How about not adding scientism to unknown unknown uncertainty? The current result is separated by .2% of the total votes in a few states. A few mildly bad weather incidents... Why pretend we can model something like this—rare event, unreliable data—when we don't have the tools.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep @TJ__Murphy and
These probabilities are generally pretty calibrated! https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/checking-our-work/us-senate-elections/ …pic.twitter.com/LKMgGCKP1G
2 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @davidshor @zeynep and
Sorta. But these aren’t independent and they are easier than the presidential/battleground, which is the $-maker. There’s a reasonable argument that we should really only consider 538 predicted 3/4 elections which obviously isn’t enough data to say much that’s meaningful.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @SolomonMg @zeynep and
Would you have the same objection to the media quoting betting odds?
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @davidshor @zeynep and
My suspicion is that we’d see the same issues w betting odds assuming 1. We’re still taking about the odds one pres candidate wins 2.
#s provided in terms of probability (rather than say 1:17) 3. They are regarded as predictive Actually 1 & 2 are prob enough1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @SolomonMg @zeynep and
There are two objections in this thread. 1) That people inherently cannot be trusted to ingest probabilities, and 2) That election models are unscientific
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @davidshor @SolomonMg and
For (1), I think at some point you have to treat readers like adults and do your best to tell them the thing they want to know, (2) I forecast elections for a living and do think that Nate is very good at making election odds
1 reply 0 retweets 14 likes -
Replying to @davidshor @SolomonMg and
More on 1: The idea here is that telling people probabilities lowers turnout. But in the real world, consuming political news coverage probably boosts turnout. The rise of election models has coincided with the largest increase in turnout in decades!
3 replies 2 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @davidshor @SolomonMg and
But I’m more open to paternalism with TV. If the claim here is that TV news shouldn’t take about election models I think I’d probably agree with that.
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @davidshor @SolomonMg and
People can understand probabilities if we present them with the real uncertainty, which, for presidential elections is two giant overlapping shaded areas. A precise number is miscommunication at this point. We should de-prioritize them (campaigns and gamblers aren't my concern).
1 reply 1 retweet 14 likes
As for turnout etc, I think it has differential effects but my point is we're miscommunicating about them so people are making strategic decisions based on knowledge/certainty that they think is there, but isn't. "Both outcomes seem quite possible" isn't satisfactory but is true.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.