I just happened to look at 538 blog. The home of Nate Silver and his number crunchers has a big new explanatory article about how Hillary Clinton's loss to Donald Trump was actually not Clinton's problem but a bigger problem for Democrats as a whole. They compare the shift in Obama's job approval in individuals states through 2015 with the election results in 2016 and draw "insightful" conclusions from that data. They might as well just read tea leaves.
The reality is that the gurus at 538 got it wrong. They had all the data they now analyze on Obama approval ratings before the election. They had a myriad of polling results. They gave us state by state predictions. They got at least five states wrong. That may be only 10% of the total number of states, but it is more than half of the states that anyone thought might flip one way or the other. In short 538 not only got it wrong; there were not even close. Nevertheless, they are now busy explaining what happened to rest of us. In many ways, it's the equivalent of having a three year old explain organic chemistry.
Perhaps the funniest and most revealing part of the analysis comes at the end when the 538 gurus tell us that advantages for one party or another in the Electoral College are short lived. These are some of the same people who told us over and over for years about the Democrats' "blue wall" and overwhelming advantage in the Electoral College. Until election day in 2016, long term advantages for one party in the EC were the accepted wisdom. After election day when the GOP won, long term advantages for one party in the EC are now next to non-existent. Give me a break!
In 1936, there was a famous magazine that predicted that Franklin Roosevelt would lose his race for re-election. FDR won every state except Maine and Vermont. The magazine closed shortly thereafter. Eighty years later, media outlet after media outlet told us that Trump simply had no chance to win the election; even on election day, we were getting that message. Then Trump won. Why can't today's media have the decency to follow the 1936 example and just close their doors? It's surely the right thing to do.
The reality is that the gurus at 538 got it wrong. They had all the data they now analyze on Obama approval ratings before the election. They had a myriad of polling results. They gave us state by state predictions. They got at least five states wrong. That may be only 10% of the total number of states, but it is more than half of the states that anyone thought might flip one way or the other. In short 538 not only got it wrong; there were not even close. Nevertheless, they are now busy explaining what happened to rest of us. In many ways, it's the equivalent of having a three year old explain organic chemistry.
Perhaps the funniest and most revealing part of the analysis comes at the end when the 538 gurus tell us that advantages for one party or another in the Electoral College are short lived. These are some of the same people who told us over and over for years about the Democrats' "blue wall" and overwhelming advantage in the Electoral College. Until election day in 2016, long term advantages for one party in the EC were the accepted wisdom. After election day when the GOP won, long term advantages for one party in the EC are now next to non-existent. Give me a break!
In 1936, there was a famous magazine that predicted that Franklin Roosevelt would lose his race for re-election. FDR won every state except Maine and Vermont. The magazine closed shortly thereafter. Eighty years later, media outlet after media outlet told us that Trump simply had no chance to win the election; even on election day, we were getting that message. Then Trump won. Why can't today's media have the decency to follow the 1936 example and just close their doors? It's surely the right thing to do.
No comments:
Post a Comment