Hi Chris, On Nov 9, 2012, at 11:05 AM, Chris Hahn <[email protected]> wrote:
> What I find remarkable, and I haven't seen much commentary on this, is why > the pollsters kept calling the election so close when, in the end, it > wasn't. Not the pollsters, the pundits. Because nobody takes the math seriously… http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2012/11/09/the-elections-biggest-winner-arithmetic/ I suspect many leaders in both parties knew it was a done deal, but spun it as close to boost turnout for other reasons. --- Ernie P. Forget the president. Set aside the Democratic gains in the Senate. Stop cooing at Elizabeth Warren. The biggest winner in Tuesday’s presidential election was a victory of a different kind: arithmetic crushed all–not only Republican wishful thinking, pundit gut-instinct but also the wisdom of crowds. Nate Silver in his NYT 538 blog used arithmetic to correctly pick the results of the presidential election in every single state (assuming Florida goes as expected), as well as the outcome of every senate race except Montana. Admittedly, the arithmetic that Silver uses is sophisticated arithmetic. It’s quantitative forecasting with Bayesian analysis, named for mathematician Thomas Bayes. But at its heart, it’s about paying careful attention to what the numbers show, drawing the implications, and letting the chips fall where they may, as opposed to projecting what we would like to see happen. -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
