MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 8 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 12 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 10 months 4 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 3 weeks ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 3 weeks ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 3 weeks ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 3 weeks ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
Hits of the Day
Maths and Other Liberal Black Magic
By DF on Mon, 10/29/2012 - 3:46pm |Sure, Nate Silver's model says it's not really close at all, but doesn't it feel like it's a dead heat? It sure does if you're a paid pundit!
URL:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/10/people-who-cant-do-math-are-so-mad-nate-silver/58460/
- Add new comment
- 2610 reads
Comments
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
It's all about hearing Joe Scarborough say, "An endorsement from the Des Moines Register matters." Well, that and to watch Mark "The President is a dick" Halperin fantasize about Romney paths to victory.
by DF on Mon, 10/29/2012 - 4:03pm
This Halperin clip is still funny today. Romney is not going to win Ohio. Give him NC, CO and VA and he still loses. Halperin is such a transparent shill.
by DF on Tue, 10/30/2012 - 12:15pm
Did any of these people ever take statistics? Politico's Dylan Byers:
This is one of those comments that's so off it's hard to know where to start. First, Silver's model is offering two interpretations of the same prediction: percentage change of a win, which is defined by reaching 270 electoral votes, and an estimate of how many electoral votes is likely to be secured by each candidate. It is the latter informs the former. If Nate gets the electoral votes right, that is, in fact, a confirmation of the accuracy of his model. Also, it is of no importance whether the "actual" probability of Obama winning is 74.6% or 64.4% or even 90% like Sam Wang's model.
It's as if Dylan Beyers is trying to say, "So what if Nate Silver calls this election as close as he did in 2008? That won't mean you can put any stock in his predictions!"
It's fun to see all the rats freaking out about Nate Silver. I have a prediction of my own: Nate Silver will still have a job after this election. Unfortunately, so will Dylan Byers. However, there is clearly a fear that a quant approach like Nate's makes them all look like they useful idiots they really are.
by DF on Mon, 10/29/2012 - 5:14pm
The reaction of the likes of Joe Scarborough are just like the reaction of traditional baseball scouts to the use of sabermetrics in prospect selection. Joe was going into his 74.6% rant this morning, and Chuck Todd told him straight out he wouldn't let Joe pull him into it.
As Nate pointed out using football
Given the details, would one rather be up a touchdown or down a touchdown with 10 minutes left to go? Being down by 7 doesn't doom one to failure, but winning is less likely. So - would one rather be Obama or Romney at this point?
by Elusive Trope on Tue, 10/30/2012 - 9:11am
As of this morning, per Nate Silver, there's still a 27.1% chance of Romney winning. That seems far too close to me! Nate's model could be perfectly correct, and it would still not be surprising if Romney won. In fact, it'd be less surprising than flipping a coin twice and getting heads both times.
by Verified Atheist on Tue, 10/30/2012 - 8:37am
It would be less surprising, using Nate football analogy above, to hear the next morning that a NFL team down by 7 with 10 minutes left, came back and won the game.
by Elusive Trope on Tue, 10/30/2012 - 9:24am
Actually, it would be more surprising to hear that an NFL team down by a touchdown (I'm not sure if that's 6 or 7 points in Nate's analogy) with 10 minutes left came back and won the game, since 16% is less than 27%. It would be less surprising to hear that an NFL team down by 3 with 10 minutes left came back and won the game.
by Verified Atheist on Tue, 10/30/2012 - 11:14am
You're right. I meant to say "than to hear." The point being the likes of Scarborough flipping out on the 27% means they just don't get it.
by Elusive Trope on Tue, 10/30/2012 - 12:04pm
And that the not getting it is very much a reaction to the ascendance of people who can actually make a sensible prediction and stand by it, versus fly-by-night buttholes who just say whatever they want in perpetuity without ever being held accountable.
As Nate recently said, no pundit was ever fired for saying it's all going to come down to turnout. If, like me, you have an unhealthy fascination with Morning Joe, you know that's pretty much their bread and butter. The existence of people like Silver and Krugman - people who can marshal the facts to make calls that are consistently right or very close - is a threat to the political pablum peddlers.
