Green Room

The beatification of Nate Silver

posted at 9:24 pm on November 8, 2012 by

Dan Foster doesn’t get it. Neither do I.

Though it had lots of different inputs, especially early on, by the end Silver’s famed model was an approximation of a simple Monte Carlo of the polling data; or, if you like, a different way of presenting a variety of polling averages. It was not sorcery. Silver deserves credit for analyzing the data he had in a plausible, straightforward, and fairly transparent way, and for communicating his assumptions at every turn.

But the crap that Silver took from a lot of conservatives being held up as evidence of the supposed mass delusion and anti-empiricism of the Right makes little sense. I think a lot of conservatives with humanities degrees (myself included) instinctively thought that all the decimal places were too cute by half – just like a lot of liberals with humanities degrees instinctively thought every additional decimal place meant MOAR SCIENCE. (Aside: This is a longstanding bugaboo of mine. The “I Swear to Science!” and “Science Bless You! Haha Lolz” crowd are often in the same epistemic position vis-à-vis statements they take on bald authority as are cult members. The fact that journalists writing dire warnings about global warming, or activists campaigning against intelligent design could learn about long-term climate modeling or the mechanisms of natural selection if they wanted to doesn’t change the fact most of them don’t.)

He deserves his victory lap for getting the result right, but so do Drew Linzer and Simon Jackman and Sam Wang, who appears to have nailed the popular vote precisely (51.1 percent). They were all correct (because they were all modeling the same state polls), yet it’s Silver who’s on “The Daily Show” while the other guys are basically as anonymous as they were six months ago. And they’re not the only ones being overlooked. I keep wondering how Tom Jensen of PPP or Lee Miringoff of Marist (NBC/WSJ) are feeling watching Silver be treated as some sort of oracle. They were the ones who gave him the raw data for his model; they were the ones whose reputations were on the line when more established pollsters like Gallup showed a break in the national vote towards Romney. Silver had cover from Linzer et al. to support his state-poll model but Jensen and Miringoff were out on a limb in seeing a deep-blue electorate — and they got it right. Not a perfect analogy here, but it’s as if Silver predicted that Josh Hamilton would hit 100 homers this season and then Hamilton did hit 100 homers, and the media responded by swarming around Silver, not Hamilton. Note to liberal math wizards: Both accomplishments are impressive, but one’s more impressive than the other.

The reason Silver’s being worshiped, I think, is because (obviously) he’s got a vastly larger platform than the other modelers and because he writes engagingly on his subject, for which he also deserves credit. He was the left’s security blanket for six months; whenever they feared that Mitt Romney, the new Republican Hitler, was on the verge of destroying America as we know it, Silver was there to reassure them that there was still a 71.4935 percent chance that it wouldn’t happen. Looking forward to seeing how the model does in an election where nearly every major state poll isn’t breaking for the same candidate in the last few weeks.

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

He got the tipping state wrong by a mile. He had Colorado at 6.4% and Ohio by odds nearly as astronomical as the Obama win.

If you followed the political scientists’ discussion on Silver’s profile and opaque modeling, he has had loads of criticism besides what he received from the right. Matt Dickinson had several posts on Silver’s model. The fact he predicted 08 without informing readers he was utilizing campaign internals seems like a pretty big boost others modeling and forecasting didn’t have in their favor.

msmveritas on November 8, 2012 at 9:43 PM

H

e was the left’s security blanket for six months; whenever they feared that Mitt Romney, the new Republican Hitler, was on the verge of destroying America as we know it, Silver was there to reassure them that there was still a 71.4935 percent chance that it wouldn’t happen.

This is why. Because of his incredible success in 2008, he already had a lot of readers.

And over the past 6 months Nate Silver got basically god-like status with liberals because of his columns. The way he analyzed the pollsters (he doesn’t weigh them equally, he talks a lot about their biases, and there were like 20 different pollsters across the country), wrote indepth data-driven pieces on things like convention bounces, and generally processed everything in the election in a smooth, mathematical and logical way. It was EXTREMELY reassuring and made liberals feel very confident of victory. So, while it’s true that plenty of other people were doing the same thing and came to the same conclusions, he was the most trusted and most reassuring.

