General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIn Defense of Nate Silver, Election Pollsters, and Statistical Predictions
In Defense of Nate Silver, Election Pollsters, and Statistical Predictions
By Zeynep Tufekci
11.02.12
6:02 PM
Nate Silver analyzes poll data on the influential FiveThiryEight blog at the liberal New York Times. He crunches polls and other data in an electoral statistical model, and he claims that his work is guided by math, not left or right politics. Yet hes become a whipping boy as election day approaches. His crime? Publishing the results of statistical models that predict President Obama has a 73.6 percent chance of defeating the Republican challenger, Mitt Romney.
The pollsters tell us whats happening now, conservative columnist David Brooks told Politico, trashing Silver. When they start projecting, theyre getting into silly land. In the same article, MSNBCs Joe Scarborough added, And anybody that thinks that this race is anything but a tossup right now is such an ideologue, they should be kept away from typewriters, computers, laptops, and microphones for the next 10 days because theyre jokes.
David Brooks is mistaken and Joe Scarborough is wrong. Because while pollsters cant project, statistical models can, and do
and they do some predictions very well.
We rely on statistical models for many decisions every single day, including, crucially: weather, medicine, and pretty much any complex system in which theres an element of uncertainty to the outcome. In fact, these are the same methods by which scientists could tell Hurricane Sandy was about to hit the United States many days in advance.
Dismissing predictive methods is not only incorrect; in the case of electoral politics, its politically harmful.
It perpetuates the faux horse-race coverage that takes election discussions away from substantive issues. Unfortunately, many of these discussions have become a silly, often unfounded, time-wasting exercise in fake punditry about who is 0.1 percent ahead. There may well be reasons to consider Ohio a toss-up state, but absolute necessity for Romney to win the state if he wants to be president (as Chris Cillizza argues) is not one of them.
more...
http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/11/why-predictions-and-statistical-models-are-necessary-and-good-for-democracy/
BumRushDaShow
(129,441 posts)Idiotic "punidits" will take a series of polls with a 5- and even 6-point spreads and will proclaim that "the race is statistically tied" because they "say so", dismissively rounding up a 3.5% MOE to 4% (or more) to "make it so".
caraher
(6,279 posts)"In defense of rational thought"
Silver et al need no "defense" in the minds of intelligent people who understand elementary probability and statistics.