Joe angry. Joe smash.
by DF on Tue, 10/30/2012 - 12:10pm
I do have an unhealthy fascination with Morning Joe (as I do with the Mike and Mike show on ESPN2 at the same time - both are distractions while I get ready for work). Watching the train wreck that is the Mika-Joe political banter is one of my guilt pleasures. Like this morning when Joe says "Obama is intellectually exhausted," and offers no plan, and Mika tries to explain how the last four years are a framework going forward.
by Elusive Trope on Tue, 10/30/2012 - 12:18pm
I don't know if you're familiar with Internet meme comics, but this is my general impression of the dominant Morning Joe dynamic:
Of course this doesn't capture Halperin cheesin' it, Barnicle rambling or the superficial banter about what everyone is wearing.
by DF on Tue, 10/30/2012 - 3:22pm
There was day Warren Sapp of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers came on the show and refered to Eugene Robinson as the "voice of God." Eugene does seem to kind of float about the rest of them (maybe in part because he is always on video feed) and yet provide some gravitas to the proceedings
by Elusive Trope on Tue, 10/30/2012 - 4:32pm
Yes! I saw that. There are a few people who come on the show that can add something redeeming. Robinson and Meacham come to mind. Sometimes Heilemann just can't take the stupid anymore and says something real. Other than that it's usually a superficial, plug-laden shitfest of conventional wisdom.
Also there's the weird alpha-male necktie banter whenever Brian Sullivan is on. Seriously, they talk about their attire way too much.
by DF on Tue, 10/30/2012 - 4:48pm
Speaking of alpha males and talk about attire - the party really gets going when Donny Deutsch shows up.
by Elusive Trope on Tue, 10/30/2012 - 5:04pm
1/4 isn't 1/2, which is what I take "dead heat" to mean. Would anyone be shocked - shocked! - that Romney won at all? No, but Nate is saying that his model thinks it's about as safe a bet as betting on heads twice in a row. To put it in other terms, it's about three times as likely that Obama wins according to his model. That doesn't sound quite so close, does it? Futures markets where people are betting real money on this outcome agree. At no point during the general cycle has any futures market given Romney anything better than Intrade's weird 41% peak last week. Could all those Obama bettors end up losing? Sure - but I wouldn't bet on it. ;)
Of course, Nate packs in a lot proprietary, hedgey stuff in his model that we can't really scrutinize. I'm sure he likes his NYT paycheck, so I don't expect he'll disclose all the details of his model anytime soon. However, if you like transparency (as in you can download and run the model yourself), a track record of accuracy as good as Nate's (and longer), a much stronger prediction of an Obama win, and Ivy League credentials to boot, then check Sam Wang and the Princeton Election Consortium. They've called it within an electoral vote or two the last two Presidential cycles.
Today's Bayesian prediction from PEC? 97%.
by DF on Tue, 10/30/2012 - 12:04pm
Another football analogy. The game is tied 17 to 17. Three minutes to go. Team Obama has possession of the football on Team Romney's 12 yard line with a first and ten. Team Romney has just two time outs left, and as the 17 points indicates, the offense hasn't been the greatest, but has shown the ability to score*. Is it a dead heat? I mean the score is tied 17 to 17. How many guys in Las Vegas would put money down that Team Romney would win? Possible, yes. Less likely than an Obama win, yes.
*one thing to consider is whether one of those touchdowns came from a fumbled kickoff that gave Team Romney the ball close to the goal line. In which case, they had show only once the ability to sustain a long drive that resulted in a touchdown, and one other time, the chance to kick a field goal. another consideration, had the kicker missed two out of three field goals. Nate's model in a sense looks at these election factors.
by Elusive Trope on Tue, 10/30/2012 - 12:13pm
Right, he incorporates terms for events that could shock the model in an attempt to make it more resilient. Sam Wang is critical of this if for no other reason than the model isn't open so he can't judge whether Nate is going about this in a sound way. FWIW, Sam Wang's random drift prediction for today is 91%.
by DF on Tue, 10/30/2012 - 12:18pm
I know what he is doing.
Read Franken's texts about liars and such.
Hannity and cohen....
Joe picked the singular dumbest dummy to play with his rhetoric.
It is so clear what the hell he is doing.
And then, go back to 2008 when Olbermann just humiliated the sonofabitch.
I actually witnessed Joe talking about how he could not be a racist because he was forced to sit in classrooms with 'minorities'. hahahhahahahaha
This jackass is such a ....oh never mind.
I will watch him two times a week.
If Mika is schrieking I have to turn the channel.
He thinks he is sooooo very artistic and he is so goddamnable transparent....
The idea is that he will send the proper message to other fascists and also a wonderful Peter Pan image to the 'moderates' and somehow he will get out this message that AMERICA IS RIGHT OF CENTER.
I hate this guy. But I must hit his show at least 2 days a week in order to see what his 'take' is on things.
I will tell you one thing.
If I think that Obama is a lock; I will watch him all next week and witness as he pees in his pants.
hahahahahahha
I am sure that at some point he will blame the loss of the repubs on a hurricane.hahahahah
by Richard Day on Wed, 10/31/2012 - 1:37am
This morning, he just bet David Axelrod that he would grow a mustache if Obama wins either NC or FL. Ax has to shave if Obama loses any of MI, PA or MN. Joe might end up growing a nice cookie duster on account of FL, which would be sweet, sweet justice.
by DF on Wed, 10/31/2012 - 4:06pm