Back in May 2011, the leading liberal poll analyst of this election cycle returned to his roots in an op-ed published in the New York Times. Nate Silver, who had parlayed a brilliant record as an independent numbers cruncher in the 2008 presidential election into a gig as the paper’s political blogger in the age of Obama, first made his name as a writer as a baseball guy and one of the leading exponents of new and advanced ways of looking at baseball statistics. On May 9, 2011, Silver penned a piece for the Times explaining why New York Yankees captain Derek Jeter was finished as a baseball star. Given that that the Yankees shortstop had an uncharacteristically mediocre 2010 season and was off to a slow start in 2011, it was hard to argue with Silver’s conclusion.
Except the very same day that Silver was planting Jeter’s tombstone in the Times, the future Hall-of-Famer got four hits, including two home runs in a game. I noted this embarrassing development in a blog post here titled, “The Perils of Punditry: That’s Why They Play the Games.” For my pains, I was subjected to a chorus of abuse via e-mail and Twitter from Silver’s fans, most of whom knew nothing about Sabermetrics. Indeed, another Times blogger noted my criticism (which was laced with respect for Silver’s work on both baseball and politics) and ironically noted, “the jury was out” on whether the results of “one game” could disprove the great Nate.
The jury was out in May, but within a few months, Silver’s fans would be dropping that prediction of his down the proverbial memory hole as Jeter put together a stellar second half of 2011 and followed it up with a brilliant 2012 in which he led the Major Leagues in base hits. That didn’t mean Silver didn’t know what he was talking about, but it was proof that a proper understanding of what has already happened didn’t necessarily give even the smartest of researchers the ability to predict the future. Fast forward to the last days of the 2012 presidential election campaign, and it looks like that day in May wasn’t the only time Silver’s crystal ball has clouded up.
As Dylan Byers notes today in Politico, Silver is fast on his way to being a one-term celebrity. Having become the top liberal swami by predicting the 2008 election, it’s fair to ask whether as many people will pay attention to him if it turns out the forecast model he has been using all year to reassure worried Democrats that President Obama had to win was fatally flawed. But the possibility that Silver could be wrong or had let his own bias affect his judgment is sending his liberal fan base over the edge, as this post by fellow Timesman Paul Krugman indicates.
Let me stipulate that some of the attacks on Silver’s attempts to establish what the percentages of an Obama win are a little unfair. His model, like similar attempts to weigh the percentages in baseball games, is a matter of probability not certainty. A game-tying home run in the ninth inning can make previous projections that the team with the lead had a 95 percent chance of winning look silly, even if they were reasonable at the time. But the problem with his forecast model is not just that it’s not infallible, but that it is probably a little harder to being purely objective about political analysis than baseball. There are just too many moving parts and political judgments about which polls to believe to make his system work as well as his PECOTA model for projecting what a player will do in the upcoming baseball season–and even that is often wrong.
Even when I think Silver’s conclusions are incorrect, I learn something from his analyses. But those who point out that his Times on-line column that has consistently showed the president with a 75 percent chance of winning the election appears absurd in a race that is a tossup or heading in Mitt Romney’s direction are not off base.
Silver survived his whopper of a mistake in underestimating Derek Jeter. He’s not likely to fare as well if he has been calling the presidential election wrong all year.
Ah, Mr. Numb3rs. True, the unusual effectiveness of mathematics in modeling so much of physical reality hints at deep deep currents indeed. But all that Charlie Eppes hoodoo prognostication does its reliable magic only in the moving pictures. And even Charlie was cancelled…
I read somewhere that he was only accurate in 2008 because he had access to the Obama campaign's internal polling. True? n nHe was also fairly mediocre in his accuracy in 2010. n nNot sure why he is gospel to the left if the above two are true.
He tells them what they want to hear. I doubt he'd be as popular if his numbers pointed to a counter-intuitive Obama loss instead of a counter intuitive win.
Because he's at the New York Times, the left thinks he's accurate…
As a Yankee fan and a Derek Jeter acolyte, I relish in Silver's mistaken call on him. As a conservative Republican who tries hard to be objective about this race, I think Silver knows his stuff, but is not as insightful as Jay Cost, a conservative, or Sean Trende, a I don't know what.
Silver is also an example of the progressive belief in technocratic ability to predict the future. At least with baseball games and elections there is a binary set of outcomes so we can see that Nate isn't infallible enough to let us just stop having elections or baseball games. Yet, when it comes to public policy, the devotees of Nate are happy to give over their autonomy and let the experts run their models over things as profound as their and their families healthcare. They can get away with this because it is a lot harder to "prove" that we would have been better off without the stimulus, or Obamacare etc. We will see if Romney or Obama wins. We won't ever see the medical innovations we lost out on due to Obamacare's tax provisions so progressive worshipers of Silver-esquq prognostications can trot out their models and keep the believers believing.
What will you fine folks say on Nov. 7th, if Nate is precise and Rasmussen etc. are the ones way off mark? Your predictions rely on a significantly smaller set of data than his? He by the way, includes Rasmussen, ARG, Gravis, Gallup, Purple Strat. etc. polls in his model. You fine folks tend to dismiss PPP polls ect based on a common myth that they skew their polls according to expected, or previous election turnout (such as 2008)? Only one polling firm does that and its Rasmussen, and they predict turnout close to 2010? GOP turnout in midterms is historically larger than DEM, so this a guess at best. Look all this up if you dont trust my word. Fox News Sunday covered the topic when he had the CEO of Gallup on the show. Romney has a chance to win, but I caution anyone from popping the cork just yet. We shall see soon…..
I find Mr. Silver's analysis interesting, so long as one understands the agenda from which he and his employer come from. His reputation in politics is primarily based on 2008, which was a very good year to be a Democratic-leaning analyst. The question is whether or not he can be that good in a year (like this one) that is at best a toss-up for his side, let alone a Republican year. Or, to ask a question I am sure he'd understand from his baseball days, can he win on the road?
Your complaint might make sense if Silver were out on a lonely limb. But every other polling aggregate model – Pollster, Votamatic, Princeton Election Consortium, even Real Clear Politics – shows President Obama a significant favorite to win the Electoral College, and most give a wider margin than Silver's model. Betting markets like Intrade and Betfair also show President Obama between a 3:2 and 3:1 favorite. n nNone of those predictions, individually or collectively, guarantee President Obama's reelection. That will come down to the voters. But all of their forecasts line up … so criticizing Silver as if he were alone in his forecast is, to offer a seasonal metaphor, whistling past the graveyard.
A typical probably wealthy democrat who needs to hide his discomfort with all the poor around him.
Silver predicted that in 2010, the GOP would gain 30 House seats. In truth, the GOP gained more than twice that in 2010. Many pollsters and analysts got 2010 on the nose or were at least in the right ballpark–Gallup and Rasmussen included, but Nate was among many in the MSM who got it wrong because they relied too much on wishful thinking. I seriously doubt that Obama will win this election. However, if he does, it will be a squeaker. No one looking honestly at the facts can say that there is a 75% chance of Obama success.