Okay, the election results are pretty amazing. I am relived that President Obama was reelected (which should cement the Affordable Care Act among other good things). But I am excited about the other developments.
The following Democrats won their US Senate races: Jon Tester won in Montana; Heidi Heitkamp won in North Dakota. Tammy Baldwin will be the first openly gay or lesbian member of the US Senate and just as importantly another progressive Democrat; Tim Kaine won in Virginia - beating George Allen hopefully for the last time; Christopher Murphy beat Linda McMahon hopefully for the last time; and Elizabeth Warren won in Massachusetts.
I will admit that I am really happy about Warren - I think she will be great, loud, proud liberal voice. And I am really happy about Jon Tester. A good friend of mine works for him and says he is great - moderate but strong and principled. By the way - yesterday I wondered whether I would accept a trade of liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans for moderates. Instead, we got liberal Democrats and moderate Democrats. Pretty great.
And maybe best of all, two states - Maine and Maryland passed marriage equality referendums and in Washington is still being tallied but supporters are in the lead. Amazing. Now nine states support same sex marriage rights: New York, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Vermont, plus the District of Columbia, and now Maryland and Maine. Washington state would make it 11.
The Republicans retained control of the House, so it wasn't all good news. Although in my hometown news, Democrat Sean Patrick Maloney defeated Republican Nan Hayworth.
In New York State news, the state senate might actually revert to the Democrats, which means the state would have a Democratic governor, assembly and senate. Which means progressive legislation would be much easier to pass.
So all in all, a pretty great night.
Update:
I forgot to mention that Joe Walsh lost, Alan West is losing but hasn't conceded, and Michelle Bachmann almost lost in a pretty conservative district.
Wednesday, November 07, 2012
Tuesday, November 06, 2012
Nate Silver Backlash
Around the time of the hurricane, there was apparently a big discussion about Nate Silver. First there was a Politico blog post about whether if Nate Silver is wrong will he lose all his popularity. There was also comments by Joe Scarborough saying Nate Silver doesn't know what he is talking about.
The responses from Silver supporters were great. Ezra Klein said that reporters don't like Silver because he makes them feel innumerate. Then they criticize him and prove him right. David Roberts and Matt O'Brien had similarly good tweets.
And I want to add my two cents in defense of Silver. In doing so, I need to say that I find the people who attack him to show a lack of understanding of high school probability and intro statistics.
A commenter on twitter said they don't understand what a probability means to a one-off event. That is high school probability. Here is an example: flipping a coin twice and getting two heads has a 25% probability. That doesn't mean it can't or won't happen. It just means it is unlikely to happen.
Here is another example: if the weather forecast says there is a 75% chance of rain, I would recommend you bring an umbrella. It might not rain. That doesn't necessarily mean the forecast was wrong.
For a while, Nate Silver's blog had the probability of Obama winning as around 75% (now it is 90%). The same thing goes - according to Silver's model, Obama is likely to win.
The poltico story and others seemed to accuse Silver of being overly certain and yet hedging at the same time. Again, they are misunderstanding probability. Silver's model is not a prediction, it shows probability. And probabilities show the likelihood and the uncertainty of events. (After re-reading the Politico piece, it is amazing how stupid it is. Dylan Byers clearly doesn't understand probability at all.)
Romney winning doesn't necessarily mean that Silver was wrong. Silver's model says that based on the data he is using, he thinks there is a high chance Obama wins. But there is a small chance Romney wins. That small chance reflects how the data is unable to predict anything perfectly - that to a certain degree events are somewhat unpredictable.
But we should ask, and Silver will do this, what it does mean if Romney wins. Since Silver relies so heavily on polling, it could mean that the polling was wrong. Or it could mean that he was wrong to adjust the polling like he does. In other words, it could mean that his model was right or it could mean his model was wrong.
What makes Silver so popular is not his model so much but how he explains statistics. He explains to everyone what his assumptions are, and how he got to them. You can disagree with some of those assumptions and argue that his model should be different.
