re: #121 Blind Frog Belly White

Well, here’s the thing - we only have Presidential elections every 4 years, so the N is very small to try and determine accuracy.

Sam Wang and Nate Silver try to do the same thing, each with their own particular take on probability and percent uncertainty, and come up with similar expected outcomes with very different percent probabilities. In 2012, they both pretty much hit the nail on the head. But with an N of 1 every 4 years, it is not really possible to know whose probabilities are more accurate.

The main difference between Sam Wang and Nate Silver is Wang isn’t in it for the money. He’s an academic, a tenured professor who isn’t trying to sell ad views. This is his hobby. All he cares about is the statistical accuracy and scientific validity of his model.

Silver has massively commercialized his product, sold it repeatedly (most recently to ESPN,) hyped it and has a vested interest in making it as visually and emotionally engaging as possible. Silver’s bottom line depends on getting people to come back every day and check how things are doing, he profits from the very thing he used to criticize, the media horserace narrative. That, in my opinion, explains a great deal of the volatility in his model, especially this year.