3 ms·

He has utterly discredited the horse race scam of big media political coverage. That is a significant contribution, because such coverage has been so influentia

by gruseom 14y ago

He has utterly discredited the horse race scam of big media political coverage. That is a significant contribution, because such coverage has been so influential in managing public opinion and how people think about politics. He did it first and more dramatically in the 2008 primaries, but this time feels more like the watershed. It's not all Nate's doing, of course; this is a long term trend and many people are working on it.

patrickk 14y ago
The idea that this was "a close race", "too close to call", was a narrative pushed by the media to make it more artificially exciting to drive viewers. Pundits hate him for it because it shows how content-free, and ideological/ opinion-driven their arguments are rather than sound judgement based on available data.
klenwell 14y ago
Imagine, too, a scenario where the results deviated significantly from his predictions. In the past, the public, guided by the media, might have been satisfied shrugging it off as "god's will" or "people are just unpredictable" or even "pshaw, more conspiracy theories!" Now I like to believe there will be more pressure to investigate and rationally explain the source of that deviation. Are dead people really voting in Chicago? Were voting machines hacked in Cuyahoga County? I feel like Silver's counter-narrative -- and more critically, his methods -- have been an important contribution to a fair and open democratic process.
pfortuny 14y ago
You've got to read the answers above concerning the UK 2008 election... Just for the record about 'horse race' 'discredited' and 'big media'... This is beginning to look to me like 'big stats'.
- gruseom 14y ago
  I looked for and read what I think are the comments you mean. He got the 2008 British election wrong, yes? I'm inclined to cut him some slack about that. The two systems are so different that domain expertise in one might not translate well to the other, and it would be a classic geek mistake to underestimate the differences at first.
waterlesscloud 14y ago
Now here's a bet I'm willing to take. The horse race coverage of the next political race will be just as strong as it was this time. This isn't the triumph of data over narrative, it's just data showing it can be more predictive. Narrative still has more mass popularity, and it always will.
- gruseom 14y ago
  Hmm, I'm not sure how my point got turned into a claim that narrative will henceforth have less mass popularity than data. I'm talking about a shift among elites. Political media are going to be forced to adapt, in a direction I think most people here would consider a good one. If they don't, they will look ridiculous, which will weaken them even faster; appearing serious and important is their trump card, after all. But tell me how you propose to measure "just as strong" and I might take your bet :)

by gruseom 14y ago

patrickk 14y ago

The idea that this was "a close race", "too close to call", was a narrative pushed by the media to make it more artificially exciting to drive viewers. Pundits hate him for it because it shows how content-free, and ideological/ opinion-driven their arguments are rather than sound judgement based on available data.

klenwell 14y ago

Imagine, too, a scenario where the results deviated significantly from his predictions. In the past, the public, guided by the media, might have been satisfied shrugging it off as "god's will" or "people are just unpredictable" or even "pshaw, more conspiracy theories!" Now I like to believe there will be more pressure to investigate and rationally explain the source of that deviation. Are dead people really voting in Chicago? Were voting machines hacked in Cuyahoga County? I feel like Silver's counter-narrative -- and more critically, his methods -- have been an important contribution to a fair and open democratic process.

pfortuny 14y ago

You've got to read the answers above concerning the UK 2008 election... Just for the record about 'horse race' 'discredited' and 'big media'... This is beginning to look to me like 'big stats'.

gruseom 14y ago
I looked for and read what I think are the comments you mean. He got the 2008 British election wrong, yes? I'm inclined to cut him some slack about that. The two systems are so different that domain expertise in one might not translate well to the other, and it would be a classic geek mistake to underestimate the differences at first.

waterlesscloud 14y ago

Now here's a bet I'm willing to take. The horse race coverage of the next political race will be just as strong as it was this time. This isn't the triumph of data over narrative, it's just data showing it can be more predictive. Narrative still has more mass popularity, and it always will.

gruseom 14y ago
Hmm, I'm not sure how my point got turned into a claim that narrative will henceforth have less mass popularity than data. I'm talking about a shift among elites. Political media are going to be forced to adapt, in a direction I think most people here would consider a good one. If they don't, they will look ridiculous, which will weaken them even faster; appearing serious and important is their trump card, after all. But tell me how you propose to measure "just as strong" and I might take your bet :)