But that isn't what these critics are doing. They are saying he is wrong but from complete ignorance of what he is actually doing.
David Brooks has joined this chorus - and as much as I like Brooks on some issues, anything involving math and Brooks says it is witchcraft. He doesn't understand economics and so says it cannot predict anything. And he doesn't understand statistics and probability and so says it can't predict human behavior. With regard to statistics, history shows how much presidential election outcomes depend on fundamentals like the economy as well as how often outcomes are in line with long term polling averages.
All of this backlash is from media types that are threatened by Silver. Scarbarough, Brooks, and others have credibility not by evidence but by gut feelings and high level contacts. Their predictions are often wrong, but they don't lose credibility. That is because they are providing entertainment, not real news.
Silver's method asks us to calm down around so-called big events. The news media blows everything up to be game-changers. And they also say races are nail biters. Both provide entertainment and therefore viewers. Silver however says that the evidence shows these events rarely change polling and that the race isn't as close as the news wants to pretend. So he threatens their model. I don't read any polls or any poll coverage save for Nate Silver. If others did that, the news would have less viewers (and the world would have more informed people).
I'll finish by responding to the original question posed by the Politico story. If Romney wins, will I stop reading Nate Silver. The answer is no, because unlike political pundits who won't look at their predictions critically and ask why they were wrong, Silver will look at what happened and explain it. And that is why I read him, because he is smart and great at explaining what is really going on.
The responses from Silver supporters were great. Ezra Klein said that reporters don't like Silver because he makes them feel innumerate. Then they criticize him and prove him right. David Roberts and Matt O'Brien had similarly good tweets.
And I want to add my two cents in defense of Silver. In doing so, I need to say that I find the people who attack him to show a lack of understanding of high school probability and intro statistics.
A commenter on twitter said they don't understand what a probability means to a one-off event. That is high school probability. Here is an example: flipping a coin twice and getting two heads has a 25% probability. That doesn't mean it can't or won't happen. It just means it is unlikely to happen.
Here is another example: if the weather forecast says there is a 75% chance of rain, I would recommend you bring an umbrella. It might not rain. That doesn't necessarily mean the forecast was wrong.
For a while, Nate Silver's blog had the probability of Obama winning as around 75% (now it is 90%). The same thing goes - according to Silver's model, Obama is likely to win.
The poltico story and others seemed to accuse Silver of being overly certain and yet hedging at the same time. Again, they are misunderstanding probability. Silver's model is not a prediction, it shows probability. And probabilities show the likelihood and the uncertainty of events. (After re-reading the Politico piece, it is amazing how stupid it is. Dylan Byers clearly doesn't understand probability at all.)
Romney winning doesn't necessarily mean that Silver was wrong. Silver's model says that based on the data he is using, he thinks there is a high chance Obama wins. But there is a small chance Romney wins. That small chance reflects how the data is unable to predict anything perfectly - that to a certain degree events are somewhat unpredictable.
But we should ask, and Silver will do this, what it does mean if Romney wins. Since Silver relies so heavily on polling, it could mean that the polling was wrong. Or it could mean that he was wrong to adjust the polling like he does. In other words, it could mean that his model was right or it could mean his model was wrong.
What makes Silver so popular is not his model so much but how he explains statistics. He explains to everyone what his assumptions are, and how he got to them. You can disagree with some of those assumptions and argue that his model should be different.
But that isn't what these critics are doing. They are saying he is wrong but from complete ignorance of what he is actually doing.
David Brooks has joined this chorus - and as much as I like Brooks on some issues, anything involving math and Brooks says it is witchcraft. He doesn't understand economics and so says it cannot predict anything. And he doesn't understand statistics and probability and so says it can't predict human behavior. With regard to statistics, history shows how much presidential election outcomes depend on fundamentals like the economy as well as how often outcomes are in line with long term polling averages.
