4 ms·

The 2016 election was swingy and it was uncertain. In 2008 and 2012, the political media was myopically focused on the twists and turns of the horse race and c

The 2016 election was swingy and it was uncertain. In 2008 and 2012, the political media was myopically focused on the twists and turns of the horse race and called it 50-50 dead even. Nate Silver's 538 modeled the election as basically stable with only small polling shifts, and the only change in the last month was a steady decline in the remaining time that McCain (or Romney) had to significantly shift the polls. In 2016, the political media treated the election as if Hillary had a lock on it, and entreated us not to get swept up in the daily swings in the polls. Meanwhile, Nate Silver's model swung wildly with the polls, and Nate went on the media to emphasize the uncertainty of the election. Both candidates were disliked, and a large portion of the electorate was undecided right up until the last week of the election. I remember the following exchange in one interview: Interviewer: If you say that Donald Trump has a 33% chance to win, what's the chance that he actually wins? Nate Silver: One in three. I'm predicting a one in three chance that Donald Trump wins in November. As for the authoritativeness of their presentation, FiveThirtyEight has a really beautiful forecast that presents their 2018 prediction as a probability distribution: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-f...

paganel 8y ago
>The 2016 election was swingy and it was uncertain. I don't remember it that way, in fact I remember seeing a lot of very shocked faces in the Democratic camp when the results were beginning to take shape. I don't remember having seen similar confused reactions after any previous US presidential elections, not even after the Bush vs Gore one which was a lot closer in terms of electoral votes. Back to the article, I think Nate Silver's failure only shows to the general public that electoral predictions are rubbish. Maybe "failure" is a strong word because he genuinely seems to be the best at what he's doing, it's just that the domain in which he's involved is turning out to be bogus. I'm sure that there was a crystal-ball viewer that was the best at what he/she was doing, it's just that crystal-ball viewing turned out to be bogus.
- FactolSarin 8y ago
  However, FiveThirtyEight gave Trump a 30% chance of winning, and in the days before the election was stressing the fact that a Trump win was very possible. They didn't predict his win, but they did better than anyone else in the mainstream.
  - scott_s 8y ago
    I agree. I think people's shock was a failure of imagination. They couldn't imagine a Trump win, so even though the polling data showed he could, they discounted it. That, I think, explains why Silver was criticized so heavily for saying what he did days before the election: they couldn't imagine a Trump win, therefore he must lose, which Silver must also think, therefore Silver is trolling.
  - paganel 8y ago
    > They didn't predict his win, but they did better than anyone else in the mainstream. Kind of proving my point, as it shows that Nate Silver was the best at crystal-balling the election result. Afaik 30% is still bellow the 50% (or 0.5/1) threshold generally needed to make a decision, as the article also mentions.
coldtea 8y ago
>The 2016 election was swingy and it was uncertain. In retrospect. In real life, only a few pundits called it from the start (even explaining the mechanics, including Taleb and that Dilbert guy). Most of the press and pundits was all certain about a specific outcome until the very last minute.
- coldtea 8y ago
  correction: called it [as such, i.e swingy]
- VintageCool 8y ago
  The Real Clear Politics polling aggregator showed nearly a 10 point jump for Hillary Clinton after "grab em by the pussy" came out. That lead then eroded back to the mean over the course of the month. That's what I mean by swingy. Nothing in 2008 or 2012 shifted the polls like that. The polls in those elections stayed within a 2 point band the whole way. That level of volatility was clear in the polls well in advance of the election. (And, 15% of the electorate was effectively undecided with 2 weeks to go, which is much higher than it was in 2008 or 2012). Such swings are also what Taleb and the author of this article are criticizing Nate Silver for.

paganel 8y ago

>The 2016 election was swingy and it was uncertain. I don't remember it that way, in fact I remember seeing a lot of very shocked faces in the Democratic camp when the results were beginning to take shape. I don't remember having seen similar confused reactions after any previous US presidential elections, not even after the Bush vs Gore one which was a lot closer in terms of electoral votes. Back to the article, I think Nate Silver's failure only shows to the general public that electoral predictions are rubbish. Maybe "failure" is a strong word because he genuinely seems to be the best at what he's doing, it's just that the domain in which he's involved is turning out to be bogus. I'm sure that there was a crystal-ball viewer that was the best at what he/she was doing, it's just that crystal-ball viewing turned out to be bogus.

FactolSarin 8y ago
However, FiveThirtyEight gave Trump a 30% chance of winning, and in the days before the election was stressing the fact that a Trump win was very possible. They didn't predict his win, but they did better than anyone else in the mainstream.
- scott_s 8y ago
  I agree. I think people's shock was a failure of imagination. They couldn't imagine a Trump win, so even though the polling data showed he could, they discounted it. That, I think, explains why Silver was criticized so heavily for saying what he did days before the election: they couldn't imagine a Trump win, therefore he must lose, which Silver must also think, therefore Silver is trolling.
- paganel 8y ago
  > They didn't predict his win, but they did better than anyone else in the mainstream. Kind of proving my point, as it shows that Nate Silver was the best at crystal-balling the election result. Afaik 30% is still bellow the 50% (or 0.5/1) threshold generally needed to make a decision, as the article also mentions.

coldtea 8y ago

>The 2016 election was swingy and it was uncertain. In retrospect. In real life, only a few pundits called it from the start (even explaining the mechanics, including Taleb and that Dilbert guy). Most of the press and pundits was all certain about a specific outcome until the very last minute.

coldtea 8y ago
correction: called it [as such, i.e swingy]
VintageCool 8y ago
The Real Clear Politics polling aggregator showed nearly a 10 point jump for Hillary Clinton after "grab em by the pussy" came out. That lead then eroded back to the mean over the course of the month. That's what I mean by swingy. Nothing in 2008 or 2012 shifted the polls like that. The polls in those elections stayed within a 2 point band the whole way. That level of volatility was clear in the polls well in advance of the election. (And, 15% of the electorate was effectively undecided with 2 weeks to go, which is much higher than it was in 2008 or 2012). Such swings are also what Taleb and the author of this article are criticizing Nate Silver for.