The 'Moneyball' Election

I've been reading Silver's 538 blog since 2008 -- and he even got started before then, I beliee, attracting a lot of attention for the accuracy of his "predictions" (though Silver would perhaps be the first to say that he is loathe to call them that) in the 2006 Senate elections.

More fascinating is reading his blog posts, in which he describes his methods, his thinking on new developments in the campaigns, and the significance of the polls -- what's perhaps overlooked, and what's perhaps given too much weight and attention.

It will be interesting to see how things turn out in November!

Joe - I love his blog posts for the same reason. He basically elucidates every reason he might be wrong. That's real scientific thinking, something we have too little of in politics and business. 

I follow Silver too, but I don't think he's quite a lone voice.  Here's an interesting analysis today of the way the media has scrambled to detect momentum in Romney's campaign -- basically because a horse race in which the lead never changes is dull.

Silver focuses, quite rightly, on battleground states and the electoral college.  While some national polls occasionally show Romney in the lead, Obama has held a small but unwavering lead in the battleground states, pretty much since the campaign started.  Silver's not out on a limb with his data, but other major polls continue to emphasize (pointlessly) national standings.

Something which people might find scary is that analytics might rob races like this of any excitement whatsoever.  Unless there's a systematic, undetected bias in the data, there's really not much doubt now about the outcome of the election (people confuse it being a close race with it being an unpredictable race).

Yes, there might be such bias, and Silver's predictions might be confounded -- but it's hard to see right now what it could be, across all the polling data he analyzes.

Kim - I've seen that theory too, from other Silver-followers, that the media likes the close-race story and the Romney's-come-from-behind story because it's a better story than, "You know that guy we told you in July was going to win the election? Yeah, still winning."

I've also seen speculation that the Romney campaign team is pushing the story hard to avoid his supporters getting discouraged and giving up. It's a better story for them too.

The close-race story also benefits Obama in that it keeps his team from getting complacent and ceding advantage to the opposition. 

Scary? Considering the amount of money and effort wasted on Presidential elections, we can use a lot less excitement. 

I'm not saying the Presidential election isn't important. The Presidential election is important. (Although given the matrix of powers that exist even in an autocratic regime like China, let alone a democracy, the guy at the top has less power than we think). But a voter could make a perfectly informed decision with about two hours of research. We don't need the year+ death march this has now become. 

Although the population seems to enjoy it. It's one big sporting event. Very much like baseball as a matter of fact. 

Yes, it certainly helps get the vote out on both sides.  But if reports about the vast superiority of Obama's ground organization are to be believed, I think this one is done and dusted.  Which doesn't mean, of course, that it won't be close.  It's always been close.

I agree, Mitch.  It's become a media event, and each first term of a President's office seems to be devoted in large part to winning the second term.

UK election campaigns, if I remember rightly, last about a month (officially, anyway).

Some members of the population don't enjoy this ongoing kickboxing match that's called the presidential election. Some are counting the days until it's over. Just sayin.

Silver posted just now:  "Mr. Obama has led in the polling averages all year in states that would allow him to win the Electoral College, and that remains the case now."

Not much to see here, apart from the kicking and screaming.