heated passions and a tendency to not necessarily listen to reason in such circumstances, it's entirely possible that this point will be lost on many supporters of AMLO, who will continue to insist that it is suggestive of fraud.
Others will just shake their heads in disbelief that AMLO's camp will try to use any shred of impropriety to justify their claims of fraud. If AMLO's camp understood what the video depicted but chose to present it as otherwise, Lopez Obrador will lose a lot of credibility at home and abroad. (Ok...maybe only with those paying attention....)

As I said in the original post, it's not really easy to interpret what is happening in the videos, which makes them open to several interpretations. It's certainly not as obvious as the videos of Bejarano stuffing wads of money in his pants.

I guess I should add some translation to my comments regarding the phone conversations in the earlier post, too. A benign interpretation of the conversation between la maestra and the PRI governor of Tamaulipas would be that she was calling him to tell him that if he's willing to work with the PAN, he should let them know because they were assuming such PRI governors would stick with the PRI no matter what.

Presumably, the PRI realized early on July 2 that Calderon would win and was mobilizing to generate good will with the frontrunner in order to solidify their relationship for the future. Why Elba Esther was the person chosen to make such calls is another question (considering she's was expelled by the PRI to my recollection). [And the answer probably has to do with personal ties she may have to that governor or other folks in that particular state. Perhaps other PRIistas were calling other PRI governors in other states.]

Also, my phrase "get out the vote," I realize in retrospect, doesn't probably translate into the Mexican context well. In the U.S., parties regularly 'get out the vote,' by calling voters to remind them to vote, providing rides to polling places, and generally helping publicize when/where to vote. In the U.S., this is not considered undemocratic. But in the Mexican context, such activities sound too much like the old PRI machine at work to be viewed in the same light. In Mexico, 'getting out the vote' would imply coercion or at least buying of votes with food, drink, or other promises.

Are the recorded conversations smoking guns indicating widespread voter fraud at top levels in Tamaulipas? Probably not. I'm not sure the governor would even be the right person to call in the state if you wanted to buy an election.

Are the calls indiscreet? Yes, definitely.

Do they reveal the types of unsavory relationships common in politics? Yes.

Does Mexico have a monopoly on unsavoriness in politics? No.

posted by Michelle @ 5:19 PM, 4 comments

Lopez Obrador presents his complaints to officials

Yesterday, AMLO presented his evidence of inconformities in the election to the election officials and to the press.

The 30 minute video is also posted on his website, along with two audio conversations (with transcripts). The video shows some ballots set aside at a polling place, then later someone putting ballots in the box (which only the voter is supposed to do). The IFE responded that the official was moving ballots to the correct box. [There are separate ballots, color coded, for each election, and voters are supposed to put the ballots in separate boxes. The IFE explained that someone is putting Diputado ballots in the Diputado box box after they were mistakenly put in the President box by the voters.]

Then, it cuts to ballot counting in another state, though it's not as clear what we're supposed to notice is wrong with that picture. AMLO says the officials are changing the vote tallies in favor of the PAN.

The first audio is a conversation between Elba Esther, the head of the teachers' union and former 2nd in command in the PRI who had recently become more cozy with the PAN and Fox, talking with the PRI governor of Tamaulipas (the coastal state bordering Texas). The transcript has Elba Esther discussing some of her organization's polls and asking the governor which way he's leaning. She says it's clear that the PRI is out and would like to know if he's leaning toward the PAN, as she thinks he might. She indicates that someone from the PAN may be calling him, if they haven't already, and she suggests that he call "Felipe" (presumably, Calderon's people) to let him know where he stands so it doesn't look bad. To me, it sounds more like they are conspiring to 'get out the vote' in support of the PAN, but maybe I'm just naive. (With la maestra, I guess anything is possible.)

From the transcript:

EEG. NUESTRA ENCUESTA TIENE, POR UNA RED QUE ARMAMOS EN TODO EL PAIS, (ANDELE) DE 6,364 CUESTIONARIOS APENAS LLEVAMOS, DE 14,000 LLEVAMOS 6,000, PERDON. Y VAN ASI: 34.1 PAN, 22.96 PRI. 33.68, PRD. YA SE CAYO EL PRI, EH, (MUY BIEN) ENTONCES HAY QUE SABER COMO ACTUAR

GOB. AS1 ES MAESTRA.

