Herman Cain and the hubris of experts

And keep in mind that there are not even one or two precedents in Mr. Cain’s case; there are none. No past candidate has had his combination of strong polling and weak fundamentals. It is specious to focus on the latter condition while ignoring the former. Past “unconventional” candidates like Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson, Jesse Jackson, Steve Forbes and Morry Taylor may not have done especially well — but this would have been predicted by their polling as well as by their fundamentals. (These candidates, in fact, generally performed about in line with their polling rather than underachieving it.) In Mr. Cain’s case, these numbers are in conflict.

In short, while I think the conventional wisdom is probably right about Mr. Cain, it is irresponsible not to account for the distinct and practical possibility (not the mere one-in-a-thousand or one-in-a-million chance) that it might be wrong. The data we have on presidential primaries is not very rich, but there is abundant evidence from other fields on the limitations of expert judgment.

In May, George F. Will said it was certain that either Tim Pawlenty or Mitch Daniels would win the Republican nomination. Mr. Will has gotten enough right over the years to have earned a mulligan or two. But experts who use terms like “never” and “certain” too often are playing Russian roulette with their reputations.