re: #119 goddamnedfrank

Here’s the best criticism you can make of Nate’s current model and methodology, he’s not actually predicting jack shit. Seriously, can you even imagine a halfway plausible outcome on Tuesday that he won’t take credit for predicting? He’s made his prognostication so completely wishy washy and vague that not matter what happens he’s going to claim the outcome vindicates him, and that in a word is gutless.

Say what you will about the other statistical aggregators they’re at least putting their reputations on the line if the outcome is wildly off from the odds they give.

Models are supposed to be related to reality. And that means that you know what you’re measuring.

His model is describing a reality that is extremely volatile. I simply don’t believe the voting public is that volatile. That leads me to the hypothesis that what he’s modeling is not propensity for voting behavior, but something else that’s only loosely correlated.