It’s a sucker bet if I’ve ever seen one. Some people will only gamble on a sure thing, if indeed there is such an animal. Stacy McCain is trying to make a wager with Nate Silver, Liberal statistical hack, who has Obama at a 70 percent chance of winning reelection. Here’s an excerpt of a discussion Stacy had with another reader who invoked some guy’s name I’ve never heard of;
Rather than invoking Rorty, I think that the basic problem is Hayekian. Like economic “planners,” Silver succumbs to the illusion of expertise and is seduced by the apparent exactitude of data, so that the Forecasting Model becomes a sort of Five-Year Plan. Silver’s method fails to compensate for situations (not really that rare in politics) where unexpected events falsify the predictive value of polling. Remember that we are talking about the opinions of fallible human beings en masse, as opposed to the behavior of a select group of professional athletes, which is why Sabremetrics cannot be too much help in predicting how the polls will shift in response to events that could not have been anticipated:
- The multilayered fuck-up in Benghazi.
- An utterly lopsided victory by Romney in the first debate.
If you’ll go look at the RCP national average, you will notice that Obama’s lead was already starting to slip a few days before the first debate. I interpret that as the first glimmerings of a Benghazi backlash, and Romney’s Godzilla-stomps-Tokyo act in the first debate (which exceeded the expectations of even Mitt’s most enthusiastic supporters) accelerated that trend. We don’t really know how far that trend may go, but the fact that Ryan made a campaign stop in Pittsburgh yesterday is kind of a hint that Team Mitt thinks it might go pretty damned far. I’m willing to say, “I don’t know,” and concede the possibility that Obama might yet find a way to pull out a win.
Read the rest here.
Pretty steep odds if you ask me…I’d ask for at least 3-1 odds.