> In the weeks and days running up to the election Republicans and TV Pundits > in general dumped all over Nate, calling him either a partisan hack or just > a narcissistic media whore. It was said that anyone who says they can tell > you who is going to win this election, and by a specific amount, is lying.
Not surprisingly, I'm familiar with Silver from his work at Baseball Prospectus, and I remember when he first linked to his 538 stuff. It made a lot of sense - aggregate state poll numbers weighted by quality of past predictions, and generate probabilities of electoral votes. I hadn't followed any of the people who were taking shots at this, so it comes as a bit of a surprise. I suppose that for most of those critics, partisanship trumps accuracy. I was surprised by how much of the coverage I saw was about how close the race was supposed to be because the popular vote count looked close. I'd check 538 occasionally, see that Obama was still more than 70% likely to win, and chuckle at how much even "experts" were missing that. And I'll leave with something a friend said decades ago: "Every election, we say it can't get any worse. Four years later, it's worse." -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