Also, he was constantly attacked and mocked by conservatives, and always responded very calmly and confidently. This got him even more attention.

agirlacamera on November 8, 2012 at 9:50 PM

Silver reminds me more of his role model Bill James every time I read about him.

Waggoner on November 8, 2012 at 9:57 PM

“Nate Silver is a man of very small stature, a thin and effeminate man with a soft-sounding voice that sounds almost exactly like the “Mr. New Castrati” voice used by Rush Limbaugh on his program. In fact, Silver could easily be the poster child for the New Castrati in both image and sound. Nate Silver, like most liberal and leftist celebrities and favorites, might be of average intelligence but is surely not the genius he’s made out to be. His political analyses are average at best and his projections, at least this year, are extremely biased in favor of the Democrats.”

- Dean Chambers unskewedpolls.com

Here we have The God King of Conservatism who singlehandedly unraveled the massive mathematical conspiracy going back all the way to Archimedes. Creator of such brilliant classics as UnskewedPolls.com dismantles Nate Silver’s ignorant math, science, statistics (and other nonsensical things that don’t even exist in Bible) by such clarity and irrefutable mountain of evidence.

lester on November 8, 2012 at 10:02 PM

Silver reminds me more of his role model Bill James every time I read about him.

Waggoner on November 8, 2012 at 9:57 PM

That’s not fair to James, who is actually a good, engaging writer who doesn’t always hide behind a wall of analytics.

I’ll give Silver credit for not being quite as smarmy as a guy like Keith Law, who literally oozes a slime-trail of condescension everywhere he walks.

Good Solid B-Plus on November 8, 2012 at 10:09 PM

Here we have The God King of Conservatism who singlehandedly unraveled the massive mathematical conspiracy going back all the way to Archimedes. Creator of such brilliant classics as UnskewedPolls.com dismantles Nate Silver’s ignorant math, science, statistics (and other nonsensical things that don’t even exist in Bible) by such clarity and irrefutable mountain of evidence.

lester on November 8, 2012 at 10:02 PM

Exactly!

When Nate Silver feeds state polls into a Monte Carlo simulation, it’s a divine science. When Ed Morissey tries to take a knife to the cross-tabs and see how they fit a likely turnout model, he’s basically just cutting the head off of a chicken and casting oracle bones.

Or, in simpler terms, when liberals use math, they’re being empirically sound technocrats. When scary conservatives use math, they’re shamans.

Good Solid B-Plus on November 8, 2012 at 10:13 PM

Exactly!

When Nate Silver feeds state polls into a Monte Carlo simulation, it’s a divine science. When Ed Morissey tries to take a knife to the cross-tabs and see how they fit a likely turnout model, he’s basically just cutting the head off of a chicken and casting oracle bones.

Or, in simpler terms, when liberals use math, they’re being empirically sound technocrats. When scary conservatives use math, they’re shamans.

Good Solid B-Plus on November 8, 2012 at 10:13 PM

Had Ed used math, he would have reached the same results as every other statistician. 2 by 2 is 4. Always. There’s no occasion when it’s 3.96 or 11.

Unskewing polls was baseless. It was a conspiracy theory. You are mistaking math and conspiracy theory driven blogging. You don’t understand the former.

lester on November 8, 2012 at 10:36 PM

Had Ed used math, he would have reached the same results as every other statistician. 2 by 2 is 4. Always. There’s no occasion when it’s 3.96 or 11.

And when you feed a model accurate math, it’s going to give you good data. The GOP wasn’t questioning math, they were questioning the reality of the sample.

Unskewing polls was baseless. It was a conspiracy theory. You are mistaking math and conspiracy theory driven blogging. You don’t understand the former.

lester on November 8, 2012 at 10:36 PM

Yes, it’s a conspiracy theory. Polls never use an inaccurate sample. Only conspiratorial crazy people thought the electorate would be closer to D+3 than D+7. I mean, it’s not like Romney’s entire campaign apparatus was operating on that assumption or anything…

Good Solid B-Plus on November 8, 2012 at 10:49 PM

In fact the GOP is using the wrong models. All of those cell phone users are extreme leftists. They are either poor, black, Latino, illegals, or the young. All overwhelmingly left wing white and America haters. Hiphop and parties are all their concern. And dislike of America. That is what got these morons passes in school.

pat on November 8, 2012 at 10:56 PM

When Nate Silver feeds state polls into a Monte Carlo simulation, it’s a divine science. When Ed Morissey tries to take a knife to the cross-tabs and see how they fit a likely turnout model, he’s basically just cutting the head off of a chicken and casting oracle bones.

