dagblog - Comments for "Predictable Results"

In reality, we will know how

DF — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 17:29:00 +0000

In reality, we will know how accurate Silver's model is based on how closely he calls the EV total, which is tantamount to calling the map. Of course, PEC has an open model that is essentially a straight average of state polls with no econometric terms. They called 2004 on the nose and were off by one EV last time.

IMHO, the threat to Nate isn't mouthy pundits who think math is for effete liberals. It's that there might be a simpler, non-proprietary model that does just as good a job as his, if not better. I don't think this is lost on him though. I have recently seen him remark that you might as well simply average the state polls and then go about your day.

I am really interested to see if this has any significant effects on punditry in the future. If there exists a simple model for accurately predicting the outcome of Presidential elections, that could potentially have a very big impact on punditry, campaigning or even finance. What might change if that notion penetrates the public consciousness and becomes common knowledge? Consider, for instance, that Romney has never once during this cycle been the predicted winner of either of these models. How might that affect a candidate's ability to raise money in the future?

Thanks, DF.

Doctor Cleveland — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 02:15:48 +0000

In reply to This is an excellent blog,

Thanks, DF.

Thanks, NCD!

Doctor Cleveland — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 02:14:56 +0000

In reply to Thanks for the tip DF. BTW

Thanks, NCD!

You think you're sooooo

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 00:27:53 +0000

In reply to I will be the loudmouth in

You think you're sooooo smart. That might all be true in math world, but hello! real people don't live in math world. Real people live in media world.

In media world, if Obama wins, then Silver is obviously a genius. And if Romney wins, then Silver is obviously a biased liberal hack.

Thanks for the tip DF. BTW

NCD — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 20:54:48 +0000

In reply to Remember, if you want to read

Thanks for the tip DF.

BTW great post Doc. C.

Remember, if you want to read

DF — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:52:42 +0000

In reply to David Brooks is a pompous

Remember, if you want to read the NYT online, you can read as much as you like for free by either deleting the NYT tracking cookie or using your browser's private browsing mode. This works on mobile devices as well. Now there's no need to subscribe!

This is an excellent blog,

DF — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:50:10 +0000

In reply to Predictable Results

This is an excellent blog, Dr. C. If the press corps did even a basic job of reporting the relevant facts, the entire Romney campaign would be untenable.

Great post! Predictions;

Richard Day — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:15:45 +0000

In reply to Predictable Results

Great post!

Predictions; accurate predictions should be rewarded.

But there are negligent predictors and just flat out lying predictors.

I was thinking about this while I view the coverage of Sandy and its aftermath.

The meteorologists were right on; from the beginning in terms of the power of this storm and its interaction with other weather systems present as it hit the mainland.

There are currently 8 million without power; the experts predicted up to ten million without power.

And other predictions of devastation seemed to have come true.

These people knew what they were doing.

Governmental units; state, local and Federal governments have been cooperating with each other and basing their preparations upon the weather experts.

This is what is supposed to happen.

Silver was right on in 2008 and other pollsters like Rassmussen were way way off--up until the very end when they kind of 'cleaned up their act' to look plausible.

So my bets are on Silver.

Thanks, Lulu. You're

Doctor Cleveland — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:52:34 +0000

In reply to I will be the loudmouth in

Thanks, Lulu. You're absolutely right.

That sentence oversimplifies for brevity's sake, and it has all the problems you name.

I will be the loudmouth in

LULU — Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:45:10 +0000

In reply to Predictable Results

I will be the loudmouth in the bar this morning, the guy who breaks into the conversation with a contrary position on a small point even though he agrees with almost everything you say.

If Nate Silver's approach to handicapping the election is wrong (and of course it could be), we'll know in a week.

No, we won't. We will not know on the basis of results whether his predictive method was right or wrong because his prediction clearly allows for a Romney win. If you have one roll of one die and must bet your house that it either will be a six or will not be a six, the only sensible action is to bet that it will not be a six even though you clearly understand that it could be. You bet based on easily understood, obvious good odds that five winning possibilities against one losing possibility is the way to go. If you become homeless it is not that you were wrong in how you bet, it is just that the less likely possibility is the one that happened. Silver digs a lot deeper to understand the components that determine what he thinks the odds are but he still only produces odds based on incomplete evidence.

NFL odds-makers are amazingly good at their predictions but they miss a lot of the time. They may predict that the deciding difference is that the winner will be the fast team playing on a fast field only to have a freak storm blow in a few minutes before kick off and coat the field with snow. Weather can screw a lot of things up, another thing the Right is wrong about.

If Obama wins we will be more assured that Silver's methodology is correct but I believe that considering the result itself as proof that his methodology is correct is a logical fallacy, just as believing his methods are worthless would not be proven by Romney winning.

All that said, I am betting, as well as hoping, that Silver's higher likely predicted result is the one that comes about, but if Romney wins I will not consider it proof that Silver's methods are wrong any more than I will consider it proof that Rubin knows from Shinola. Even if Romney wins I would still bet that his prediction would be the best one next time. It is the way to bet if your source of information is his or Rasputins', uh, I mean Rasmusson's.I would still bet against a six coming up again if my bed in the flop house depended on being right.

I know your entire thesis does not rest on the one sentence I disagree with. Good blog.