I started following Nate Silver's blog about a month before the election and, together with the slate political gabfest, provided the only straightforward coverage of the election I could find. Life is much better described in probabilities rather than absolutes. But absolutes clearly work better for media consumption. It would just be nice if our political leaders and the media could actual focus on absolute differences, rather than manufacturing them to drive eye balls.
Paul Raeburn: Nate Silver After the Election: The Verdict: On the morning of election day, CNN was saying the race for the White House "is in a dead heat," while Silver was reporting that Obama had a 90.9 percent chance of winning. Obama's win does not mean that Silver was right and CNN was wrong; we're dealing in uncertainty in all of these predictions.
Paul Raeburn: Nate Silver After the Election: The Verdict: On the morning of election day, CNN was saying the race for the White House "is in a dead heat," while Silver was reporting that Obama had a 90.9 percent chance of winning. Obama's win does not mean that Silver was right and CNN was wrong; we're dealing in uncertainty in all of these predictions.
Comments