Romney vs. Obama Can Nate Silver be correct?
#1001
Posted 2012-November-08, 10:52
I am surprised to hear Germany is the ultimate country without national pride
"I work in Germany. I think that you couldn't be more wrong here. Germany is the ultimate country without national pride"
--
agree with barmar here:
Finally, I think being bombastic is just part of our national DNA.
---
Keep in mind we are a nation of immigrants built on the refuse of Europe and the world. I mean my stepgrandmother lived in a cave during WWII in the Philippines Islands.
So I guess we have a long history of tweeking the Rich and Powerful class in Europe and other places.
#1002
Posted 2012-November-08, 10:53
- billw55
#1003
Posted 2012-November-08, 10:56
mike777, on 2012-November-08, 10:52, said:
I will just quote from wikipedia:
Quote
a pretty large segment of continental Europeans think of them selves as Europeans first and by their country second.
#1004
Posted 2012-November-08, 10:57
lalldonn, on 2012-November-08, 10:53, said:
Yes. I mean, on these talk shows you ahve to talk for a long time. A statistician just says look, here is my model, this is the answer. the end. That is not good talk show material.
#1005
Posted 2012-November-08, 11:16
lalldonn, on 2012-November-08, 10:53, said:
I fully expect that
1. We'll start seeing lots more "dramatic" confrontation ala Crossfire. However, we won't see fights between the left and the right, but rather a battle to the death between the pundits and the stats geeks.
2. The networks will decide that existing statisticians aren't sexy enough for prime time television and will go off and breed more telegenic examples. (Fox News will assemble a stable of buxom, blonde botoxed statisticians who don't know a random forest from a linear regression but look good in heels)
3. Jon Stewart will eventually need to step in
#1006
Posted 2012-November-08, 11:16
interesting....I never got that impression on my short visits over the years but ok...
I would certainly add that just from press reports here in the USA one gets the idea that the Greeks are Greek first and ditto for the Spainish and French but good to get a closer view of Europe from your side of the pond.
I wont even add in such places as the Balkins or Russia as reports here in the American press.
#1007
Posted 2012-November-08, 11:40
phil_20686, on 2012-November-08, 10:56, said:
I don't think in all my extensive travels on the continent I've ever met one. That said, a lot of politicians in Belgium, Luxembourg and some of the smaller countries would like to see a federal Europe.
As an aside, I think this is a major part of the problem between Britain and the rest of Europe. Brits voted to join the common market and many wish that was all it was, a free trade organization with no judicial or federalist ambitions.
#1008
Posted 2012-November-08, 12:31
phil_20686, on 2012-November-08, 10:56, said:
Wikipedia is correct about this.
phil_20686, on 2012-November-08, 10:56, said:
But I don't think that that is correct. The way I would describe it is that for continental Europeans it is not continuously reinforced what country they are from. Most Dutchmen are Dutch, and European too and most Germans are German, and European too. But it does not play a role: No rallying around a flag, no anthems, no right hands on hearts, no pledges, no God bless our country or its gracious queen, also no Hail to the Chief, nothing of the kind.
The little bit of nationalism that exists is very mild. But it is not for the country, it is for the region or city. A Swede from the South is first a Skåning and then a Swede. Someone from Maastricht is first and foremost Limburgian, and he will have more affinity with the Limburgians in Belgium and the Rheinländer in Germany than with the Hollanders from the West of The Netherlands. And an Amsterdammer is an Amsterdammer and Dutch too and also European.
Rik
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg
#1009
Posted 2012-November-08, 12:32
lalldonn, on 2012-November-08, 10:53, said:
They already have these guys in some sense (like the people that the van Sustren went to talk to when Rove threw a fit). They just don't listen to them now. Maybe they'll start.
Never tell the same lie twice. - Elim Garek on the real moral of "The boy who cried wolf"
#1010
Posted 2012-November-08, 12:53
BunnyGo, on 2012-November-08, 12:32, said:
That was Megyn Kelly, and it is criminal to confuse her with Greta Van Susteren.
"...we live off being battle-scarred veterans who manage to hate our opponents slightly more than we hate each other.” -- Hamman, re: Wolff
#1011
Posted 2012-November-08, 14:44
lalldonn, on 2012-November-08, 10:53, said:
I think they will change in the same way baseball has changed since Bill James' arrival. It will become uncool for the old school guys to completely blow this stuff off and it will become normal for savvy, younger heads to make more observations based on data.
#1012
Posted 2012-November-08, 14:47
gwnn, on 2012-November-07, 17:25, said:
See this article:
http://www.boston.co..._silver_an.html
Two states (Hawaii and West Virginia) actually fell outside Silver's confidence intervals, so he was more like 96% than 100%. Still damn impressive.
#1013
Posted 2012-November-08, 15:02
Trinidad, on 2012-November-07, 17:59, said:
Obama's speech was fine. It was meant for Americans and it should appeal to Americans. It did. But in Europe a speech like that would not work at all. It appeals to a sense of nationalism that we don't have and that we are uncomfortable with. This is something that Americans should keep in mind when they go outside their country (or speak to the world, rather than the USA). The American pride can be very offensive. Americans are unaware of that and that doesn't help them to achieve their goals.
I think you encapsulated American nationalism well. There are a few of us in America who are more than a bit creeped out by the daily pledge of allegiance. There are also plenty of people that understand that American pride can be offensive. History is replete with examples of one group of people feeling good about themselves by propagating a mostly imagined sense of superiority.