Well considering that nate’s entire career has been in statistics whereas ed’s basis for expertise appears to be reading what a bunch of other conservative blogs say, I thinks that’s a pretty accurate observation.

Seriously, for months ed was acting like he was some kind d of expert on turnout models when the reality is he had a gut instinct based on the past few elections. It’s kinda unbelievable that he’s one of the most read/respected conservative pundits on the web. No wonder conservatives got it so wrong.

red_herring on November 8, 2012 at 11:02 PM

leftists love the thrill of algorithms and magic boxes…it is Science according to Krugman…as opposed to the right wing deniers like Cost.

Michael Mann was beautified too because of his Science and now-discredited stats…the hockey stick is still iconic to the party of “Science”…as with all good leftists they believe in the iconography of the black box technocrat who will lead us, or nudge us, into the future of the New Man

and for all you trolls…how are those RMBS algorithms working for you

r keller on November 8, 2012 at 11:06 PM

This is why. Because of his incredible success in 2008, he already had a lot of readers.

“Incredible” success? He got 49 states right, and was hardly the only one to do so in 2008. Anyone, absolutely anyone with the slightest bit of political IQ, could have gotten at least 40-something states correct. Are people supposed to be impressed that Silver predicted McCain would Utah or Obama would win Illinois? Furthermore, only four states in 2008 were the two major candidates within 2.50% or less of one another, and one of those states (Indiana) was the one Silver got wrong. How is this “incredible”?

Pollsters like PPP are the ones that need the praise. Silver did nothing but use their data and put an easily-digestable percentage on it, which is why he’s popular, because anyone can understand “73.9% chance of winning.”

TheDriver on November 8, 2012 at 11:06 PM

OK he used some polls and got it right… He did not nail the 2010 elections in fact he was off by 15 seats for Republicans…

A warning: Do not fall for the myth that this Silver is going to be right for the next elections… You do this and he is going to demoralize the hell out of you because he is not going to predict a Republican victory for President even if he knows that there is one…

mnjg on November 8, 2012 at 11:10 PM

Who cares? the NYT is about to go broke and he will never be heard from again.

Tater Salad on November 8, 2012 at 11:14 PM

“Incredible” success? He got 49 states right, and was hardly the only one to do so in 2008. Anyone, absolutely anyone with the slightest bit of political IQ, could have gotten at least 40-something states correct. Are people supposed to be impressed that Silver predicted McCain would Utah or Obama would win Illinois? Furthermore, only four states in 2008 were the two major candidates within 2.50% or less of one another, and one of those states (Indiana) was the one Silver got wrong. How is this “incredible”?

Pollsters like PPP are the ones that need the praise. Silver did nothing but use their data and put an easily-digestable percentage on it, which is why he’s popular, because anyone can understand “73.9% chance of winning.”

TheDriver on November 8, 2012 at 11:06 PM

The left is always in search for someone to worship so they overrate those who they want to worship way beyond who he is in reality… Look at the Obama cult and how much they have incredibly overrated this most incompetent fool on every level…

mnjg on November 8, 2012 at 11:15 PM

OK he used some polls and got it right… He did not nail the 2010 elections in fact he was off by 15 seats for Republicans…

Silver did more than that: he gave the Democrats like a 20% chance of retaining control of the U.S. House in 2010. What a frickin’ joke.

TheDriver on November 8, 2012 at 11:16 PM

The difference between the pundit and the scientist:

There was another election season, back in 1952, when a presidential contest seemed too close to call, America worried it was vulnerable to attack, and a single company dominated computing…

In summer 1952, a Remington Rand executive approached CBS News chief Sig Mickelson and said the Univac might be able to plot early election-night returns against past voting patterns and spit out a predicted winner. Mickelson and anchor Walter Cronkite thought the claim was a load of baloney but figured it would at least be entertaining to try it on the air.

