The gossipy, horse race-obsessed outlet Politico ran a story on October 29 about the credibility of polling expert Nate Silver, whose 538 blog at the New York Times is a must-read for people interested in election forecasting.
What Silver does isn’t, on one level, all that tricky–his model combines national and state polls and generates probabilities about election outcomes. This model finds it highly likely that Barack Obama will win the election. It’s probability, not a crystal ball or a bet.
Nate Silver (photo: JD Lasica)
Politico‘s Dylan Byers notes that Silver’s model says this “even as the polls have [Romney] almost neck-and-neck with the incumbent.” By which he seems to mean the national polls, which are not entirely relevant to the election outcome, given the existence of the Electoral College.
The real issue here is that Silver’s approach seems to bother some pundits and Beltway journalists. This is ironic, since they obsess over the very same horse race, minus the statistical rigor. To them, the horse race is about unquantifiable things like “momentum” and “gaffes” and the body language of the candidates. Silver’s model suggests that the election has been a lot more stable than the one many campaign reporters have been reporting.
So if this piece is about Silver’s credibility–and it is, since it is concerned with the question of whether or not if Silver is a “one-term celebrity”–who are the critics questioning his approach?
Byers cites two people: right-leaning pundit David Brooks and right-leaning TV host Joe Scarborough of MSNBC. Yes, these are of the media people who “believe Silver is highly overrated.”
What do they have to say? Not much. Byers points to a Brooks column that diminished polling itself:
If you tell me you think you can quantify an event that is about to happen that you don’t expect, like the 47 percent comment or a debate performance, I think you think you are a wizard. That’s not possible.
Whatever that might mean is anyone’s guess, but I have never been under the impression that Nate Silver thinks he “quantifies events that are about to happen.”
Joe Scarborough (photo: DoubleSpeak Media)
Scarborough’s critique is much more direct:
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 they’re jokes.
So we’ve got a critique of Silver based on one columnist’s nonsensical dismissal of polling, and a TV pundit’s feeling that the race is actually very close–based mostly on what the campaigns are telling him. This is, it should be noted, the same Joe Scarborough who tore into critics of the Iraq War and demanded that some of them apologize for being wrong, because we won the war in April 2003. Yes, let’s hear more about what he thinks about how faulty other people’s predictions can be.
It’s hard for one story to capture so much of what is wrong with corporate media, but Politico managed to do it–and probably not on purpose. We have a questionable premise: “Critics Question Nate Silver’s Methods.” Those critics do not offer legitimate analysis; they have vague criticisms that seem to misunderstand probability and statistics. And these people happen to have high-profile positions in the media, where they can continue to churn out election coverage obsessed with phantom concepts like a candidate’s momentum–things that, hey look at that, it turns out they get to define.
It’s enough to make you glad the campaign season is almost over. Unfortunately, corporate media are likely to start their 2016 election coverage sometime next week.
We so ignore all the real issues while we play gossip re the campaigns — how more boring could it possibly be?
I am so tired of the horse-race style of reporting on elections. Thanks, FAIR for commenting on the strange process that is called the “news”! It helps to provide perspective, since I want to be informed, not spun by media pundits. Yes, Andra, the real issues are ignored by the mainstream media. They want us to gossip about the campaign. How boring–is right!
The abysmal level of media campaign reporting has finally turned me off keeping up with it–and I’m a retired political scientist. I’ve tried to challenge reporters and editors about their horserace format but rarely get a response. The main audience for their bullshit is the people who must be paid to keep up with it.
Thanks again for giving me the information I don’t have the stomach to find out for myself – which would be to actually watch and read the BS shoveled to us. For the past few months I’ve sheltered myself from it all by deliberately recording all TV programs, fast-forwarding through all the commercials, and avoiding political websites like the plague.
It would be so nice if we only had 6 wks of politics, at least 6 candidates and they all must get into debates and have the same access to media free. Lies aren’t what Free Speech is about yet that is where they allow them to say anything. Nuts! Our system has been swallowed even more deeply by the Leviathan of the hidden Plutocracy that wraps its tentacles even more tightly around or skeletal Republic. The so want to finish their Change that they Hope will replace with some kind of Holy Amercian Empire unencumbered by the ACLU, Constitution, Bill of Rights and empathy.
There seem to be two groups who criticize Nate Silver, Drew Linzer, and Simon Jackman (among others): scared “horse race” journalist and losing conservatives. I understand the latter group; I’ve been in the position of hoping that the polls were somehow wrong. The scared journalists are the greater concern. They could use their rapidly growing irrelevance to broaden their field of view and do some, I don’t know, actual journalism. Something like Dafna Linzer’s excellent Obama Has Granted Clemency More Rarely Than Any Modern President over at ProPublica. Instead, they want a turf war. So be it. But regardless of how the election goes on Tuesday, this is a war that the modelers are going to win soon enough.
As for Nate Silver, he is starting to hit back. And I don’t blame him:
It’s No Toss-Up!
From the article: “Silver’s approach seems to bother some pundits and Beltway journalists. This is ironic, since they obsess over the very same horse race, minus the statistical rigor.”
Not ironic at all if one understands the REAL goal of the media during election season. Through the use of their pundits and Beltway journalists (e.g. Brooks, Scarborough, et al), media conglomerates intentionally portray the race as “neck and neck” in order to compel campaigns and their respective PACS to keep buying television ad time (and space in newspapers). Then the broadcasting companies sit back and watch as the money continues to roll in.
Well arguments aside we will all find out tomorrow how the polls stack up to reality.Then we find out how rhetoric stacks up to…reality.
Whomever wins we still lose. Though Obama will still give us a sprig in the way of letting women have abortions if their state doesn’t stop it first etc. Things easily removed when the oilgarchs take control directly making us into a Plutocracy with theocratic overtones.
In a way i agree with your first sentence.Neither candidate has stated anything that comes close to proposing anything near reversing the blood loss occurring in our economy.As for abortion…..such a straw man.You could elect the pope and all his bishops to the presidency and the house…. and still you could never pass legislation to stop abortion.Were do you honestly believe the Rs would ever get the votes?Or the mandate to be able to achieve such a pipe dream?It is an empty opinion- without legislative bones.They could defund a few things.Big whip.Way the economy is going we wont be able to afford a stroller, or a casket for the little one.Not even if we empty the treasury.