
How Statistician Nate Silver Threw A Wrench Into Traditional Election Metrics - tomio
http://readwrite.com/2012/11/05/how-statistician-nate-silver-has-thrown-a-wrench-into-tradtional-election-metrics
======
001sky
Who is doing this guys PR? clearly a series of nearly "ghostwritten"
"stories"... this is about the 10th "version" with the same headline. Ranging
from US tech blogs to UK newspapers... The guy is writing a book and a
democratic partisan -- says even...the New York Times.

For reference:

_____________

Why political journalists can't stand Nate Silver |

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4736736>

Nate Silver Took A Huge Shot Against Mainstream Political Pundits In His
Latest Election Forecast

[http://www.businessinsider.com/nate-silver-on-who-
political-...](http://www.businessinsider.com/nate-silver-on-who-political-
pundits-who-are-mostly-entertainers-2012-11)

Pundits versus probabilities: The misguided backlash against Nate Silver

[http://www.cjr.org/swing_states_project/pundits_versus_proba...](http://www.cjr.org/swing_states_project/pundits_versus_probabilities.php)

how-statistician-nate-silver-has-thrown-a-wrench-into-tradtional-election-
metrics

[http://readwrite.com/2012/11/05/how-statistician-nate-
silver...](http://readwrite.com/2012/11/05/how-statistician-nate-silver-has-
thrown-a-wrench-into-tradtional-election-metrics)

People Who Can't Do Math Are So Mad At Nate Silver

[http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/10/people-
who-c...](http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/10/people-who-cant-do-
math-are-so-mad-nate-silver/58460/)

________________

but then something different?

NY Times public editor: Silver has Dubious Judgement

[http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/01/under-
attac...](http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/01/under-attack-nate-
silver-picks-the-wrong-defense/?smid=tw-share)

 _He has been out there promoting his book...which has increased his
visibility further....In short, he’s everywhere..._

UK Telegraph: Nate Silver is partisan and wrong.

[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100186850/romne...](http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100186850/romney-
obama-nate-silver-new-york-times/)

 _We’ve witnessed the evolution of polling from an objective gauge of the
public mood to a propaganda tool: partisan and inaccurate._

~~~
mkr-hn
It's hard to create a dramatic image of a close race when someone crunches
numbers, says "nah," and convinces a lot of people. Attempts to discredit him
were were bound to happen as the election got closer, along with inevitable
defenses.

I think you're so eager to unearth a PR conspiracy that you ignore the more
plausible explanation: lazy media.

edit: Check 001sky's submission history.

~~~
001sky
No, this is not an exercise in statistics (which I understand, trust me). The
NY times public editor article clearly articulates he's promoting his book.

Articles don't get written by people who wake up and all write the same
headline, even lazy journalists do better than that, unless they are being fed
information from PRs.

~~~
mkr-hn
So what? HN is full of obvious PR. PG even has an essay on it
(<http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html>). That doesn't discredit him. You
say you know statistics. Take a crack at his methodology if you think it's
flawed: <http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/methodology/>

I'm sure it would make a great blog post.

~~~
001sky
I don't need to argue with him. Its the amusing narrative that using
statistics somehow original or new that's interesting. I've even said here on
HN some of the data visualizations they do are great.

But the storylines or headlines are clearly cynical, PR driven linkbait. Just
look at them. They all say the same thing, just slightly disquised like an
undergrad trying to hide his plagiarism.

Its just self-awareness that is missing. That's why i posted links: so people
can see the patterns.

~~~
mkr-hn
It seems like you're trying to discredit Nate Silver by how bad his PR people
are. I assume everything is PR so I can focus on merits. Are you interested in
merits or taking shots at something you've (apparently) given no thought to?

It's not like 2012 is the first time he's used this methodology. I've been
following 538 since it launched in 2008 and generally find it to be insightful
and informative. And more right than wrong. And when he's wrong, he usually
has a good post to talk about how he got it wrong, and how the miss will
factor into future projections.

~~~
001sky
Whatever. _Ad hominem_ attacks are actually useful when people try to dress up
their politics as "science" or "objectivity". Try reading Nietzche. Nothing is
new here. The purpose of his analytics are propoganda, plain and simple. The
notion that an election will be an "independent test" of a pollster's
predictions the goal they are all <trying to be avoid>. That is why campaigns
employ them, to test their messages, react, change message (as appropriate)
and influence the public mood, etc.

~~~
mkr-hn
What you're saying is you don't care. You can just say that. "I don't care to
look further to see if this person's work has merit." That's ok. But don't try
to dress it up as some kind of cynical enlightenment.

~~~
001sky
No, i don't care to argue with you.

~~~
mkr-hn
This string of posts says otherwise. I think it annoys you that I won't go
along with your desired narrative. Your submission history combined with the
rapid rise in karma makes me think you're the one doing thinly-veiled PR.

edit: One of your first submissions is from Andrew Breitbart's site. And
you're calling others partisan. Who are you working for?

~~~
001sky
Nah. You're not adding any information or insight with your back and forth.
That's what you miss.

You might also be more interested in the PhD thesis I submitted on multi-touch
user interfaces, adjacent.

or: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4707742>

[http://flowingdata.com/2009/02/25/googles-chief-economist-
ha...](http://flowingdata.com/2009/02/25/googles-chief-economist-hal-varian-
on-statistics-and-data/)

But nice try at the smear.

Orthogonal Datapoint:

 _S &P guilty of misleading investors

Landmark ruling by Australian court could pave way for flood of cases against
ratings agencies_

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/nov/05/standard-
poor...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/nov/05/standard-poors-guilty-
misleading-investors)

[http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/05/business/sp-guilt-
misleading-i...](http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/05/business/sp-guilt-misleading-
investors/)

Dressing up ideas with statistics is not new, original, or scientific, etc.

Its just an informed, iterative marketing strategy.

In business or politics.

The level (AAA!) and quality of the "analysis" notwithstanding.[1]

_______

[1] Its worth noting the ~epistemological assymetry of ratings. They are so
"objective" and "reliable" that their use is legally mandated, in the US and
the EU. But the providers ratings themselves issue them as "non-expert"
"public opinions". Thus, they cannot be sued if you rely on them. We'll see
how far the Australian precedent goes, internationally. Until then, _Caveat
Emptor_.