Eckert and Mauchly sought help from a University of Pennsylvania statistician, Max Woodbury. He and Mauchly wrote one of the first algorithms for computing, working at Mauchly’s house because Mauchly had been blacklisted as pro-communist. “John wasn’t allowed into the company anymore,” says Mauchly’s widow, Kay Mauchly Antonelli.

On election night, the 16,000-pound Univac remained at its home in Philadelphia. In the TV studio, CBS set up a fake computer — a panel embedded with blinking Christmas lights and a teletype machine. Cronkite sat next to it. Correspondent Charles Collingwood and a camera crew set up in front of the real Univac.

As polls began to close, clerks typed the data into the Univac using three Unityper machines, which punched holes in a paper tape that would be fed into the computer.

By 8:30 p.m. ET — long before news organizations of the era knew national election outcomes — Univac spit out a startling prediction. It said Eisenhower would get 438 electoral votes to Stevenson’s 93 — a landslide victory. Because every poll had said the race would be tight, CBS didn’t believe the computer and refused to air the prediction.

“Mauchly was at home getting telephone calls all the time about what was happening,” Antonelli says. “All he could say was, ‘Sit tight, we’ve done the best we could.’ We sat there all night in front of the TV set with bated breath.”

“It was essentially a live demo, on national TV,” says Jim Senior, historian at Unisys, the computer giant that traces its roots to Remington Rand and Univac. “That took a lot of daring.”

Under pressure, Woodbury rejiggered the algorithms. Univac then gave Eisenhower 8-to-7 odds over Stevenson. At 9:15 p.m., Cronkite reported that on the air. But Woodbury kept working and found he’d made a mistake. He ran the numbers again and got the original results — an Eisenhower landslide.

Late that night, as actual results came in, CBS realized Univac had been right. Embarrassed, Collingwood came back on the air and confessed to millions of viewers that Univac had predicted the results hours earlier.

In fact, the official count ended up being 442 electoral votes for Eisenhower and 89 for Stevenson. Univac had been off by less than 1%. It had missed the popular vote results by only 3%. Considering that the Univac had 5,000 vacuum tubes that did 1,000 calculations per second, that’s pretty impressive. A musical Hallmark card has more computing power.

lester on November 8, 2012 at 11:24 PM

TheDriver on November 8, 2012 at 11:06 PM

Well, I do agree with you. There’s many people who used the polls to make predictions about the election. And, yes, they all reached the same conclusions.

All the more shocking that 94% of Hot Air readers predicted a Romney win. And that the frigging Romney campaign was, apparently, in that same echo chamber.

So one thing you CAN give Silver credit for is systematically and frequently dismantling all the unskewing arguments and articulately defending his own predictions. The only other person doing that was Sam Wang. But Silver did the best job. And he did things like challenge Joe Scarborough to a bet to emphasize how obvious the election’s outcome was.

So he does deserve some extra credit for making the argument for logic really well. (And he called all 50 states this time.) He’s not a genius or anything but, out of all the pundits and opinionators, he’s the only that has something to offer that was USEFUL to understanding the election. And not nonsense, or spin, partisan. And people responded to that.

I’m a liberal so of course I read Nate Silver because it made me feel better. But the time will come that what he is delivering is bad news. I won’t appreciate it any less. And I just have no use for any echo chamber, basically.

agirlacamera on November 8, 2012 at 11:25 PM

r keller on November 8, 2012 at 11:06 PM
mnjg on November 8, 2012 at 11:15 PM
TheDriver on November 8, 2012 at 11:16 PM

All these people who put their faith in Dick Morris are calling Nate Silver inaccurate. It’s only funny because they’re now a minority. Would have been sad otherwise.

lester on November 8, 2012 at 11:27 PM

Silver’s accomplishments are wholly conterminous with our failures.