EEG HAY QUE SABER COMO ACTUAR Y AQUI SI VIENE LA DEClSlON DE FONDO. PORQUE LA INFORMACION QUE HAY ACA EN LOS ESTADOS DE NUESTROS AMIGOS, (AJA), TAMAULIPAS Y COAHUILA ESTAN CON TODO POR EL PRI Y VAN A HABLAR, NO SE SI YA HABLARON, VALE MAS QUE USTEDES SE ADELANTEN, SI AS1 LO DECIDEN, CON , FELIPE, PARA VENDER LO QUE TENGAN, EL PRI YA SE CAYO, EH.

GOB. NO, ESO NOS QUEDA MUY CLARO.

EEG. NO SE POR DONDE ANDES, POR AZUL O POR AMARILLO, PERO SI VA POR AZUL QUE ES LO QUE PENSAMOS, VALE MAS HABLARLE A FELiPE Y DEClRLE KiGO, NO, PARA NO QUEDAR MAL.

GOB. SI, YO CREO QUE TODO VA BIEN

EEG. VAMOS A SACAR AHORITA TODO ELVOTO CIUDADANO.

GOB. AQUl ESTAMOS HACIENDO LA CHAMBA. EH. POR AH/ ... ESTE..

EEG. POR ESO QUISE HABLAR. PORQUE EL INFORME QUE TIENEN ES QUE TODO PARA EL PRI. Y LO ES VERDAD, PORQUE ESO ES INSTITUCIONAL. ANTE LA CAIDA, CREO QUE LO INTERESANTE ES HABLAR CON FELIPE Y VENDERSELO.

GOB. AS1 ES.

EEG. NO?,

GOB. ENTONCES HABLAR CON MI VECINO, TAMBIEN, PARA VER COMO ANDA

EEG. COMO ANDAN, PERO YA, YA SE VA DESPEJANDO. YA EL VOTO DURO YA SALIO. BUENO, YO TE COMUNICO Y HAY ESPERO TU DECISION.

GOB. OKEY, LE AGRADEZCO MUCHO MAESTRA.

EEG. SI TE DECIDES POR AZUL, NO LO VAYAS A .........( CLARO) UN ABRAZOTE.

GOB. IGUALMENTE, GUSTO EN SALUDARLA, MAESTRA., ESTAMOS EN CONTACTO.

EEG. IGüHiMENTE.

[Updated to add: Now that I've listened to the audio, I must admit it sounds worse than it reads.]

The second audio is a phone conversation between a member of the Fox cabinet and the governor of Tamaulipas. This is presumably the call that Elba Esther hinted at above. From the transcript, it's not clear what they are talking about. From the transcript:

SCT. EUGENIO

GOB. SECRETARIO BUENAS TARDES, ¿COMO ESTAS? PEDRO

SCT PUES MUY AGRADECIDO, CREO QUE TE SOBREGIRASTE.

GOB. NO HOMBRE, JA, JA, JA,

SCT CON MUCHO GUSTO Y CON MUCHO APRECIO.

GOB. NO, ME DA MUCHO GUSTO, LO HAGO CON MUCHO AFECTO Y ADEMAS NOS HAS AYUDADO BASTANTE.

SCT. NO, CUENTA CON TODO .... QUE VAS A VER A ..... MANUEL ESPINO

SCT MANUEL ESPINO

GOB. NO SE .... HABLE CON EL HOY EN LA MAÑANA, ECHAMOS UNA PLATICADA.

SCT. ME DlJO QUE LO MEJOR ES QUE TE DIGA QUE SI PODlA ECHARTE UN GRITO Y PEDIRTE QUE LE ECHARAS LA MANO.

GOB. ANDALE. SI. QUE NECESITA.

SCT COSA QUE HAGO CON MUCHO GUSTO. PUES NO SE QUE TE VAYA A PEDIR.

GOB. HA BUENO. FIJATE VOY LLEGANDO AQUí A TOLUCA. VOY A UNA REUNION CON GOBERNADORES DE NUESTRO PARTIDO. Y ANALIZAR QUE VAMOS A HACER ... YO CREO QUE HAY QUE IRNOS CON LA .... CON EL IFE Y AGUANTAR VARA.

SCT NO CREO QUE VAYA EN ESE SENTIDO. PERO DE TODAS MANERAS YO TE LO QUERIA PLANTEAR. ME DlJO OYE, TU TIENES CONTACTO CON ALGUNOS QUE SEAN AMIGOS TUYOS, LE DIJE, PUES DOS O TRES QUE SON AMIGOS, LOS DEMAS SOLO SON CONOCIDOS.

