Counterparties: The pundits vs Nate Silver
Welcome to the¬†Counterparties¬†email. The sign-up page is here, it‚Äôs just a matter of checking a box if you‚Äôre already registered on the Reuters website. Send suggestions, story tips and complaints to Counterparties.Reuters@gmail.com.
We‚Äôre less than a week away from election, and the political media is setting someone up to lose. Oddly, that person is neither of the candidates, but political polling and statistics blogger Nate Silver. Politico‚Äôs Dylan Byersis leading the charge, raising the possibility that Silver ‚Äúcould be a one-term celebrity‚ÄĚ. Silver puts a 74% chance on an Obama victory, but that makes no sense to Byers, because ‚Äúpolls have [Romney] almost neck-and-neck with the incumbent‚ÄĚ.¬†Byers brings in quotes from insiders and pundits to support the idea that the race is a ‚Äútoss-up‚ÄĚ and that Silver is, in Joe Scarborough’s words, a ‚Äújoke‚ÄĚ.
Silver, however, is completely comfortable with his position, telling Byers:
If the Giants lead the Redskins 24-21 in the fourth quarter, it’s a close game that either team could win. But it’s also not a “toss-up”: The Giants are favored. It’s the same principle here: Obama is ahead in the polling averages in states like Ohio that would suffice for him to win the Electoral College. Hence, he’s the favorite.
David Brooks might not be comfortable with that kind of statement, but as Ezra Klein points out, mathematics is: ‚ÄúIf Mitt Romney wins on election day, it doesn‚Äôt mean Silver‚Äôs model was wrong… the model has been fluctuating between giving Romney a 25 percent and 40 percent chance of winning the election‚ÄĚ. Brad DeLong goes back and forth with Byers and Silver in defense of statistical modeling, and the results aren‚Äôt pretty for Byers. Jason Linkins slams Politico for failing to differentiate probability from prediction, and instead just ‚Äútrolling the bejeezus out of Nate Silver‚ÄĚ.
Experience, after all, can limit your ability to assess information. Henry Farrell agrees with Paul Krugman that fetishizing inside knowledge and scoops limits what you can learn to what you already know: you become “peculiarly vulnerable to self-reinforcing illusion”. Krugman thinks that in most cases, ‚Äúcareful analysis of publicly available information almost always trumps the insider approach‚ÄĚ. — Ben Walsh
On to today‚Äôs links:
The best time lapse video of what #Sandy did to Lower Manhattan – Jalopnik
How the storm brought NYC’s inequality to the surface – David Rohde
Outrage in the powerless zone: Dispatch from lower Manhattan – Gothamist