Bottom line: he believed the polls that were good for his candidate, we didn’t. In this we behaved exactly as liberals will in the next cycle. If you think any of them will be saying Hillary is going to lose because the polls show her trailing and the we’re looking at a depression, you’re off your rocker. Let liberals convince themselves this this is a great triumph for math or science or whatever. It doesn’t do us any harm.

Just remember, next time he tells you that there’s a 78.4828% chance that the Democrat will win in July…still don’t believe him. Debates and hurricanes changed the result of this races, twice. To give a forecast on the result without evidence of strong leads in the summer is tantamount to weather forecasting.

HitNRun on November 8, 2012 at 11:28 PM

The reason he’s being celebrated is because the Dems are in a celebratory mood. They need SOMETHING to praise and he is someone one their side who is stellar.

What is sad for them is that it is hard to celebrate Obama. It’s just the latest example that the man is an empty suit. The “cam paign about nothing” is over, and though successful is leaving a sour aftertaste. He won yes, but like the dog that chased the bus, what the hell does he do with it once he catches it?

Buyer’s remorse is inevitable after this.

carson53 on November 8, 2012 at 11:40 PM

lester on November 8, 2012 at 11:27 PM

i realize that leftists frequently are stupid and insulting at the same time, but few people believe Morris…he is a showman

but PPP has said that they put a lot of weight on minority voters and Nate weighed PPP highly in his algorithm. These are just projections of what people think the voting profile will look like…no magic dust, no superior intellect. OK? stop worshiping computers

btw, what about the RMBS? what about the HS…no response, huh.

r keller on November 8, 2012 at 11:44 PM

I’m a liberal so of course I read Nate Silver because it made me feel better. But the time will come that what he is delivering is bad news. I won’t appreciate it any less. And I just have no use for any echo chamber, basically.

agirlacamera on November 8, 2012 at 11:25 PM

Maybe he’s matured, but he used to be a whiny, snarky little ***** whenever someone called him on his ‘oracle’ act back in the BP days.

Good Solid B-Plus on November 8, 2012 at 11:45 PM

All I can say is that I am done listening to Hotair for analysis of polls. I said it in a post a few weeks back. Someone is lying to their readers. Both liberals and conservatives were saying their candidate was almost a sure win. I said weeks ago, I sure hope it doesn’t turn out that it was us being lied to. Well, we certainly were.

thphilli on November 8, 2012 at 11:48 PM

I said weeks ago, I sure hope it doesn’t turn out that it was us being lied to. Well, we certainly were.

No, you weren’t being “lied to,” for cripes sake. We made an assumption that proved incorrect. The assumption: There was no way Obama could replicate Democratic turnout from 2008. Liberals were too disillusioned, conservatives were too motivated, to let that happen. As good as Obama’s ground game was, he couldn’t get enough Democrats to the polls to prevent Republicans from cutting significantly into his 2008 margin.

Well, he did get almost as many Democrats to the polls. Turnout, per the exit polls, was D+6, thanks to an amazing organizational effort. The assumption was incorrect, against all odds. Not sure why this is hard to understand.

Allahpundit on November 8, 2012 at 11:55 PM

The assumption was incorrect, against all odds. Not sure why this is hard to understand.

Allahpundit on November 8, 2012 at 11:55 PM

who’s odds are you talking about? Dean chambers and Scott Rasmussen’s? You were predicting a Romney landslide for goodness sake. You wrote that romney was releasing internal polls the day before the election as a sign of strength!!!

red_herring on November 9, 2012 at 12:05 AM

Allahpundit on November 8, 2012 at 11:55 PM

as jay cost pointed out there was a bimodal distribution of polling results…..which suggests either different models..or really different methods.

i really wonder about the cell-phone issues.

but, obviously, axelrod had his internals which showed the white, non-white splits much different than Gallup…and somehow…axelrod was right

and the romney internals?????? i’ve loved to know

r keller on November 9, 2012 at 12:11 AM

All these people who put their faith in Dick Morris are calling Nate Silver inaccurate. It’s only funny because they’re now a minority. Would have been sad otherwise.

lester on November 8, 2012 at 11:27 PM

I did not put my faith in Dick Morris… What is your point here liberal? You have Nate Silver and few others who got the elections right so f***ing what? Do you want us to now take the guy as some genius and assume that he is going to be right all the time? In fact as I mentioned above he understated Republicans gains in the House by 15 seats in 2010 at least and he messed up few Senate seats in 2010…

You are trying to show as you are someone who is into science… I have a bachelor in Physics and a Masters in Mechanical engineering so I do not need a lesson in science from some liberal idiot like you who most probably has a worthless arts degree that require an IQ less than 100 to obtain…

mnjg on November 9, 2012 at 12:12 AM

as jay cost pointed out there was a bimodal distribution of polling results…..which suggests either different models..or really different methods.

