- By Daniel W. Drezner
Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and a senior editor at The National Interest. Prior to Fletcher, he taught at the University of Chicago and the University of Colorado at Boulder. Drezner has received fellowships from the German Marshall Fund of the United States, the Council on Foreign Relations, and Harvard University. He has previously held positions with Civic Education Project, the RAND Corporation, and the Treasury Department.
Over at Marginal Revolution, Tyler Cowen makes a request:
Daniel Drezner remains on the fence, concerning the next Presidential election. He writes about supporting Bush, Kerry, or perhaps a third party candidate (unlikely). But why should he restrict himself to “pure strategies”? Why can’t he support some candidate with some positive probability? How about, for instance, “I support Bush with p = 0.63.” Or “I support Kerry with p = 0.57″, and so on. That way we would know how strong (or weak) his current view is.
Chris Lawrence‘s doubts aside, this seems fair to both me and my readers. I’ll be posting my first p-value after Kerry’s speech tonight. Obviously, this value will likely fluctuate over the next few months. One thing the probability that I will vote for someone either than Kerry or Bush is zero.