Predictable in retrospect: The danger of hindsight bias in election postmortems
The hindsight bias we have seen is fueled in part by the wave of post-election spin that follows every election. Inevitably, the press reports, as it has this time around, that the winner won due to the strategic genius of the candidate and his campaign (often based on source-greasing interviews with staffers taking a victory lap) and the loser lost due to disarray and mistakes within his campaign (typically fueled by internal leaks seeking to deflect blame).
Still, many political observers seem to struggle to understand how hindsight bias is clouding their judgments and the media’s coverage. It can be difficult to imagine the stories we would be seeing now if Romney had won, for instance. That’s why it’s instructive to consider Politico’s premortem on how an Obama loss would be interpreted, which seems like a plausible counterfactual account of the stories that would now be circulating. (They also wrote a Romney premortem that didn’t anticipate the emphasis that would be given to Obama’s ads and the ground game.) Or consider the story of the 2004 election. According to an American Journalism Review article, reporters relying on flawed exit polls ended up writing stories “explaining” why Kerry won that had to be replaced by alternate accounts recounting how Bush won a narrow victory…
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
The pre-election bias is what destroyed the land.
May she catapult into the abyss, all Forward.
It’s what Obama wants, destroy the middle class, totally. It’s the dead sure way to always have enough poor fools voting for more gimme-s.
Schadenfreude on November 14, 2012 at 3:08 PM
I’m more interested in the media’s entrenched and collective pro-Democrat bias (evidenced by the fact that journalists and media practitioners consistently donate overwhelmingly – by comically lopsided margins – to Democrats in every election cycle) is clouding the media’s coverage of liberal and conservative candidates.
Namely, liberal candidates can do anything they want and are praised for it/excused/ignored by the media, and conservatives can’t even sneeze without it being reported as some kind of national scandal.
Good Lt on November 14, 2012 at 3:14 PM
The only way an Obama win was predictable here was if you were a left wing partisan. Nobody, NOBODY expected the total number of voters to drop to 2004 levels. Everyone expected a drop to somewhere between 2004 and 2008. Everyone expected a bigger drop in Obama’s numbers. What no one expected or could have predicted is that the number of people voting Republican would not rise from 2008, which was already a drop of 3 million from 2004. The question was would that rise exceed Obama’s drop of 2008. It didn’t. Everyone expected Romney would pick up some of Obama’s voter loss from 2008, he did. But there were many more that simply did not vote.
All this talk of demographics, minority trends, etc. is silly. There were more than enough votes outstanding which did not show up for Romney to have won easily. The GOP main focus for the next 4 years should be registration and turnout. Not caving in on social issues and amnesty.
Rocks on November 14, 2012 at 3:19 PM
This is some kind of column:
The GOP candidate’s race-based, monochromatic campaign made him a loser.
Rocks on November 14, 2012 at 3:27 PM
Pundit: a person who makes a living explaining tomorrow why the predictions that they made yesterday didn’t come true today.
LukeinNE on November 14, 2012 at 3:44 PM
Oh, give me a break. There were at least a few of us on this very site who were warning of that very thing. But since we didn’t buy into the rah-rah “Mitt’s gonna win in a landslide/ a Ham Sandwich could beat O” b.s., we were “trolls”. “Concern troll’s concern duly noted!!!!” And now NOBODY saw it coming, omigawb.
The GOP main focus had better be to become conservative or else die.
ddrintn on November 14, 2012 at 3:56 PM
LOL…the delusion still hasn’t worn off yet. Give it time, I guess.
ddrintn on November 14, 2012 at 4:06 PM
I was addressing pollsters and pundits when I said no one. Many thought Romney would lose but I doubt they thought he would do no better than McCain. Romney could have gotten 2 million more votes and still have lost to Obama. There are 10 million more eligible voters now than in 2008. It was reasonable to assume he would do better than McCain. Especially given the knowledge that Obama’s vote total would drop, which it did by 5% from 2008.
Rocks on November 14, 2012 at 4:11 PM
All you had to do was look at the fact that Romney was almost always bringing up the rear in the RCP average. But any poll that didn’t show Romney in the lead was DNC propaganda. It’s exactly like Dems in 2004. Exactly. We was robbed. Jesusland did us in. The voters are stupid. And on and on and on.
ddrintn on November 14, 2012 at 4:16 PM
Based on what, by the way? On that myth of Romney’s super-electability?
ddrintn on November 14, 2012 at 4:19 PM
This would make sense if it were true. Romney led the RCP average for a time. Based on polls with a wrong model yes, but he led.
Rocks on November 14, 2012 at 4:20 PM
Damn well said.
We told them and told them, and they told us that we were wrong. Now that we’ve been proven right they’re acting like we never existed to begin with. Good grief.
Stoic Patriot on November 14, 2012 at 4:23 PM
A number of things.
1. There are 10 million more voters in 2012 than in 2008.
2. Obama would get less votes than in 2008, which he did. 6 million less.
3. Romney’s doing way better in polls than McCain did.
Rocks on November 14, 2012 at 4:25 PM
It’s stay-at-home “true conservatives” and renegade Paultards who let the country down by helping Obama get reelected. If that insults you it’s only because you’re one of them. Go ahead, keep laughing. This is on you and your kind.
cicerone on November 14, 2012 at 5:13 PM
Heh. Like most “TrueCons”, I held my nose and voted for Romney. Meanwhile, nearly 60% of sacred, smart moderates didn’t stay home: they voted for Obama.
ddrintn on November 14, 2012 at 5:39 PM
This.
Count to 10 on November 14, 2012 at 5:47 PM