All of this backlash is from media types that are threatened by Silver. Scarbarough, Brooks, and others have credibility not by evidence but by gut feelings and high level contacts. Their predictions are often wrong, but they don't lose credibility. That is because they are providing entertainment, not real news.
Silver's method asks us to calm down around so-called big events. The news media blows everything up to be game-changers. And they also say races are nail biters. Both provide entertainment and therefore viewers. Silver however says that the evidence shows these events rarely change polling and that the race isn't as close as the news wants to pretend. So he threatens their model. I don't read any polls or any poll coverage save for Nate Silver. If others did that, the news would have less viewers (and the world would have more informed people).
I'll finish by responding to the original question posed by the Politico story. If Romney wins, will I stop reading Nate Silver. The answer is no, because unlike political pundits who won't look at their predictions critically and ask why they were wrong, Silver will look at what happened and explain it. And that is why I read him, because he is smart and great at explaining what is really going on.
All Election Prospects
So according to Nate Silver, not only should we expect Obama to win a second term (apparently the first time we've had three 2-term presidencies in a row since Jefferson, Madison, Monroe), but the Senate is expected to be controlled by the Democrats.
In fact, Silver probabilities suggest that Elizabeth Warren will win in Massachusetts, Linda McMahon will lose in Connecticut, and Tim Kaine will win in Virginia. These are all good things. Unfortunately, Nate Silver's model shows that Jon Tester is likely to lose in Montana and Heidi Heitkamp is expected to lose in North Dakota. That is really too bad. I've heard great things about both candidates.
Where the Democrats are winning and where they are losing shows more extreme candidates beating more moderate ones. Take Massachusetts. I actually kind of like Scott Brown. We need moderates. In a perfect world, he would be the Republican Senator from one of the really red states.
I realize though that I am being a bit hypocritical. I say we need moderates, like Jon Tester, but then I support Warren over Brown. I haven't fully resolved this. In Massachusetts, I think we need a liberal Democrat more than we need a moderate Republican. But if we were to have more moderates overall, we'd need to trade some liberal democrats for moderate Republicans (ie trade Warren for Tester) and vice versa. I don't know whether I would take that trade.
But instead of that hypothetical, we have a real world where moderates are losing and more extreme candidates are winning. That suggests we'll have more partisanship and gridlock ahead. The former isn't necessarily a bad thing. The later is.
As for the House, there was one model that suggested that Democrats can retake the majority. But other models that show a Republican-controlled House are more convincing. So I think that is the situation we'll be facing. We should expect a GOP House, a Democratic Senate, and President Obama with a second term.
In fact, Silver probabilities suggest that Elizabeth Warren will win in Massachusetts, Linda McMahon will lose in Connecticut, and Tim Kaine will win in Virginia. These are all good things. Unfortunately, Nate Silver's model shows that Jon Tester is likely to lose in Montana and Heidi Heitkamp is expected to lose in North Dakota. That is really too bad. I've heard great things about both candidates.
Where the Democrats are winning and where they are losing shows more extreme candidates beating more moderate ones. Take Massachusetts. I actually kind of like Scott Brown. We need moderates. In a perfect world, he would be the Republican Senator from one of the really red states.
I realize though that I am being a bit hypocritical. I say we need moderates, like Jon Tester, but then I support Warren over Brown. I haven't fully resolved this. In Massachusetts, I think we need a liberal Democrat more than we need a moderate Republican. But if we were to have more moderates overall, we'd need to trade some liberal democrats for moderate Republicans (ie trade Warren for Tester) and vice versa. I don't know whether I would take that trade.
But instead of that hypothetical, we have a real world where moderates are losing and more extreme candidates are winning. That suggests we'll have more partisanship and gridlock ahead. The former isn't necessarily a bad thing. The later is.
As for the House, there was one model that suggested that Democrats can retake the majority. But other models that show a Republican-controlled House are more convincing. So I think that is the situation we'll be facing. We should expect a GOP House, a Democratic Senate, and President Obama with a second term.
Election Day 2012
So today is election day. I had planned to write a post about how to watch the coverage and which states to pay attention to. But really, it is all about Ohio. Granted, if Obama loses Pennsylvania, that is a really bad sign. Same goes for if Romney loses Florida. But absent those scenarios, just pay attention to Ohio. And right now, Nate Silver's blog says Ohio and therefore the election are likely to go to Obama with 90.0% probability.
Instead though, I am going to reflect on this year versus four years ago. Four years ago, I was a relatively early Obama supporter. I started off favoring Bill Richardson but went to Obama once I realized he wasn't viable. And I became a really strong Obama supporter - so much so that I donated and volunteered for Obama.
Mitt Romney was right though, the best feeling I had about Obama was the day after the election. This post is kind of embarassing in retrospect (and I guess it is no surprise that I am now reading a lot of history again). When I am trying to be fair, I think that Obama has done a good enough job. He passed major health care reform, a big stimulus, prevented the recession from continuing, took major stands in favor of same sex couples, and passed a banking reform bill.
But he has also been disappointing on foreign policy, specifically on drone strikes (more in a future post), and he was weak on the economy and caved on budget issues. He has let Republicans set the agenda by focusing on a medium term issue - the budget - instead of the immediate issue of job. And then let them attack him for not doing enough on jobs.
In light of all of this, I did not donate nor did I volunteer this time. Maybe part of my lack of volunteering is due to my young son. But much more so, it is because I am not as inspired. Sure, we need to avoid a Romney presidency. But that isn't enough to get me out volunteering.
So here's hoping for an Obama win tonight. But I won't be filled with as much hope. Just much less dread.
Instead though, I am going to reflect on this year versus four years ago. Four years ago, I was a relatively early Obama supporter. I started off favoring Bill Richardson but went to Obama once I realized he wasn't viable. And I became a really strong Obama supporter - so much so that I donated and volunteered for Obama.
Mitt Romney was right though, the best feeling I had about Obama was the day after the election. This post is kind of embarassing in retrospect (and I guess it is no surprise that I am now reading a lot of history again). When I am trying to be fair, I think that Obama has done a good enough job. He passed major health care reform, a big stimulus, prevented the recession from continuing, took major stands in favor of same sex couples, and passed a banking reform bill.
But he has also been disappointing on foreign policy, specifically on drone strikes (more in a future post), and he was weak on the economy and caved on budget issues. He has let Republicans set the agenda by focusing on a medium term issue - the budget - instead of the immediate issue of job. And then let them attack him for not doing enough on jobs.
In light of all of this, I did not donate nor did I volunteer this time. Maybe part of my lack of volunteering is due to my young son. But much more so, it is because I am not as inspired. Sure, we need to avoid a Romney presidency. But that isn't enough to get me out volunteering.
So here's hoping for an Obama win tonight. But I won't be filled with as much hope. Just much less dread.
Star Wars Point Counterpoint
There was a post on Slate about the Star Wars and Disney deal that I want to respond to, since it disagrees with my post of a few days ago. The writer basically says that the Star Wars movies are for kids, that both the original and the prequels were made that way and suffer from the same faults that only adults see. And Disney is good at making movies for kids so the next movies will be good, too.
I completely disagree. The original movies were compelling and easy to understand. It was revolution against an empire. Any student of the American Revolution - or any other revolution - would get it. It was powerful and cruel despots against fledgling upstarts with heart. It was good humans against bad humans.
The prequels were the opposite. There were arcane trade wars that I don't understand (and neither does the author of the Slate piece) and clone wars that make less sense when being shown in the prequels than when mentioned in the originals. And it was humans against machines. Darth Maul was powerful and scary - if there were more like him, the movies might have been better. But the 4 light-saber robot was boring and unmoving - I felt nothing during the battle and nothing when he died - because he was a robot.