I recently read (probably on facebook) a quote that went something like "Without pain, how can we know joy?" I think it is misguided, but many Americans think along the lines of "how can we be great if others don't know they are inferior?"
#1014
Posted 2012-November-08, 15:04
Vampyr, on 2012-November-08, 08:13, said:
Of course not. It's all about me!
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#1015
Posted 2012-November-08, 15:05
TimG, on 2012-November-08, 14:47, said:
http://www.boston.co..._silver_an.html
Two states (Hawaii and West Virginia) actually fell outside Silver's confidence intervals, so he was more like 96% than 100%. Still damn impressive.
Didn't he use a 95% confidence interval? Then it shouldn't be strange that 4% falls outside the confidence interval. I would say that he estimated his confidence interval pretty good too.
Rik
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg
#1016
Posted 2012-November-08, 15:09
blackshoe, on 2012-November-08, 00:26, said:
There have been efforts to get creationism into public school curriculum based upon scientific principles, but upon examination, the "scientific" part wasn't scientific at all. I guess what I meant to say was something like "based upon real science rather than just a claim of science."
#1017
Posted 2012-November-08, 15:22
lalldonn, on 2012-November-08, 10:53, said:
lol are you kidding me? you have way too much faith in the world. I mean, does ESPN mention money lines and spreads of games? No, they ask their pundits for their "opinion" on who will win the game, and obv they go with Eli because he inspires his team and is so amazingly clutch, etc etc. It's not like they all have their own pro sports bettor on debating with other sports bettors, even though OBV those guys are by far the best and most accurate with predictions (and will also be like nate and rather than predict a winner, will tell you what % chance a team has to win).
The public doesn't care about the true line, they just want to hear people talk. I mean, ESPN could exist in a world where the vegas lines were their basepoint, they would simply discuss the reasons for that line, but it would still be far less interesting. Look in this thread, people do not care about truth or numbers, they think their view is special or unique and they have some unknown knowledge and read on the masses that trumps people interpreting massive amounts of data in a proven way.
Just like people want to say "You know what, I know the stats guys say this, Romney is actually ahead here..." but won't put any money on it, people want to say "the eagles have no shot in this game, vick turns over the ball and the other team is just really motivated here" but of course won't bet on it when the line is eagles -4.
It is just the way of the world. People would rather debate endlessly and hear these stupid narratives and watch their favorite biased pundit who has no basis or track record at prediction but is an "expert" rather than defer to a statistician or to vegas/betting markets or whatever. And it will go on and on like that forever.
I do think network shows will maybe have a statistician on their team, but he will never be as respected as he should be, he will just be one more pundit and the other pundits will be like "well thats interesting, but you see, the computers lose the human side here, Romney is..." Just like ESPN and talk radio SOMETIMES mention the betting lines (and discuss why theyre wrong), or they mention sabermetrics and advanced stats (and discuss why theyre wrong), etc.
#1018
Posted 2012-November-08, 15:24
The creepy aspects of US nationalism don't bother me much because most folks take that stuff with a grain of salt, much as they do in reciting the creed or singing hymns in church. The excessive militarism does bother me a lot.
I believe in a strong defense, but much of what passes as defense is not defense at all. There are real people with real lives and families everywhere, and it is most important to think very carefully, and then think again, before invading other places or blowing stuff up.
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
#1019
Posted 2012-November-08, 15:50
NS claimed to be providing odds. The criticisms, here and elsewhere, were on two fronts
1. He wasn't giving political arguments about what should be
2. He was skewing the results to favor his preferred outcome.
Well. 1. is certainly true, but it is not really right to criticize someone for not giving political arguments when he presrnts his results as an evaluation of how things are rather than as what he would like. And 2. now seems to be really hard to maintain. George Will, for example, had Romney winning with 300+ electoral votes. I can see someone saying that he seemed to be engaging in wishful thinking. But Silver? Seems pretty good so far.
Probabilistic forecasting cannot really be evaluated by looking at one result. But the elction was a composite result and at least some things perhaps can be said. Silver claimed a high probability of an Obama victory based on a state by state analysis, certainly a sensible approach since victory depends on electoral votes. He had good results in calling the states, that's one thing, but more to the point in calling the election he would still have been correct in forecasting an Obama win if he had been wrong in a few states. Listening to the results as they came in, I guess it was around the time that Wisconsin and New Mexico went for Obama that the pundits were saying things such as "To win, Romney needs A and B ad C..." while saying "To win, Obama needs W or X or Y..." Getting all of the "ands" is harder than getting some of the "ors". So, if Silver was mostly right in most of the states, he was then likely to be right in the final winner.
The bottom line here is that the next time Silver posts some odds on an election, I don't think I would rush in to bet against him.
On other recent posts: I mentioned in response to Wayne that I didn't think Obama's comment about the greatest country was offensive. Really that's all I meant. I was not thinking of flag burning here or elsewhere, German militarism when I was a young child, or any of that. When the couple across the street got a divorce, the guy was going on about his wife having had an affair thirty years ago. Such discussions never lead to anything good.
#1020
Posted 2012-November-08, 16:25
Quote
So now we know that Jim Cramer's prediction of 440 was closer than both Dick Morris's 213 and George Will's 217.
Jim Cramer's shtick is really that of an entertainer, and the way he presented the 440 let you know he was joking. But I have a hard time understanding why George Will and Dick Morris would make ridiculous predictions that they had to know would be way off the mark -- and that everyone would be able to see that. In the punditry business, they must reckon that grabbing attention gains more than debasing one's reputation loses.
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell