Article from a few weeks ago, but now that G. Elliott Morris is taking over without Nate’s models, I’m curious what lemmy’s think about political polling analysis from FiveThirtyEight?

  • resonancewright@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    2 years ago

    I trust it more, I’d say.

    I knew of Nate Silver back when his claim to fame was as a sabermetrician and the creator of a statistical model used to predict how baseball players would perform in the future based on present and prior statistical data. That was PECOTA. I actually liked PECOTA. In the long run I think you’d call it a useful failure. But Nate’s baseball takes were actually very good and quite objective in nature. And he obviously was very good working with statistics.

    I got amped up when I learned he was taking his skills into the arena of political analysis. If you remember the early years had a mix of success and failure but was usually good enough to draw onlookers. But something went wrong with all that after a few years – Silver started showing bias in favor of candidates that he had consulting deals with. The objectivity just wasn’t there, he was acting as a paid spokesman would. And the quality of his predictions suffered, as did his demeanor after a while. It was disappointing.

    I regard the guy as someone with a deep understanding of political statistics and data who can help paint a very detailed picture, but he displays too much bias to be trusted to remain objective when it matters. It’s kinda like having a defense lawyer. You always know in advance whose side they will take.

    Whoever the new guys is, I guess we’ll see whether he will remain a statistician, or follows Silver into trying his hand at becoming an influencer.

  • TechnologyClassroom@partizle.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    2 years ago

    I did not trust 538 before. I think a few major US election voter turnouts suffered because too many people thought the 538 results meant that their candidate was a sure thing.

    • primordial_chowder@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 years ago

      Based on the article, it looks like this change would make that a lot worse, since the main point of contention between Silver and the new guy seems to be that the new guy’s models are a lot more certain of the results too early. So candidates are going to look like the sure thing far more now most likely.

    • cerevant@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 years ago

      I think releasing polls to the public is a bad thing for this reason. We ban releasing boat totals before the polls close for this exact same reason.

    • nodester@partizle.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      That’s a problem that could emerge with any system used to predict the outcome of any election.

      If you make a prediction, you’re arguably telling people not to vote.

    • ironsoapOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 years ago

      Why did you not trust him? A history of invalid models, or personality?

      • AngularAloe@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 years ago

        My trust in him dropped after being exposed to his activity on twitter. It seemed like he had a habit of trying to apply his knowledge to things he didn’t understand or where he was missing the point. I’m no longer on twitter and can’t remember specific examples, so it may have been more that that format did not work for him.

        • The_Pete@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          I remember him having some weird COVID takes. Statistically we should just get out there because only a few of us would die. He seemed to think it was odd that people were staying in for no reason. That completely missed the point that if your family is the statistic, it just fucks your whole life up.

          Heh, I remember thinking, statistically, he’s probably not wrong for a population but that completely missed the prisoner’s dilemma of making sure you’re not the statistic.

        • professed@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          Agree! This describes my experience exactly. On a related note about format, I thought Jody Avirgan, Five Thirty Eight’s podcast producer early on, was a good foil for him, drawing him into conversation and occasionally pushing back on points that sounded wild or tone deaf.

  • WhiteOakBayou@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 years ago

    The old 538 pod was great but after they were bought up and the other regulars were fired it went downhill. Nate is much better in that medium than on Twitter or Meet the Press or whatever.

    • alyaza [they/she]@beehaw.orgM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      yeah, outside of the stuff i brought up they’ve also just churned a lot of their best and most visible reporters to other places and opportunities. it’s unfortunate but that’s a natural part of journalism, especially with the whole field being pretty sparse with opportunity to climb the ladder.

  • rigo
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 years ago

    As soon as Clare was laid off I no longer was interested in 538 (atleast the podcast end). She had the most interesting perspective in my opinion. As far as the models go, most of the ones out there all seem similarly accurate so it is what it is.

    • ironsoapOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      Where did she go?

      On the models, do you have any sources talking about the models and their accuracy?

      • rigo
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        No I do not 😂. I’m sure there’s something out there but I’m thinking about it from the perspective that if anyone had been way off recently there would have been a big hubbub about it. After Trump got elected most of these analysts changed their models and they’ve been more accurate since.

