I get excited about elections and election night coverage for at least three countries to a degree that's probably a bit nerdy. Fascinating dynamics for this one. Hard to tell if it's truly a close one or if it's media's need to build and sustain some narrative, any narrative, for the interminable US election cycle. The two most recent elections in Canada in the provinces of Alberta and Quebec had polling that was stone cold wrong. It was rather stunning, particularly in Alberta. Can't wait to see the real data tomorrow. Head says Obama, gut says you just never know what happens when it comes down to the ground game in America. May the best thing for the country happen, whatever that may be.
I don't think this race is run, but if I were a bookmaker, you'd get much better odds on a Romney-bet, because Obama has the edge in so many ways. I found these statistics very interesting: link
I read slightly more Conservative media than Liberal media because I find it more valuable that reading a bunch of stuff I already think and I prefer to get their positions outside the filters and spinners of political opponents. If there is one thing Conservatives hate just now it's Nate Silver and The New York Times and what they view as an out of control systemic bias at the paper. The arguments are mostly from the gut but there have been a couple of legitimate questions about the way he weights some surveys that I would have liked to hear the rationale on from him. Too many polls and poll aggregators like Silver all do really seem to have more skin in the game than they should and data has become one more tool to steer the race rather than provide an objective snapshot. It's easy to be cynical about even a big name like Gallup who has been a Romney+ outlier for weeks and then pulls it in by 4 or 5 points reflecting a much narrower race almost overnight, allowing them perhaps to claim more 'accuracy' than deserved once the ballots are counted. As they say, the poll I'm most interested is the one that will start rolling in about 8:00 pm Eastern.
Far from being an Obama fan - he has been a big disappointment concerning human rights issues - I really enjoy watching Fox "news" today. It is truly amazing to see how they redefine terms like "majority", lol. Apparently, the American people (or should I say women, Latinos and "people of colour") rather elected a European socialist into office than a millionaire who believes that Jesus came to the United States after resurrection. I wonder how that could happen :-)
You're a brave woman. Despite my commitment to meaningfully and regularly expose myself to different perspectives as noted previously I simply cannot handle Fox News. I tried to watch them for a bit last night and as usual can't bear it for more than two minutes. It's supposed to be a push back against institutional liberalism in the mainstream media and all it really is is utterly absurd almost all the time. MSNBC is supposed to be a push back against Fox and they're also utterly absurd almost all the time. CNN is a good distance down the tube on many fronts now too, but they still do elections very well. Lots of honourable mentions last night, but John King in particular is exceptional and never betrays his outward objectivity for a second. Analysis was reasoned and sometimes insightful, pace and extracted drama was just right, system was polished and professional and their call was just cautious enough coming at 11:18 pm. Love CNN for elections!
GratefulFan wrote:
I read slightly more Conservative media than Liberal media because I find it more valuable that reading a bunch of stuff I already think and I prefer to get their positions outside the filters and spinners of political opponents. If there is one thing Conservatives hate just now it's Nate Silver and The New York Times and what they view as an out of control systemic bias at the paper. The arguments are mostly from the gut but there have been a couple of legitimate questions about the way he weights some surveys that I would have liked to hear the rationale on from him. Too many polls and poll aggregators like Silver all do really seem to have more skin in the game than they should and data has become one more tool to steer the race rather than provide an objective snapshot. It's easy to be cynical about even a big name like Gallup who has been a Romney+ outlier for weeks and then pulls it in by 4 or 5 points reflecting a much narrower race almost overnight, allowing them perhaps to claim more 'accuracy' than deserved once the ballots are counted. As they say, the poll I'm most interested is the one that will start rolling in about 8:00 pm Eastern.
Turns out Nate Silver got *all* 50 states right. So I'm guessing that "Too many polls and poll aggregators like Silver all do really seem to have more skin in the game than they should and data has become one more tool to steer the race rather than provide an objective snapshot" no longer applies. In your desire to be as balanced as possible, you overlooked the possibility that objectivity itself favoured one side in this race.
Even the republicans on Foxnews have been stating that Romney should have been more moderate (or, be himself, the guy he pretty much used to be) instead of reaching out to the far right-wing conservatives.
Perhaps the next republican presidential candidate will be a genuine moderate, with a Spanish speaking running-mate. My favorite comedian Bill O'Reilly, was just foaming about how most Republican voters are moderates, and not extremists, so they can afford to lose their pro-life/I ain't no homo-supporters if they can win hispanics and moderates.
I too have a nasty habit of reading Foxnews, they are seriously entertaining. The problem is, that some people fail to see Foxnews as a harmless comedy channel and take it seriously.
thomasquinn 32989 wrote:
Turns out Nate Silver got *all* 50 states right. So I'm guessing that "Too many polls and poll aggregators like Silver all do really seem to have more skin in the game than they should and data has become one more tool to steer the race rather than provide an objective snapshot" no longer applies. In your desire to be as balanced as possible, you overlooked the possibility that objectivity itself favoured one side in this race.
Polling and weighting and aggregating is a months if not years long endeavour in an American election cycle. If you assume perfect objectivity necessarily underlies accuracy during the end game you've missed my point entirely and fail to appreciate the way the data streams move the electorate. Clearly Nate is a skilled and professional statistician and presumably cares about integrity and his reputation, but his personal politics are well known, and poll weighting is part science and part art. Regardless, a model is just that. A model. They can fall apart or fail to anticipate events or regress towards a mean. Woe to us if we outsource too much of our thinking to Nate Silver's model. It's been accurate for three cycles now and that is worthy of respect and a degree of trust, but in my view there's a corrupting amount of both data and money in the American election system. I think the fact that Canada's last two provincial election outings left pollsters looking rather clueless was a great stroke of luck and can only further the cause of Canadian democracy.
Meant to add that your phrase "objectivity itself favoured one side in this race" reminds me somehow of Paul Krugman's "reality has a liberal bias". Somehow that is loosely connected in my head to a recent article on Princeton's student newspaper website: link. Is that simply reality? Academic inbreeding? A diversity problem? I honestly don't know, but it's interesting.