GOB. AS1 ES.

SCT PUES SI LES PUEDES ECHAR UN GRITO Y DECIRLES QUE NOS ECHEN UNA MANO, PUES CON TODO GUSTO LO HAGO, SOBRE TODO PORQUE HAY QUE MANTENER LA ...

GOB. CLARO, NO, ESTAMOS NOSOTROS CON ESO, ... AS1 ES, ESA ES NUESTRA CONVlCClON Y AS1 LO HA DETERMINADO UN GRUPO DE AMIGOS, COLEGAS, HACE UNAS SEMANAS, CUANDO VIMOS QUE ESTO PODlA CERRARSE, PODlA OCURRIR.

SCT YO NO LE VEO NINGUN PROBLEMA, CONOCIENDO A LOS QUE CONOZCO, Y QUE CON TODO GUSTO HARlA YO EL TRAMITE.

GOB. NO TE AGRADEZCO MUCHO QUE ME HAYAS HABLADO PEDRO, CUENTA CON NOSOTROS EN ESE SENTIDO. SOMOS VARIOS COLEGAS QUE ESTAMOS EN ESE TENOR. Y DE HECHO

SCT. UN SALUDO

GOB. IGUALMENTE PEDRO GRACIAS GUSTO EN SALUDARTE.

The officials have until early September to review the complaints and make a decision.

posted by Michelle @ 9:36 AM, 5 comments

Monday, July 10, 2006

Today's progress

After a record-setting 12 pages finished after 3 a.m., today I have finished 3 so far.

The night is young.

Update: Another ~2 before bedtime.

posted by Michelle @ 8:28 PM, 0 comments

Today's progress

(Updates 2:48 a.m.) More revisions, 2 pages of notes, and   9    12 new pages.

Boy, do I really need my 9am chiropractor visit after sitting at my desk all afternoon/night.

posted by Michelle @ 1:00 AM, 2 comments

Sunday, July 09, 2006

Today's progress

7 pages and some outlining/reorganization of my argument.

posted by Michelle @ 12:24 AM, 0 comments

Saturday, July 08, 2006

Lopez Obrador calls meeting in Zocalo

Here's the front page of the leftist press.



And here's a picture of the meeting in the Zocalo.



Both from La Jornada

posted by Michelle @ 6:48 PM, 0 comments

Progress

Over the last week, I haven't been keeping close tabs on my daily progress. I made some organizational changes to Chapters 1 & 2. On Chapter 2, I took notes/wrote several pages.

Goal is to finish Chapter 2 today or tomorrow to circulate 1 & 2 to a couple of colleagues.

posted by Michelle @ 12:33 PM, 0 comments

Friday, July 07, 2006

Interview with Calderon

This interview is worth reading. I particularly like this point, made by Calderon:

It is more effective, in order to reduce migration, to build one kilometer of one highway in Guanajuato, than ten kilometers of the wall [in] Texas or Arizona.

posted by Michelle @ 5:38 PM, 2 comments

Thursday, July 06, 2006

Chuckle...

The first paragraph of Greg's post made me smile.

And we wonder why even our bright students don't quite understand Latin American politics?

posted by Michelle @ 10:06 PM, 0 comments

Ugalde announces winner of Mexican election

The full transcript in Spanish.

IFE does not have an English version online.

posted by Michelle @ 9:59 PM, 0 comments

Calderon in lead with 100% of precincts reporting

The IFE will certify the results, and another institution will declare the winner. Any effort to challenge the results will be handled by the TRIFE. It is likely that Lopez Obrador will mount a challenge to the results, and according to the ex-President of the IFE, such a challenge would not be out of the ordinary given the closeness of the race.

I think the election is over now, though.

posted by Michelle @ 6:19 PM, 0 comments

Which of these is not like the other?

Front pages of today's paper









posted by Michelle @ 3:56 PM, 0 comments

Calderon in lead with 99.98% of precincts counted

It looks like Calderon will soon be declared the new President of Mexico with less than 1% of the vote separating him from Lopez Obrador.

IFE has said in the past that it would not declare the result official until 100.00% of the results were in, given the closeness of the race. If IFE cannot demonstrate that 100% of the casillas/precincts have submitted their results, it will leave room for Lopez Obrador to cry foul.

And if 100% do indeed submit their results, the IFE would do well to investigate publicized accounts in the states of Mexico and Veracruz that IFE ballots and precinct materials were found in dumps. Unfortunately, until IFE adequately explains those events (stolen and planted material? phonies?), many AMLO supporters will distrust the results. That could create more governability problems than Calderon will already have with the divided Congress.

I sure would hate to be Ugalde. I don't envy him his job.

posted by Michelle @ 3:15 PM, 0 comments

Gap between Lopez Obrador and Calderon narrows


Graph from El Universal.

Read their article.

posted by Michelle @ 12:34 AM, 0 comments

Wednesday, July 05, 2006

The counting continues....almost 2/3rds counted

And AMLO has a very narrow lead:

A las cuatro y cuarenta y siete de la tarde López Obrador con el 36.86 por ciento contra 34.61 por ciento de Calderón Hinojosa.

[Updates follow...]

And with more than 70% counted:

A las cinco y cuarenta de la tarde López Obrador con el 36.87 por ciento contra 34.56 por ciento de Calderón Hinojosa.

With 75% counted:

A las seis y cuarto de la tarde de 2.20 puntos la diferencia en favor del perredista. Se han computado más de 30 millones de votos. Faltarían diez millones de sufragios por contar.

With just over 80% counted:

A las 7:17 de la noche Lóipez Obrador contabiliza 36.78% contra 34.77% de Calderón Hinojosa. Se han computado 33 millones 516 mil 382 votos.

With 84% counted:

A las ocho y cuarto de la noche López Obrador tiene una ventaja de a 1.81 puntos con 84% de casillas computadas. López Obrador 36.53% contra 34.74% de Calderón Hinojosa....

...La votación de recabada hasta esta hora de 35 millones de sufragios, faltando cerca de siete millones de votos por contabilizar.

López Obrador tiene un colchón a su favor de más de 450 mil votos sobre Calderón Hinojosa....

...Fa.tan por contabilizar actas del norte del país como Chihuahua,Durango, Jalisco, Baja California, Sonora y en el sur, Yucatán.

Calderon has more support in the North, so the lead Lopez Obrador currently enjoys is likely to shrink even more. The PAN held a press conference and announced that the PRD was intentionally slowing the vote counting in districts where Calderon leads.

With more than 90% counted:

A las 10:27 de la noche, se reporta un porcentaje de casillas computadas de 90.40 por ciento, que le sigue dando la ventaja a Andrés Manuel López Obrador con un 36.24 por ciento, contra 35.03 por ciento de Felipe Calderón, que le da una ventaja de 1.21 puntos.

With 92.57% of the vote counted:

A las 11:24 de la noche queda el 7.55 por ciento de actas distritales por computar, lo que representa dos millones 418 mil votos....

...A las 11:24 de la noche, se reporta un porcentaje de casillas computadas de 92.45 por ciento, que le sigue dando la ventaja a Andrés Manuel López Obrador con un 36.09 por ciento, contra 35.13 por ciento de Felipe Calderón, que le da una ventaja de 0.96 puntos.

Quedan de sumar el 7.55 por ciento de los sufragios por contabilizar, esto es dos millones 418 mil votos...

posted by Michelle @ 10:57 PM, 0 comments

Technical information from the IFE regarding rapid count

Several media reports mention the 5 experts at the IFE who were in charge of the analysis of the rapid count, but give little additional information.

You can find the report of the experts online. They present estimates from three different type of statistical models that they used to determine that the race was too close to call Sunday night. It identifies the academics who authored the report.

posted by Michelle @ 10:56 PM, 0 comments

Today the real count begins in Mexico

The Sunday preliminary results for the Mexican elections were of the 'quick count' system. That's where precincts send their counts directly to the central electoral officials (IFE) electronically. Almost 99% of those reports are now in. Those are the results in which Calderon has a lead of 0.6%.


Go to original.

Today, the official count begins at the district level. All the paperwork and sealed ballot boxes from the precincts will be reviewed at the district. If there are any inconsistencies or problems in the paperwork, the sealed ballot box will be opened, and the votes will be re-counted by hand before certifying the results. (I read that at least o One district had opened their box because the paperwork was missing to begin counting by hand , but now I can't find the link.) If the paperwork is in order, the district tallies all the votes from the precinct paperwork; certifies it; and sends it upward through IFE.

The NYTimes has a couple of articles about the elections.

The leftist paper, La Jornada, is reporting that precinct paperwork for a poor neighborhood in Mexico State (but part of the Mexico City metropolitan area) has been found at the dump.

posted by Michelle @ 11:43 AM, 3 comments

Monday, July 03, 2006

Both Calderon and AMLO claim victory online





posted by Michelle @ 1:03 PM, 0 comments

Go read a blog of someone who is getting paid to keep us informed...

Ana Maria Salazar.

In English.

In Spanish.

Or, maybe the WaPo, though it doesn't seem to update as regularly.

posted by Michelle @ 1:29 AM, 0 comments

Ok. Last post for the night just because I'm annoyed

Univision has the most clueless anchors. They keep reporting the aggregate vote percentages, but provide no analysis beyond "the gap keeps getting smaller, and AMLO is gaining."

A quick look at the disaggregated rapid count votes shows that different percentages of precincts have reported from different regions which have different tendencies.

How hard would it be to do a sub-national analysis using the available data?

I sure hope Mexicans in Mexico have access to better anchors than those that are stranded here with Univision.

Buenas noches. Espero que cuando me despierto manana, haya un presidente nuevo sin violencia o derrota del mercado financiero (pq ya ha bajado el peso....).

posted by Michelle @ 1:12 AM, 4 comments

Ok. Now it's just getting repetitive

I think I'm going to bed.

El Universal has the easiest to access results of the various sites allowed by IFE to published the rapid count results. The margin keeps getting smaller.

Notably, Madrazo did not make an announcement, though his spokesperson did. He urged patience and respect for the rules.

It's like a train wreck...you don't want to look but you can't help yourself.

posted by Michelle @ 1:05 AM, 0 comments

With 44% precincts reporting....

Less than 500,000 votes difference.

posted by Michelle @ 12:58 AM, 0 comments

Geez. Here's Calderon again....

To say that they'll wait for the formal results., They aren't going to wait to begin plans for their government because they aer certain the results will confirm their victory.

posted by Michelle @ 12:54 AM, 0 comments

Lopez Obrador speeking to followers at the Zocalo

But, webcams are not working.

Essentially, he's saying that they need to be vigilant of the vote count to make sure that the "truth" of their victory is respected.

As one of the Univision analysts has pointed out, though both Calderon and AMLO are claiming victory, they are not doing so in a way that disrespects the other candidate. Each are claiming that the votes will support their victory more like a continuation of their campaigns than a definitive claim of victory.

Only time will tell.

posted by Michelle @ 12:50 AM, 0 comments

At 12:27: Calderon will respect IFE, but poll results say that we have won (though only 35% of precincts have reported)

Calderon:

We will respect the decision of the IFE and the procedures in place.

Conteo Rapidos: We've won according to their count.

But also according to the exit polls:
Arco: 37% PAN, 35% PRD

Economistas Asociados: 36.6, 33.4%

Another (BNC?): 37%, 35%

Marketing Politico: 38%, 34%

Conteo Rapidio
Economistas Asociados: 38.8%, 34.9%

Arco: missed it

Sistema del IFE: 38.35%, 35.7% with 35% of districts reporting.

"We do not doubt that we have won."

He then went on to congratulate PAN governors-elect in three states.

posted by Michelle @ 12:31 AM, 0 comments

Prelim results al El Universal

But, right now with low percentage of returns.

posted by Michelle @ 12:29 AM, 0 comments

AMLO: "Ganamos la Republica"

Less than five minutes after head of the Electoral Institute and the President announced that results would not be available until the full vote on Wednesday and urged Mexicans to be patient, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador is on TV (at 11:20 local time) telling the country that he has won. He believes his camp has won by at least 500,000 votes.

He's headed for the Zocalo to tell the people that this result will not be reversed.

{My stomach still hurts.}

posted by Michelle @ 12:23 AM, 0 comments

IFE announces no result

Luis Ugalde is right now announcing that the rapid count is too close to call.

He's saying that we'll have to wait for the official count, due Wednesday. And, only the IFE can certify the vote, and he urges everyone to wait for the full vote.

The country has "una enorme responsibildad" and the parties should wait for and respect the full vote, according to Ugalde.

{And he looks like he's sweating a LOT.}

And, all manifestaciones should wait....that is, no one should take to the streets.