And then the guy from votamatic, who actually knows something about stats, explained why Jay cost was full of you know what.

red_herring on November 9, 2012 at 12:17 AM

Silver’s accomplishments are wholly conterminous with our failures.

Bottom line: he believed the polls that were good for his candidate, we didn’t.

That’s really not true. If Romney was ahead, he would have argued just as strongly for THAT prediction. I am sure of it. In fact, Nate called 7 of out of 8 Senate races correctly and the one that he got wrong was South Dakota. He predicted the REPUBLICAN would win and the Democrat won instead. Also, in 2010, he predicted Angle would win because that is what the polls said, and he was wrong there too when Reid won out of nowhere. So he just responds to what the polls suggest, not to what he wants to happen.

Which means that when there’s A LOT of polling data, like for a presidential race, his predictions will be pretty accurate because there is a lot of data.

agirlacamera on November 9, 2012 at 12:17 AM

Ps:the votamatic post was shortly after Jay cost wrote his piece.. It wasn’t a hindsight is 20/20 thing

red_herring on November 9, 2012 at 12:18 AM

You wrote that romney was releasing internal polls the day before the election as a sign of strength!!!

Yes!!! And the CBS story I linked tonight in my post about Romney being out-organized claims that he believed sincerely that he was going to win!!!11!1! He miscalculated. I’m not sure why people like you insist on claiming that you were deliberately misled. I’ve explained twice now why I thought the electorate couldn’t be nearly as blue as it ended up being. Gallup, a respected pollster by any measure, had Romney by five points nationally before the hurricane. Knock it off with the martyr-ish “we’ve been duped!” garbage, red herring. Your shtick is tiresome.

Allahpundit on November 9, 2012 at 12:21 AM

All I can say is that I am done listening to Hotair for analysis of polls. I said it in a post a few weeks back. Someone is lying to their readers. Both liberals and conservatives were saying their candidate was almost a sure win. I said weeks ago, I sure hope it doesn’t turn out that it was us being lied to. Well, we certainly were.

thphilli on November 8, 2012 at 11:48 PM

No one lied to you… People made assumption and it turned out to be wrong… If you wish you can follow Silver predictions at your own peril because I am going to tell you that he is not going to predict a win for Republican in a presidential elections even if he knows that this is what is going to happen… Silver is a leftist and in the future he is going to be used as a weapon to demoralize the conservative side…

Back to the assumption… No one on our side assumed that Romney in this incredible environment against Obama is going to have less Republicans voting for him than McCain… It was simply against all odds and logic… In fact the assumption that he was going to get few millions votes more than McCain due to the anti-Obama atmosphere in the Republican… On the other hand the assumption that Obama was going to lose a lot of his voters from 2008 and in fact he did lose 7 to 9 millions when all the votes are counted in this elections…

Based on these assumptions the elections experts on our side Rove, Barone, etc…) thought that Romney was going to win the elections… They were wrong and it is that simple…

mnjg on November 9, 2012 at 12:23 AM

My question is where all the those Silver defenders came from on this site? Folks who run HotAir, why are we tolerating some many leftists on this forum? What is the point? Debate… We know all the crap that they spew and I do not see the point of debating them…

Also notice that the left start the Cult of Nate Silver… That is what leftist do… They are always in search of finding someone to worship and they overrate this person beyond anything in the real world… Look how they made the cult of Obama and incredibly overrated the most incompetent President in history… Now they have Silver… They are going to use Silver as a weapon to demoralize us in the future and Silver would not predict in public a Republican presidential victory even if he knows that it is going to be the case…

mnjg on November 9, 2012 at 12:29 AM

Folks who run HotAir, why are we tolerating some many leftists on this forum? What is the point? Debate… We know all the crap that they spew and I do not see the point of debating them…

I’m not going to ban people for disagreeing with me, even when they’re trolling, as red_herring now is. As long as they’re civil, they can comment.

