I was looking for something like baseball, where there’s a lot of data and the competition was pretty low. That’s when I discovered politics.Nate Silver • Discussing his move into the political realm after years as a baseball statistics nerd. The Guardian’s piece on Silver is super-fascinating.
It’s a little early to know exactly what we can learn from social media metrics. I think the way we’ll be looking at this stuff will be very different in four years, in eight years, in twelve years. For right now, we’re kind of in an awkward adolescent age … we’re out of the classical innocent era of our youth where you could just call someone on the phone. But we’re not sure what the substitute for that is yet.With all the recent brewhaha about Nate Silver’s controversial projections for tonight’s outcome, and while we’re all waiting for some legit data to come back from the polls, it seems like a good time to revisit our exclusive interview with Mr. Silver back in September. Enjoy! (via election)
Probability is counterintuitive.
The idea that the chance of something happening doesn’t change is hard for us to wrap our heads around. Understandably so—if I tell you that you have a 70 percent chance of making a putt, most people would expect that after ten putts, seven will have gone in the hole. This, however, is not the case.
That’s what’s hard to grasp about probability, the idea that one result has no effect on what happens in the future.
Related to this great piece (a topic which Stefan totally beat me to, because I had a half-written, not-as-good take hiding in my drafts) is the rebuke he got from his public editor on Thursday. If you ask me, the New York Times’ public editor, Margaret Sullivan, totally should have run a statistical model on whether that column was a good idea.
— Ernie @ ShortFormBlog
A very smart take on the political journalism topic du jour.
Just as the conditions promising at least a pretty bad Democratic year have been with us for some time, the uncertainty has been with us all along as well, like a virus with an exceptionally long latency period; on Tuesday, we’ll see which of the polls it has infected.FiveThirtyEight guy Nate Silver • Offering a key piece of final analysis that we should probably take into the elections today. While the polls have largely remained consistent about how many seats the Democrats will lose and the Republicans will gain, it’s good to keep at least a little bit of perspective no matter how you lean. Remember, back in 1994 the analysts were relatively consistent too, but in the end, the Republicans did way better than most of them expected – by a long shot. No matter the case, you should probably get out there and vote your heart out for both the ballot measures and the candidates – unless you live in DC and know the results of every election already. We’ll have lots of key results from our non-existent glass-enclosed nerve center at a late-night coffee shop in Dupont Circle tomorrow night. source (via)