{Shit....uh oh.}

Now, Fox is making an announcement. I'd sure hate to be him. {Geez, he sure has aged in just six years....} He's saying Mexico has already made its decision at the polls, and the country must wait for the "impartial, transparent electoral institutions" to do their job.

{My stomach hurts....}

posted by Michelle @ 12:07 AM, 0 comments

Sunday, July 02, 2006

Early polls still too close to call

Fox News. And this other source.

posted by Michelle @ 10:29 PM, 0 comments

Today's progress

Whew! I finished that conference paper (a full 3 weeks before the conference) and set a new personal record (3 days). I don't think it's horrible either. Since its directly related to a sliver of my book manuscript, it was not entirely a detour from the book, just a brief pit stop.

From the paper's introduction:

This paper answers two rather modest questions relevant for these latter diffusion explanations: How do IOs influence domestic social policy? And, is there anything new about the ways IOs participate in the diffusion of policy? These are important questions, since a handful of recent studies suggest that IOs have not had a significant impact on social policy outcomes since the 1980s (Hunter and Brown 2000; Brooks 2005). These studies fail to find a statistical relationship between international aid or World Bank lending and social spending or pension privatization. In this paper, I contend that IOs do influence social policy, though not in ways likely to be measured by cross national comparisons of program lending and policy outcomes. International financial institutions may have used the blunt instrument of loan conditionality and one-size-fits-all structural adjustment recommendations during the debt crisis of the 1980s, but few would characterize the social policy approach of IOs during the 1990s as such. Seldom is IO influence on social policy a matter of a gross display of influence through loan conditionality or the imposition of simple policy models. Instead, the influence of IOs on social policy has been important but more nuanced than many characterizations would admit. Further, recent studies fail to address the second question posed above; they fail to ask what is new, if anything, about the ways IOs influence policy. I show that recent participation of IOs in policy formation shares both commonalities and differences with participation of IOs in the first half of the twentieth century. To illustrate the ways IOs influence social policy, both recently and historically, I compare social insurance policy formation in Mexico during the 1940s and 1990s. In neither case did IO participation decisively cause the policy outcomes, but in both cases IOs provided both important technical advice and established important international norms regarding policy that influenced the types of policies that were ultimately adopted.

And from the conclusion:

This paper demonstrates the ways in which IOs have sought to influence domestic social insurance policy in Mexico, though with mixed results, in two important periods of policy reform. Several general observations should be made regarding the Mexican experience. Efforts of IOs to influence domestic social policy are not a new feature of recent globalization; IOs have always sought to influence policy in Mexico. This is consistent with findings of comparative and historical studies (Deacon 1999; Orenstein 2003). Though the regularity of IO participation and the means of influence (technical assistance or loans) observed in Mexico are likely to be similar to experiences of other developing nations, this IO influence stands in marked contrast to the experience of most advanced industrialized democracies, where it is safer to assume that all welfare politics are domestic. This suggests that studies of welfare in the developing world should be careful to consider the influence of IOs when explaining policy outcomes, even if IO participation is not decisive in determining policy. If Mexico provides any finding worth generalizing, it is probably that the politics of social insurance are still predominantly domestic, despite efforts by IOs to influence policy outcomes. IOs may provide policy inputs, but whether those inputs are incorporated into policy will ultimately be constrained by the domestic political context.

Now, to decide what to do with the rest of the day (until election results start coming in) as a reward. This, perhaps? [No, Brian voted for this.]

Update: The movie was good, but be sure to see it somewhere with digital sound. The sound drug really bad in the new theatre where we saw it, which made the score sound off key during intense parts of the movie.

posted by Michelle @ 5:26 PM, 0 comments

Today's the vote



And come hell or high water, the IFE will announce the results of the preliminary count at 11pm.

The World Cup is still a close second for top news story, however.





posted by Michelle @ 12:30 PM, 0 comments

Progress

Number of typewritten pages: 10.5

Notes for reamining 3 pages of paper: check

Number of futbol games watched: 2

Number of pages in the latest Archie/Nero adventure read: 80+

Number of espressos: I'm not tellin.

It was a long day.

posted by Michelle @ 1:28 AM, 0 comments

Saturday, July 01, 2006

Handy page with information about tomorrow's elections in Mexico

From the Federal Electoral Institute in English. And in Spanish.

It includes a calendar and overview of rules regarding campaigns.

posted by Michelle @ 6:28 PM, 0 comments