Michigan State University students had an unconventional math class this week after professor John McCarthy, 57, reportedly stripped naked in Calculus 1 class and began screaming that “there is no f—ing God” and “It’s all an act and none of it’s real.” In the age of laptop computers, the most surprising thing is that the students noticed and looked up from their computers. Presumably one student asked the standard question of “will this be on the test?”
Witnesses said that McCarthy was going through a routine derivative equation when he started to talk about his colleagues and how “they’re all actors.” He added that “It’s all an act and none of it’s real.”
McCarthy was arrested but not actually charged with a crime. He can certainly be charged with indecent exposure but I hope that he is not and that the police show a modicum of discretion. He obviously had a psychological meltdown. Brilliance sometimes comes with such mental issues as vividly shown in movies like “A Beautiful Mind.”
I would also hope that the faculty treats this matter as a mental illness and allows McCarthy to seek treatment rather than simply fire him. I realize it will be difficult for him to return to the classroom, but we need to treat mental illness like other forms of illness. Thus far the school has merely reassigned his classes. I expect that he is unlikely to return to teaching but in my view the school should treat this matter as an illness rather than misconduct. What do you think?
Source: NY Daily News
@Blouise: Unfortunately, I do not think they are telling us how many of the undecided actually end up voting. Since they are re-interviewing only once, they won’t be able to do that.
The best we can do is that 20% say they “definitely won’t vote,” but I wonder about whether the other 80% really will vote or not.
Tony C.,
I think you are on track, at least with the people doing this study. They start with 44,000 for initial interviews then continue reinterviewing a 1,000 per week including after the election.
Of course they are breaking it down into more categories than just undecided and I think you’ll approve of the manner in which they established categories … from link:
“Through most of the spring and early summer, more than half of the survey respondents who were undecided last December were still declining to choose a candidate, with the rest breaking slightly for Mitt Romney over Barack Obama. Since around mid-June, more of these previously undecided voters have begun to commit, with Obama gaining and, in the last few weeks, surpassing Romney among those who were originally undecided. According to Vavreck, “These decisions seem largely to have been motivated by party identification.”
Meanwhile, both candidates have managed to retain the vast majority of prospective voters who supported them last December. Over the course of 2012, Obama has held 96% of those who supported him in 2011 and added 3% of those who originally said they would vote Republican. For his part, Romney has held 94% of those who intended to vote Republican and added 2% of those who intended to vote for Obama. (Vavreck notes that the 2008 CCAP study found almost as much stability in candidate preferences, with Obama holding 90% of his early supporters and John McCain holding 92% of his.)
To readers versed in election studies, these findings will seem very reminiscent of those from the first scholarly analysis of campaign effects: “conversion is, by far, the least frequent result and activation the second most frequent manifest effect of the campaign.” However, whereas Lazarsfeld and his colleagues in 1940 studied 600 prospective voters in Erie County, Ohio, Vavreck and her colleagues in 2012 have 44,000 nationwide. That’s real scientific progress.”
Then this in the Reply section:
“Thanks for all of the interest in our work! On the N, let me add a little bit more intuition: We will end up with 44,000 impaneled cases, but right now, 37 weeks in to the year we only have 37,000 re-interviews. We interview 1,000 of the initial 44,000 each week. OK, second thing, lots of people don’t vote. So, questions about decisions in voting booth eliminate those people who say they definitely will not vote on Election Day. That reduces the 37,000 by roughly 20%. I also set aside people who reported they would vote for someone other than one of the two major party candidates (roughly 4%). So … that’s going to get you down to a total N where the percentages add up!” (Lynn Vavreck)
@Blouise: Once again, crossed in the ether. We are doing that a lot today.
Thanks for the research, I read it all… I think that kind of supports my view; they are breaking a few percent toward Obama, which is what is happening among the “decideds” as well.
There are a few surprises, I guess, the fact that which 6% are “undecided” changes from day to day; with some “decided” for Obama or Romney suddenly becoming “undecided” at about the same rate that “undecideds” are becoming “decided” for Obama or Romney.
Which brings up the question (which is answered indirectly): What percentage are “undecided” at ANY point in the race? Apparently, that is about 10%, if 90% is the unwavering support level I think they allude to in the article.
@Mike: It would be a good study, but hard to do I think.
Not that hard, I do not think. It takes two phone calls. On the first call, say,
We are conducting a two-call study to determine if voter preference now is predictive of whether and how people actually vote. If you participate, we only have two questions now, and we will follow up with you after the election to see what you ultimately decided to do. Can we ask you those two questions?”
A) Which candidate would you vote for, or would you describe yourself as “undecided”?
B) On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 meaning very unlikely to vote and 5 meaning almost certain to vote, where would you put yourself at this time?
Thank you, we will be following up with you after the election.
Tony C.,
This is a study which is ongoing and won’t be completed until after election day. Read the entire article to which I’ve linked (it isn’t long) including the replies as more is explained there. Then follow the links in the article, especially the link identified as the Cooperative Campaign Analysis Project.