        Clare writes for a couple different sites now, The New Yorker and NY Magazine… Basically free lancing. I believe she’s also working on a book.

  • alyaza [they/she]@beehaw.orgM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 years ago

    Article from a few weeks ago, but now that G. Elliott Morris is taking over without Nate’s models, I’m curious what lemmy’s think about political polling analysis from FiveThirtyEight?

    GEM is generally fine from what i’ve seen; it’s also hard to feel sympathetic for Nate even though 538 is his baby. a lot of his colleagues don’t like him (because he apparently presided over a very bro-ey, douche-y culture) and he’s kind of a dipshit disaffected libertarian who loves to speak out of his ass on things he doesn’t understand via Twitter.

    • Ghostalmedia@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      I don’t buy the libertarian thing. I used to listen to his political podcast on the regular, it was pretty clear that he was no fan of right wing politicians.

      • alyaza [they/she]@beehaw.orgM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        it’s possible he dislikes many current right-wing politicians, but he explicitly described himself in 2012 with the following quote and hasn’t really shown much indications he’s deviated far from this belief: “I’d say I’m somewhere in between being a libertarian and a liberal. So if I were to vote, it would be kind of a Gary Johnson versus Mitt Romney decision, I suppose.”

        • rigo
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          I think he has kind of an inherent distrust of politicians/politics in general so that does kind of track. I’m not 100% sure his personal beliefs but he has never really expressed a progressive viewpoint that’s for sure (and not saying it’s a bad thing).

  • ag_roberston_author@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 years ago

    Honestly, no. Well, not immediately. If the new guy can prove himself then sure, but we are well past the point of just trusting anyone’s political reporting without a strong history of it.

    Wait and see.

    • ironsoapOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      I’d agree with the history of valid reporting before trust is established.

      For me one of the reason this is challenging is there is very little out that seems to be good political reporting, at least on polling predictions.

  • nodester@partizle.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 years ago

    What is he, a religious leader now?

    He was a good modeler and handicapper. His model happened to work well for the 2016 election. That’s it. He’s not a fucking oracle.

  • th3raid0r@tucson.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 years ago

    Nate Silver was a big figure for his time, but I think that many folks are viewing polling with a deserved skepticism at the same time certain organizations come to understand that “manufactured” polls can sell the narrative they need to survive and maintain the status quo.

    His departure is one of mixed feelings for me, on one hand I felt like he was at least principled. I don’t exactly know the predecessor, but I imagine the network wanted more flexibility in crafting a narrative than doing real forecasting. On the OTHER hand, his name was starting to get attached to everything and I think it led to an outsize ego that ultimately was going to slowly poison things. IMO - it was only a matter of time before we saw someone new. It’s just that the context here gives me pause as to if the replacement is better or worse.

    I think I’ll have to wait and see…

  • ImFresh3x@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 years ago

    Looking at he the feud, I’d say this new guy is going to be wrong more often simply because he argues for certainty early on. And that’s going to just make people hate polls and hate math that much more. Nate wasn’t perfect but he was better than most.

  • SpaceBar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    I will wait and see. I treat all polls as biased to a degree, and just historical snapshots.

  • alphalyrae@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    Morris has also built robust polling analysis models, so it will be interesting to see how (or if) his models manifest themselves on 538.

    As to Nate, he can well and truly go fuck himself. His arrogance is staggering, as demonstrated by his behavior at the onset of COVID in early 2020. He seemed to argue with every epidemiologist that crossed his path early in the pandemic, simply because he believed HE knew better about the impacts of a global pandemic than they did. Because as we all know, being a statistical analysis guru makes you an expert in epidemiology (yes, I’m being sarcastic).

    The dude is so far up his own ass that the only way he can see outside is through his belly button.

    • Satiric_Weasel@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Sounds like he thinks he’s a Hari Seldon figure. Someone should have told him Foundation was science fiction.

    • coffeetest
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      I have 538 bookmarked but I never find it all that helpful. By the time the charts start to make sense to me, it’s too late. Maybe I don’t give it enough of a chance/credit but that is how it seems to me.

      So I guess I am saying, I didn’t really trust it before.