Happy Birthday to Dan Rather, 81. From when broadcast network anchors were a big, big deal; and then, from when they weren't.
Some good stuff:
1. John Sides (with Lynn Vavreck) looks at undecided voters again; again, their conclusion is basically that late-deciding voters shouldn't tip the results very much, although this time they suggest undecideds might slightly break for the president.
2. More on insider information from Henry Farrell.
3. Nate Silver, or mathematics, or something like that has been under attack; it produced some useful posts (including the one above); here also is Brendan Nyhan with a nice column making the key point that, not to be insulting or anything, Silver isn't anything special. That is: there's no reason to go after Silver in particular, and not the other people doing basically the same thing. I like Silver a lot, but that's exactly right. Ezra Klein jumps in, too, with an optimistic post. A quick point: Silver's value added, to me, isn't his poll aggregation (which is in my view good, but there are other good ones out there) or his forecast model (it's fine, but again there are other comparable ones). His value added is that he consistently pumps out lengthy, interesting posts on interesting topics. Sometimes polling, sometimes not; sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't -- but he's consistently worth reading. I actually do think there are some people who mistakenly have treated him as a wizard; I don't think his detractors made that up. But so what? He's good anyway.
4. And I didn't do an "elsewhere" post yesterday, but I did one over at Greg's place about ways in which the polls could be wrong. Simon Jackman has a very nice post that actually goes nicely with what I was talking about; he writes about how to model those possible errors, and what including them should do to our confidence in final polling averages.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
The Obama national security team, including CIA, DNI, State Department and the Pentagon, watched and listened to the assault but did nothing to answer repeated calls for assistance. It has been reported that President Obama met with Vice President Joseph R. Biden and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in the Oval Office, presumably to see what support could be provided. After all, we had very credible military resources within striking distance. At our military base in Sigonella, Sicily, which is slightly over 400 miles from Benghazi, we had a fully equipped Special Forces unit with both transport and jet strike aircraft prepositioned. Certainly this was a force much more capable than the 22-man force from our embassy in Tripoli.
ReplyDeleteRead more: LYONS: Obama needs to come clean on what happened in Benghazi - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/28/lyonsobama-needs-come-clean-what-happened-benghazi/#ixzz2Asp10odi
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
If read the information below, you will understand that the emails sent from our Consulate in Benghazi had started our military response, orders were given to stand down, our military leaders tried to help anyway, and they have now been fired by Obama, or someone just below him.
ReplyDeleteThe Full Story on Benghazi, our Military Response, Security, and Obama
http://strategicthought-charles77.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-full-story-on-benghazi-our-military.html
STFU spammer
DeleteI actually do think there are some people who mistakenly have treated him as a wizard; I don't think his detractors made that up
ReplyDeleteUm, yeah, his detractors did make that up.
Nobody thinks Nate is a "wizard". Many people marvel at the complexity of his model, but no one thinks he is capable of magic. Everyone understands he is just taking publicly-available data and churning out an educated, scientific guess.
It's an insult to call what Nate does "wizardry" -and that's exactly what Nate's detractors had in mind when they conjured it up.
I don't have any examples at hand, so trust me or no, but I'll stand by what I said.
DeleteJust as there are plenty of people who don't believe in science and math in part because they don't understand them, there are plenty of people who *believe* in science without understanding it -- who believe in it the way that others believe in seances or tarot cards. Just because science is not, in fact, magic, doesn't change that.
To back up JB, I'll quote (actually paraphrase) one of my favorite authors, Arthur C. Clarke. "Any significantly advanced technology, seen from the perspective of a less developed culture, is indistinguishable from magic and may be treated as such."
DeleteNow, Clarke meant that it might be treated as such in terms of a fictional narrative. But the psychological insight is fungible. To persons who are not very well versed in high-level mathematics, never mind statistics and probability theory, Nate Silver's model is indistinguishable from a magical formula, and may be treated as such with regard to the way the mind constructs explanations of the world. (Harry Potter waves a wand and speaks college-sophomore Latin, producing a silver Patronus to repel the Dementors. Hurray! Nate Silver clicks his computer keys, mutters mathematical and computer jargon, and produces a prediction to dismay Republicans. Hurray!). Either way it seems to work, and trying to understand it would a)require more background and basic aptitudes than most people have; b) require an expenditure of effort beyond what most people are willing to put out; and c) not really help the average person in any appreciable way. Therefore, call it White Magic (or Black Magic if you don't like it) and move on to the chase scene (i.e. election day).
I don't have any examples at hand, so trust me or no, but I'll stand by what I said.
DeleteJust as there are plenty of people who don't believe in science and math in part because they don't understand them, there are plenty of people who *believe* in science without understanding it -- who believe in it the way that others believe in seances or tarot cards. Just because science is not, in fact, magic, doesn't change that.
In terms of the accuracy of the polls, the element you mention that may turn out to matter is the Spanish language and Latino polling problem. I saw a Latino publication's poll that showed very high voter interest, and very high preference for President Obama.
ReplyDeleteWhat's confusing me now are the contradictory claims about early voting. Ezra Klein etc. sees Obama campaign meeting its goals, some others agree that Obama is doing very well, but still others (Pew) say it's about even and one (Gallup, apparently) says Romney is ahead.
Some of the problem must be that many of Silver's supporters don't really understand the upshot of his work; specifically, Silver currently has Obama at 77% odds of winning, which many of Silver's fans take to mean he's "picking" Obama to win. In a statistical sense, you can't say Silver "picks" Obama until Obama's at 95% - or even 99% - probability of winning. As it stands, all Silver is saying is that Obama is "more likely" to emerge victorious, but Romney could also very well win, so if Romney wins don't come bitch at him the way you dilettantes complained about intrade after it said that the mandate had a 37% chance of being upheld by SCOTUS...from which intrade was therefore, you all declared, "proven wrong".
ReplyDeleteThe upshot of the uncertainty inherent in a 77% chance of Obama winning has a bearing on how you should regard Silver too. Since all Silver is saying is "Obama will probably win but very well might not", then the value you place in him is a function of whether you believe his inputs or, alternatively, someone you trust confirms that his inputs are valid. Anyone can pull a bunch of assumptions out of his/her keyster and say "Candidate X will probably win but Candidate Y very well might win too" - the only way that statement has utility for you is if you have reason to value the place it came from (as opposed to the proverbial keyster).
To be sure, I think Silver is pretty good and is not pulling his data from somewhere untoward. But given the underappreciated uncertainty in any of his (below 95%) forecasts, if you're not comfortable with where he gets his assumptions, its not unreasonable to disregard his work.