Allahpundit on November 9, 2012 at 12:32 AM

I’m not going to ban people for disagreeing with me, even when they’re trolling, as red_herring now is. As long as they’re civil, they can comment.

Allahpundit on November 9, 2012 at 12:32 AM

B-b-but bifidis assured me that Salem and co. is terrified of free speech, and that’s why we have closed registration!!11

Obviously, it has nothing to do with the average quality of posts on forums with open registration at all times.

Good Solid B-Plus on November 9, 2012 at 12:39 AM

I’m not going to ban people for disagreeing with me, even when they’re trolling, as red_herring now is. As long as they’re civil, they can comment.

Allahpundit on November 9, 2012 at 12:32 AM

Do they tolerate us on Daily Kos and Democratic Underground? Of course not… I think their presence is very annoying and brings no value but it is Ed forum and you are one of the main writers/moderators so you do what you think is best…

mnjg on November 9, 2012 at 12:41 AM

Knock it off with the martyr-ish “we’ve been duped!” garbage, red herring. Your shtick is tiresome.
Allahpundit on November 9, 2012 at 12:21 AM

I’m guessing you’ve been reading Connor Friedersdorf in the Atlantic lately. I feel like you’re usually a voice of reason against the echo chamber hysteria. For whatever reason that was gone this election cycle.

And I’ll be honest that I feel that Ed presents himself as an expert in lots of areas where he really truly is not. I don’t know if its just a stylistic thing, but I think he ends up misleading a lot of people when he does so.

red_herring on November 9, 2012 at 12:46 AM

I did not put my faith in Dick Morris… What is your point here liberal? You have Nate Silver and few others who got the elections right so f***ing what? Do you want us to now take the guy as some genius and assume that he is going to be right all the time? In fact as I mentioned above he understated Republicans gains in the House by 15 seats in 2010 at least and he messed up few Senate seats in 2010…

You are trying to show as you are someone who is into science… I have a bachelor in Physics and a Masters in Mechanical engineering so I do not need a lesson in science from some liberal idiot like you who most probably has a worthless arts degree that require an IQ less than 100 to obtain…

mnjg on November 9, 2012 at 12:12 AM

Nobody is saying Nate Silver did magic, in fact he insists he didn’t. He’s just not a delusional conspiracy theorist who thinks all the polls are magically biased liberal.

Your claimed Physics degree probably from Liberty “University” failed to teach you basic critical thinking skills. Then again, you should have learned in high school. You were always an imbecile and Falwell teachings won’t change that.

lester on November 9, 2012 at 1:08 AM

My question is where all the those Silver defenders came from on this site? Folks who run HotAir, why are we tolerating some many leftists on this forum? What is the point? Debate… We know all the crap that they spew and I do not see the point of debating them…

mnjg on November 9, 2012 at 12:29 AM

Thanks for admitting you lost the argument so miserably you want to shut it all down.

lester on November 9, 2012 at 1:09 AM

Thanks for admitting you lost the argument so miserably you want to shut it all down.

lester on November 9, 2012 at 1:09 AM

What argument would that be? That Obama has been a terrible President? Pretty sure we’re still winning that argument, regardless of the blindness of ~50% of the electorate.

Good Solid B-Plus on November 9, 2012 at 1:10 AM

Nobody is saying Nate Silver did magic, in fact he insists he didn’t. He’s just not a delusional conspiracy theorist who thinks all the polls are magically biased liberal.

Your claimed Physics degree probably from Liberty “University” failed to teach you basic critical thinking skills. Then again, you should have learned in high school. You were always an imbecile and Falwell teachings won’t change that.

lester on November 9, 2012 at 1:08 AM

Lulz, liberals talking about critical thinking.