The author of the Slate piece is right that there are similarities - there is some bad acting (maybe Mark Hammil and definitely Hayden Christiansen, though the later I blame on the directing) and bad dialogue writing. And both have annoying characters (C3PO and Jar Jar). But the stories are much different. Only the originals have powerful and understandable themes. And only they stand up to adult scrutiny.
I completely disagree. The original movies were compelling and easy to understand. It was revolution against an empire. Any student of the American Revolution - or any other revolution - would get it. It was powerful and cruel despots against fledgling upstarts with heart. It was good humans against bad humans.
The prequels were the opposite. There were arcane trade wars that I don't understand (and neither does the author of the Slate piece) and clone wars that make less sense when being shown in the prequels than when mentioned in the originals. And it was humans against machines. Darth Maul was powerful and scary - if there were more like him, the movies might have been better. But the 4 light-saber robot was boring and unmoving - I felt nothing during the battle and nothing when he died - because he was a robot.
The author of the Slate piece is right that there are similarities - there is some bad acting (maybe Mark Hammil and definitely Hayden Christiansen, though the later I blame on the directing) and bad dialogue writing. And both have annoying characters (C3PO and Jar Jar). But the stories are much different. Only the originals have powerful and understandable themes. And only they stand up to adult scrutiny.
Sunday, November 04, 2012
Tuesday's Forecast: Phew - Obama a Favorite
All is right with the world of politics again. After the post-debate scare when Romney made up a lot of ground, Obama is back to being a solid favorite in Nate Silver's forecast. I admit, I was worried for a while there. (Not that I am overconfident now, it is still close enough for Romney to win, but much less likely.)
Having said that, I am really disappointed that one debate can move the polls so much, especially when relatively few people watched it, and even more so because the polls moved based on voters understanding of who won not what anyone said. That is depressing.
To be clear, that is the cynical interpretation of why Romney gained ground - that people changed their minds based not on what someone said, but how they said it - or actually how the press said they said it. But there are better and more plausible reasons why the polls shifted.
The polls movement many have been reversion to the mean - in other words the polls might have been moving back in line with the fundamentals. This makes sense if you think Romney was underperforming - maybe by scaring voters away with is 47 percent comments, and flawed convention including a crazy Clint Eastwood speech. So the debate might have shown some voters that would want to vote for Romney that he isn't that crazy or that incompetent.
Now that Obama is looking good again, I will say that there was a time when I was actually kind of curious about how Romney would be as a president. Mitt Romney is running a campaign that promises a lot with no specifics and avoids anything controversial: tax cuts, increased military spending, and general (but huge) cuts to discretionary spending.
But once he governs, he would have to figure out those details. For example, what discretionary spending would he gut to make his budget numbers add up? I think cuts of the magnitude he is proposing would be deeply unpopular. But if he doesn't do it, the GOP would be furious with him. It all just comes back to whether he would be extreme or moderate. Would he fight his party or be subservient to it? I think the later - and articles like this confirm my fear.
But the point is that someone who has so much avoided making any decisions and making anyone angry would have to finally do so. And I wonder how he wound handle that. Though I am not so curious that I want to see him win just to see what he would do.
Having said that, I am really disappointed that one debate can move the polls so much, especially when relatively few people watched it, and even more so because the polls moved based on voters understanding of who won not what anyone said. That is depressing.
To be clear, that is the cynical interpretation of why Romney gained ground - that people changed their minds based not on what someone said, but how they said it - or actually how the press said they said it. But there are better and more plausible reasons why the polls shifted.
The polls movement many have been reversion to the mean - in other words the polls might have been moving back in line with the fundamentals. This makes sense if you think Romney was underperforming - maybe by scaring voters away with is 47 percent comments, and flawed convention including a crazy Clint Eastwood speech. So the debate might have shown some voters that would want to vote for Romney that he isn't that crazy or that incompetent.
Now that Obama is looking good again, I will say that there was a time when I was actually kind of curious about how Romney would be as a president. Mitt Romney is running a campaign that promises a lot with no specifics and avoids anything controversial: tax cuts, increased military spending, and general (but huge) cuts to discretionary spending.
