Shared publicly  - 
David Elliot Washington's profile photoRoarke Gaskill's profile photoNick Funk's profile photoNolin BPO Services's profile photo
IMHO Mr. Silver's statistics will not kill the pundits, but they do provide a long-needed objective reality check.
What I really hope happens is that the American public see how much the media has failed us. And then some of the media maligned Nate Silver because he did his math. He didn't need bells and whistles to entertain us. He just used math to tell us what would probably happen. It just so happens that it happened. Some the media looks like a ship of fools.
No one watches pundits for accuracy like most media today entertainment trumps accuracy! 
No amount of data will compel ignorant pundits to stray from their network's narrative, like Karl Rove.

Data must be interpreted accurately, putting aside all conflicts of interest and being objective. 
The article makes a fair point - especially invoking the "Unskewed Polls" model.  But in addition to the fallibility of those creating the models you have plenty of time to interpret the outcome of those models.  Pundits will say what those numbers mean.  They will note what the public is thinking to generate those numbers.  They will discuss what Candidate X needs to do to either maintain or change those numbers.  And there will still be some who will confidently explain why this year, the numbers are all wrong.  We will also see new "unskewed" polling models.
Nate the Great!!! I remember the 2+2 poker days.  Man, that dude is smart.
People like to hear the pundits yak...I must admit I sometimes enjoy the chatting class.
Math revolution??? hahaha omg these blogs.
Add a comment...