Robert (Bob) Kubinec

@rmkubinec.bsky.social

Political scientist @ Texas A&M Bush School of Government. Interests: business politics/corruption, Middle East, measurement, Bayesian statistics The Bayesian Hitman: https://a.co/d/e4QmtKo Website: www.robertkubinec.com

Don't posit a theory that is only interesting because it implies X causes variation in Y, test for a statistical relationship between X and Y, but then say you are not interpreting causally. Of course you are interpreting it causally. That was the whole point of what you just did.

We're experiencing loneliness epidemic. Could AI chatbots help solve that problem? If you would have asked me up until recently I would say "probably!". But we don't know for sure. To answer this question, researchers in France recently ran a very cool experiment...

Bild

It is time for new adventures--this summer my family and I moved to College Station, Texas where I am now an associate professor of political science in the Bush School of Government & Public Service. We will miss many friends in South Carolina, but I am also excited for new opportunities at A&M.

bush school

Cornyn and Tillis' decision on Blanche is a dereliction of duty... but I'm not so sure it's bad for the democratic opposition. To stay in power, autocrats should wield corruption as a tool--reward allies. But this IRS deal does little for anyone but Trump & is a new vulnerability for the midterms.

I have read this Response to my Comment and have written a Rejoinder, showing three things: 1. The multiverse is many correlated tests. 2. The randomization inference is wrong. 3. The trichotomous moderator reaffirms my point. I also enumerate 7 misleading claims, now in print in the APSR.

A Rejoinder to ‘Still Instrumentally Inclusive’ (Turnbull-Dugarte & López Ortega)
Daniel de KadtCornell University, Department of Governmentdekadt@cornell.edu
2026-08-01
Abstract Turnbull-Dugarte and López Ortega’s “Still Instrumentally Inclusive” (the Response) answers my replication (the Comment) of their 2024 American Political Science Review paper (the Article) with, among other things, a multiverse of 2,970 analyses based on eighteen different weighting schemes, randomization inference, and a trichotomous moderator. As I show in this rejoinder, each is undermined by bona fide errors in their code, their writing, and their interpretation. First, the multiverse is just many correlated variants of the same test. This is in large part due to the weighting schemes which suffer multiple problems (some due to code errors, some intrinsic), and are largely correlated variations on one weighting scheme. Second, due to code errors the randomization inference compares a weighted statistic against an unweighted null and, in the two heterogeneity tests, permutes the interaction column rather than treatment assignment column. Every permutation p-value the Response reports is therefore computed against the wrong reference distribution; when they are recomputed correctly, two of the five it reports as significant are no longer so, and they are the two the Response emphasizes. Third, the trichotomous moderator is erroneously described as terciles, but it is in fact based on non-tercile cutpoints. The key subgroup effect reported in the Response thus rests on comparing just thirty high-weight control respondents against thirty-one high-weight treated respondents, and ends up reaffirming my original point that the heterogeneity in study 2 is with respect to weights, and not immigration sentiment as their theory predicts. I close by documenting seven claims in the Response that are untrue or misleading.
Cambridge University Press Political Science & IR@cambup-polsci.cambridge.org · last wk.

#OpenAccess from @apsrjournal.bsky.social - Still Instrumentally Inclusive - https://cup.org/4bhrhsp "Do individuals in Western democracies shift their views on LGBT+ inclusion when exposed to opposition from Muslim out-groups?" - @turnbulldugarte.com & @bertous.bsky.social #FirstView

Banner with the hashtag #OpenAccess on a green background and the text "American Political Science Review" on a blue background below.

This is such a bizarre article. I mean, I enjoy having a beer with other people. But obviously society can survive without it. The majority of people living in Arab & Muslim societies do not drink and they do just fine building relationships. www.nytimes.com/2026/08/01/s...

What Else Do We Lose When People Give Up Booze? (Gift Article)

Yes, there are many benefits of cutting back. But bars are closing. Jobs are going away. And a way of being together can feel harder to find.

nytimes.com

Just finished Matt Parker’s “Humble Pi: A comedy of maths errors” which indeed turned out quite funny (albeit sometimes tragic, as bad math occasionally kills). Covers lots of fun errors: date issues, mixed up units, database errors, random numbers…

Book cover of Matt Parker’s Humble Pi

Next big thing for Leaflet: helping creators monetize! 💸 First step = paid memberships for your publications Next, exploring other things like one-off payments — tell us what you need! Almost ready & we'd love to find some early partners, please fill out the linked form if you're interested!

Piloting paid memberships for the open social web!

Lab Notes 035: building monetization features for Leaflet creators, starting with paid memberships — tell us if you'd like to be the first to try, and what else you need!

lab.leaflet.pub

Wow. According to @gelliottmorris.com poll tracker, 61% of Americans disapprove of Donald Trump. 👇 Per NYT, engagement with right-wing content creators is also way down this year. 👇 A possibility is open to reset US politics--but the opposition needs to seize the chance. It won't "just happen."

trump disapprovalRight-wing content creator youtube views per NYT

One of my empirical-work econ takes is that I think academia should be *more* open to publishing work based on best-we-can-do weak data, as long as there's really no other way to address the question and that work is very clear about what it can and can't actually say.

And while I'm at this, let's talk about all the reasons why Mamdani's grocery store plan is not the best idea: 1) it consumes a *lot* of resources building stores that could go directly to people who need $$ for food via SNAP 2) competes with private grocery stores 3) requires land/buildings

Robert (Bob) Kubinec@rmkubinec.bsky.social · 6d ago

This has to be the *least* popular post I've written on Bluesky 😅. Guys, you don't just hold the "bad" politicians accountable but also the "good" ones. Just because you have the right intentions doesn't mean you'll end up with the right policies. Critique and debate is how we get better.

This has to be the *least* popular post I've written on Bluesky 😅. Guys, you don't just hold the "bad" politicians accountable but also the "good" ones. Just because you have the right intentions doesn't mean you'll end up with the right policies. Critique and debate is how we get better.

Robert (Bob) Kubinec@rmkubinec.bsky.social · 7d ago

Why do politicians like building stores? It's much more effective to fund a program like SNAP--then people get to choose where they buy groceries (and no need to live near a Mamdani store). Physical stores give the politician much greater name recognition *and* a source of control and patronage.

Me: I can't do focused work because there are so many distractions during the semester between students, faculty, admin, and conferences. Me during the summer: Oh my gosh it is too quiet, no way I can focus on anything now!