Nate Silver's Numbers Racket
In the last week or so, an intense kerfuffle broke out over the poll-prognosticator
On any given day, Silver might have announced that -- given the new polling data -- "the model" was now finding that the president had an 86.3 percent chance of winning. Not 86.4 percent, you fools. Not 86.1 percent, you Philistines. But 86.3 percent, you lovers of reason.
Not surprisingly, for nervous
"On the right, apparently, there is no such thing as an objective calculation. Everything must have a political motive," Krugman fumed. "This is really scary," he added. If "these people triumph, science -- or any kind of scholarship -- will become impossible."
Now, bear in mind that Jordan's critique centered on what Jordan (a numbers-cruncher himself) argues is Silver's over-reliance on small-state polls.
And on this rock the future of science -- nay, scholarship itself -- shall founder!
Now, I have no idea whether Silver's model is the psephological
The truth is that any statistician can build a model. They do it all the time. They make assumptions about the electorate, assign weights to polls and economic indicators, etc., and then they wait for the sausage to come out. No doubt some models are better than others, and some models are simply better for a while and then regress to the mean. But ultimately, the numbers are dependent on the values you place on them. As the computer programmers like to say, garbage in, garbage out.
I'm not saying Silver's just lucky or shoveling garbage. He's a serious numbers guy. But so are the folks at the
They couldn't all be right.
What interests me is the way people talk about math as if it's divinely prophetic. It's as if they subscribe to a religion that simply apes the terminology of science. To listen to many of Silver's defenders, questioning his methodology is akin to rejecting evolution or the laws of thermodynamics, as if only his model is sanctified by the god, Reason.
I wonder: What kind of scholarship do we have to look forward to when, in the words of Krugman, "facts really do have a well-known liberal bias" and a difference of opinion over poll-weighting foretells the end of science?
Don't get me wrong; I do understand that math can be ironclad. We know the decay rates of isotopes, how fast things will fall in a vacuum, what compounded interest rates will yield and all that.
But I like to think that people are different, more open to reason, and that the soul -- particularly when multiplied into the complexity of a society -- is not so easily number-crunched. Obviously this is a romantic view out of step with the times.
Still, isn't it possible that the passionate defense Silver arouses from some people on the left has just a bit more to do with the comfort he dispenses than with the sophistication of his analysis? And isn't it also possible that some of the conservatives screaming bloody murder about how his model has to be rigged are paying homage to the same cult of the numbers?
Read the latest political news.
- Corporate Bosses Gone Berserk
- The Trojan Horse in the Debt Debate
- The Real Problem with Military Spending
- Without Unity, We'll Tumble Over the Fiscal Cliff
- The Classy Election of 2012
- Karl Rove: The Biggest Loser in Politics
- Will the Supreme Court Dismantle the Voting Rights Act?
- The Pollution of Political Discourse
- The Sad State of Zealots with Microphones
- Mitt Romney's Uncertain Legacy
- Obama's Re-Election: Oh, We Forgot to Tell You ...
- Republicans and Democrats Playing Game of Economic Chicken
- Petraeus Yet Another High-Ranking Military Official Mired in Scandal
- David Petraeus: Sex and the City (of Washington)
- David Petraeus: What Obama Did Not Need to Know
- David Petraeus: The Public's Need to Know or Not
- The French View of The Petraeus Sex Scandal
- Mitt Romney's 'Gifts' Gaffe
- Mitt Romney Self-Destructs Again
- Ballot Measures Reveal Electorate No Longer in a Tea Partying Mood
- Real Facts Catch Up with the GOP Spin Doctors
- 2012 Election Results: Changing America
- 2012 Election Results: The Right Is Not Waving a White Flag
- Whither the GOP?
- GOP's Biggest Problem is Itself
- 2012 Election Results: Compassionate Conservatism Redux
- Election was a Turning Point for Latinos
- Republicans Need to Rethink Future; Latinos Here to Help
- 2012 Election Results: Once Again, Florida is the National Punchline
- GOP Defeated by Single Women
- 2012 Election Results: The Mandate
- 2012 Election Results: A Victory for Creatures of the State
- Let's Make Sure Every Vote Matters
- Obama Re-Elected as President
- Obama Victory Speech Talks About Reconciliation and Hope
- Romney Ends Presidential Run, Congratulates Obama's Election Win in Concession Speech
- GOP Retains House Majority But Democrats Keep Control of Senate
- Obama Re-election the Result of Increasingly Diverse Electorate
- Voters Said No to 'Politics of Pitchforks'
- Obama Presses On
- Four More Years of Decline
- An America Yet to Be Born
- Democrats' Medicare Offensive Falls Flat Against GOP
- Federal Deficit Talks Could Impact Obama's Moves On Health Law
- Groundhog Day in America
- 10 Reasons Latinos Voted for Obama
- The New American Civil War
- What's Next?
- Nate Silver's Numbers Racket
- Florida Voters Won't Be Fooled Again -- or Will We?
- A Date with History: The Cuban Missile Crisis
- United States Presidential Elections in Perspective
- Early Latino Turnout Could Swing Vote
- A Letter to Women Voters
- The Final Days, The Biggest Issue and The Clearest Choice
- Another Electoral College Nightmare?
- Why We're Still in Deep Trouble No Matter Who Wins The Presidency
- FEMA vs 'Romnesia'
- An Unscripted October Surprise
- Stormy Weather Politics
- Storm Saves Obama From Himself
Nate Silver's Numbers Racket | Politics
(c) 2012 Tribune Media Services, Inc