General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsKrugman: The war on Nate Silver.
Brad DeLong points me to this National Review attack on Nate Silver, which I think of as illustrating an important aspect of whats really happening in America.
For those new to this, Nate is a sports statistician turned political statistician, who has been maintaining a model that takes lots and lots of polling data most of it at the state level, which is where the presidency gets decided and converts it into election odds. Like others doing similar exercises Drew Linzer, Sam Wang, and Pollster Nates model continued to show an Obama edge even after Denver, and has shown that edge widening over the past couple of weeks.
This could be wrong, obviously. And well find out on Election Day. But the methodology has been very clear, and all the election modelers have been faithful to their models, letting the numbers fall where they may.
Yet the right and were not talking about the fringe here, were talking about mainstream commentators and publications has been screaming bias! They know, just know, that Nate must be cooking the books. How do they know this? Well, his results look good for Obama, so it must be a cheat. Never mind the fact that Nate tells us all exactly how he does it, and that he hasnt changed the formula at all.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/the-war-on-objectivity/
RomneyLies
(3,333 posts)Ergo, they must attack it as witchcraft.
BURN HIM!
Thekaspervote
(32,769 posts)I think not!! Bad bad actors, babies, brats bullies, think they're entitled no goods
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)Krug seems to define it right here: On the right, apparently, there is no such thing as an objective calculation. Everything must have a political motive.
DLnyc
(2,479 posts)prepares the ground for votes be miscounted.