Some of this is published in the NYTimes by Lynn Vavreck in an article tracing shifts in presidential voting intentions from late 2011 through early September. Undecideds are included in this study.
http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/09/21/there-go-the-undecided-voters/
Thanks for that link; it was spot on. Dolan is a clear thinker.
“My own instant reaction is that Mr. Romney may have done the equivalent of kicking a field goal, perhaps not bringing the race to a draw, but setting himself up in such a way that his comeback chances have improved by a material amount. ” Nate Silver
Mike, when you put quotes around a link, it breaks the HTML. Here ya go:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/04/1139830/-Mitt-Romney-s-debate-performance-Mostly-fiction
OS,
Thank you.
“http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/04/1139830/-Mitt-Romney-s-debate-performance-Mostly-fiction?detail=hide”
A Democratic Ad in response.
@Mike: If you don’t know who to vote for by now, from any perspective, then you are a moron
Precisely why I do not think they really exist in any significant number. I think they are “undecided” about whether to bother voting, not undecided about who they would vote for if they magically found themselves in a voting booth on election day.
@Blouse: Cool! Thank you!
My best (statistical) guess: For the most part they do not vote, but for those that do vote, their vote is completely in line with the popular vote.
(The sample is so large, it would be astonishing to me (and therefore interesting) if it did NOT predict the “undecided” vote; it might mean that “undecided” means “contrarian.”)
“I’d like to see a study, you sociology geeks out there, as to how many “undecideds” actually DO end up voting for a candidate”
Tony,
It would be a good study, but hard to do I think. My belief is that the whole “undecided” meme is bullsh*t made up by the media to ensure the horse-race and played along with by people who think being “undecided” gives them cachet. If you don’t know who to vote for by now, from any perspective, then you are a moron who probably shouldn’t vote and can’t be swayed by reasons anyway. “Undecided” is a self reported position with no lie detector to tell what the person is really thinking. A meme endorsed by the punditry.
I think about 5% of Obama’s support is soft. If they could be convinced that Romney is not that far to the right they could switch. People love to vote for a moderate republican and last night Romney by lying about his positions portrayed himself as one. Of course, social issues did not come up. I am so negative that I am thinking about Ryan as president of the senate.
“So the debate might convince a few undecideds to vote, but I do not think it can actually make any significant group of people switch sides.” (TonyC)
That’s been my whole point all along …. anyway, usually it’s the choir who watches
I’m going to do some research for I read a lot of political science blogs and I remember something about the question you asked, “… how many “undecideds” actually DO end up voting for a candidate …” but I don’t remember it well enough to accurately relay the info so I’m going to go hunting for it.
@Mike: The link is a good take, too.
I think Obama will reserve his rhetoric for teleprompted, staged, rehearsed events. I do not say that derisively in the least, those are incredibly effective and he can be quite moving. I think they are full of fiction, but that is what will get out the Democratic vote, it is Obama’s secret weapon, and it is firepower that Romney cannot hope to match.
The truth that all sides of the establishment ignore.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karen-dolan/the-biggest-losers-big-bi_b_1938006.html‘
“Obama did what anybody paying close attention would have known he would do. He played it safe. And he stuck to a rather dull rhetorical style because — he has a rather dull rhetorical style. Also because that’s what you do when you’re the front-runner. You don’t say or do anything wild and crazy. You let your opponent jump up and down and make excitable noises. Which is precisely what Romney did. Some have read Romney’s stance as aggressive, others as pushy, but there’s one word that you’re unlikely to hear: “presidential.” Makes for good theatrics. But it won’t win you the White House.” (from Mike’s link to huffpost)
Sane analysis
@Blouise: I really think people just selectively hear whatever they want to hear.
As for undecided voters, I think a primary debate could have real influence and sway Democrats to Democrat A or Democrat B, or Republicans to Republican A or Republican B. Those are “intra-party” debates. A debate between people of different parties is an “inter-party” debate.
I have real difficulty believing there is any significant body of voters, even 1%, that really are struggling with the difference between Romney and Obama. I just do not believe it.
I think the only thing the inter-party debates can do is convince party members to vote or not vote for the candidate they like. For undecideds, I do not think they are really undecided as to which candidate they like, I think they say that because they are not sure if they are going to vote at all. (I’d like to see a study, you sociology geeks out there, as to how many “undecideds” actually DO end up voting for a candidate).
So the debate might convince a few undecideds to vote, but I do not think it can actually make any significant group of people switch sides.
SwM,
“They loved Bush in the south.”
Yeah, I keep forgetting about the south 😉
“There’s no use pretending this doesn’t shake up the race. It surely does. How much, none of us knows. The Democratic spinners need to get busy on the fact-checking front. But this is mostly about Obama. Romney caught him totally flatfooted with the Rockefeller Republican move, and Obama didn’t know how to respond. If this is the new Romney, he’d better figure out how. END” Michael Tomasky, Salon I share his view.