But once he governs, he would have to figure out those details. For example, what discretionary spending would he gut to make his budget numbers add up? I think cuts of the magnitude he is proposing would be deeply unpopular. But if he doesn't do it, the GOP would be furious with him. It all just comes back to whether he would be extreme or moderate. Would he fight his party or be subservient to it? I think the later - and articles like this confirm my fear.
But the point is that someone who has so much avoided making any decisions and making anyone angry would have to finally do so. And I wonder how he wound handle that. Though I am not so curious that I want to see him win just to see what he would do.
Star Wars Won the Super Bowl
In news that got lost in the Hurricane Sandy coverage, Disney bought Lucasfilm from George Lucas, including ILM and Skywalker Sound. And with it came news that Disney plans to bring new Star Wars movies to the screen.
I think this will be a good thing - at least for the movies. I loved the original movies (ie episodes IV, V, and VI) but didn't really like the prequels (episodes I, II, and III - Phantom Menace, etc). I think there was so much promise for the prequels but they just didn't deliver. And I think the main problem was George Lucas. He spent the intervening decades between the originals and the prequals as a business man and not as a writer / director.
Even at top form, I am not convinced Lucas was a great director. I have seen on interviews that he wasn't a very good director of actors. He often relied on good actors to coach themselves (Harrison Ford, Alec Guinness, Liam Neeson, Ewen McGregor as compared to Hayden Christensen and Samuel L. Jackson - the later of which was just a bad casting decision). In fact, the two best movies, Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, were not directed by Lucas.
But I am convinced he was a good writer. Although his dialogue was sometimes pretty flat the stories were engaging and powerful. Remember, he wrote note just Star Wars but the stories for the Indiana Jones movies.
But writing and directing are both crafts that need to be practiced if you want to remain good at them. Believing that you can walk away from them, then come back without any problems is extreme hubris. Lucas decided to write and direct the prequels, and so they suffered. The prequels had not only bad acting but the story didn't hold up.
Disney can be really good at telling stories and I think will be able to create much better movies. At their best, Disney movies like Finding Nemo and Wall-i and Lion King and Monsters, Inc have really great stories.
However, Disney also has a history of creating really bad movies as well. As Seth MacFarlane (the Family Guy) said on Twitter:
I think this will be a good thing - at least for the movies. I loved the original movies (ie episodes IV, V, and VI) but didn't really like the prequels (episodes I, II, and III - Phantom Menace, etc). I think there was so much promise for the prequels but they just didn't deliver. And I think the main problem was George Lucas. He spent the intervening decades between the originals and the prequals as a business man and not as a writer / director.
Even at top form, I am not convinced Lucas was a great director. I have seen on interviews that he wasn't a very good director of actors. He often relied on good actors to coach themselves (Harrison Ford, Alec Guinness, Liam Neeson, Ewen McGregor as compared to Hayden Christensen and Samuel L. Jackson - the later of which was just a bad casting decision). In fact, the two best movies, Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, were not directed by Lucas.
But I am convinced he was a good writer. Although his dialogue was sometimes pretty flat the stories were engaging and powerful. Remember, he wrote note just Star Wars but the stories for the Indiana Jones movies.
But writing and directing are both crafts that need to be practiced if you want to remain good at them. Believing that you can walk away from them, then come back without any problems is extreme hubris. Lucas decided to write and direct the prequels, and so they suffered. The prequels had not only bad acting but the story didn't hold up.
Disney can be really good at telling stories and I think will be able to create much better movies. At their best, Disney movies like Finding Nemo and Wall-i and Lion King and Monsters, Inc have really great stories.
However, Disney also has a history of creating really bad movies as well. As Seth MacFarlane (the Family Guy) said on Twitter:
Looking forward to seeing what exciting new Star Wars adventures will be cooked up by the dream factory that brought us Mars Needs Moms!I think it depends on how seriously Disney treats the movies, and I think they will treat the Star Wars movies well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)