Counterparties: The pundits vs Nate Silver
Welcome to theÂ CounterpartiesÂ email. The sign-up page is here, itâ€™s just a matter of checking a box if youâ€™re already registered on the Reuters website. Send suggestions, story tips and complaints to Counterparties.Reuters@gmail.com.
Weâ€™re 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. Politicoâ€™s Dylan Byersis leading the charge, raising the possibility that Silver â€ścould be a one-term celebrityâ€ť. Silver puts a 74% chance on an Obama victory, but that makes no sense to Byers, because â€śpolls have [Romney] almost neck-and-neck with the incumbentâ€ť.Â Byers brings in quotes from insiders and pundits to support the idea that the race is a â€śtoss-upâ€ť and that Silver is, in Joe Scarborough’s words, a â€śjokeâ€ť.
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: â€śIf Mitt Romney wins on election day, it doesnâ€™t mean Silverâ€™s model was wrong… the model has been fluctuating between giving Romney a 25 percent and 40 percent chance of winning the electionâ€ť. Brad DeLong goes back and forth with Byers and Silver in defense of statistical modeling, and the results arenâ€™t pretty for Byers. Jason Linkins slams Politico for failing to differentiate probability from prediction, and instead just â€śtrolling the bejeezus out of Nate Silverâ€ť.
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, â€ścareful analysis of publicly available information almost always trumps the insider approachâ€ť. — Ben Walsh
On to todayâ€™s 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