Nothing Nate Silver does takes a college degree in statistics. A lot of regular users used to beat the BP PECOTA projections all the time with very simple regression analysis. Offshoots like CHONE and ZiPS ended up out-performing PECOTA even without receiving BP’s proprietary information that supposedly made PECOTA a “better” system.

Good Solid B-Plus on November 9, 2012 at 1:16 AM

Nobody is saying Nate Silver did magic, in fact he insists he didn’t. He’s just not a delusional conspiracy theorist who thinks all the polls are magically biased liberal.

Your claimed Physics degree probably from Liberty “University” failed to teach you basic critical thinking skills. Then again, you should have learned in high school. You were always an imbecile and Falwell teachings won’t change that.

lester on November 9, 2012 at 1:08 AM

You are still an idiot liberal… Take your arts degree to a McDonald and they can hire you to flip burgers…

mnjg on November 9, 2012 at 1:34 AM

What’s funny to me, reading all the comments over at NRO, is how much the lefties over there believe themselves to be the party of science simply because they mindlessly take results at face value. Sure, many conservatives let our biases get the best of us in this election, but come on…from Krugman on down, they act as if questioning any remotely “scientific” finding is anti-science. What the hell do they think peer review is all about? And anyone who thinks that biases don’t seep into the peer review process has obviously never gone through it.

So to summarize: blindly accepting any results handed down = science. Using logic to critically analyze results and coming to different conclusions = not science.

Mullaney on November 9, 2012 at 1:44 AM

What’s funny to me, reading all the comments over at NRO, is how much the lefties over there believe themselves to be the party of science simply because they mindlessly take results at face value. Sure, many conservatives let our biases get the best of us in this election, but come on…from Krugman on down, they act as if questioning any remotely “scientific” finding is anti-science. What the hell do they think peer review is all about? And anyone who thinks that biases don’t seep into the peer review process has obviously never gone through it.

So to summarize: blindly accepting any results handed down = science. Using logic to critically analyze results and coming to different conclusions = not science.

Mullaney on November 9, 2012 at 1:44 AM

Excellent post… In fact it is the dumb people who fall for hoaxes like Man Made Global Warming… They think if they believe in this crap they would look “smart”… It is all about how the image for liberals…

mnjg on November 9, 2012 at 1:51 AM

Silver didn’t make a successful prediction, he set a target that the Democrats’ “get out the vote” effort succeeded in reaching.

Count to 10 on November 9, 2012 at 3:58 AM

i really wonder about the cell-phone issues.

r keller on November 9, 2012 at 12:11 AM

I think cell-phone issues were a big deal when it comes to Rasmussen — both poll results and party ID numbers. Over 25% of households now are cell-phone only. Rasmussen does not poll them. Cell-phone only people are largely in the 18-30 range, which means more liberal. If you skip polling a large liberal segment of the population, of course your polls are going to skew conservative.

AngusMc on November 9, 2012 at 5:52 AM

Gallup, a respected pollster by any measure, had Romney by five points nationally before the hurricane.
Allahpundit on November 9, 2012 at 12:21 AM

Gallup a “respected pollster”? LOL? By whom?!

Not by anyone who has a clue about polling.

cornfedbubba on November 9, 2012 at 7:06 AM

I guess the big issue was that state polling said Barry and national polling said Mitt.(And Mitt by a large enough margin that the EC doesn’t matter.) I heard from a bunch of places that both of these can’t be right and Silver picked the right one when he picked state polls. So I can understand why the conservative pundits got it wrong.(They picked the wrong data set.) Still there are questions to be asked. Such as was there anything that would have suggested which was the right one?(Since to me it seemed people just picked the one that matched their affiliation and used that.) Have states polls in aggregate over the past few cycles been a good indicator? Have they been better than national polls? (My understanding is once you go out a couple of cycles you might as well throw the poll away since the country doesn’t match the assumptions in the poll.)

Dave_d on November 9, 2012 at 8:33 AM

Don’t worry, folks, Nate Silver just got lucky. That’s all there is to it.

And every single pollster and pundit on Fox News was unlucky.

Nate will be wrong in 2014, you watch. Dick Morris will show us!

bileduct on November 9, 2012 at 9:11 AM

Comment pages: 1 2