Better than salt money

Work like you were living in the early days of a better nation

Romney is going to win because Nate Silver is a Girlyman?


That’s the “argument” being presented by some yahoo at The  Dean Chambers thinks this is some sort of refutation of Silver’s analyses.

Nate Silver is a man of very small stature, a thin and effeminate man with a soft-sounding voice that sounds almost exactly like the “Mr. New Castrati” voice used by Rush Limbaugh on his program. In fact, Silver could easily be the poster child for the New Castrati in both image and sound. Nate Silver, like most liberal and leftist celebrities and favorites, might be of average intelligence but is surely not the genius he’s made out to be. His political analyses are average at best and his projections, at least this year, are extremely biased in favor of the Democrats.

That, my friends, is as good as his arguments get.a genetic fallacy, from left-field, and an unsupported ad hominem, as well as some oddball question begging,† since the only reason he gives for Silver giving Obama roughly 3-1 odds is, “he’s a liberal”.  Apparently he’s such a liberal that the models he built a year ago were designed to skew the polls at this point in the race to hide the “surge of momentum” Romney has developed.

What’s funny, in a sad sort of way, is the way this shows up one of the fundamental flaws of US Presidential politics; we don’t have a truly democratic system.  Wyoming has more clout, per person, than Calif. (Bill O’Reilly, in the debate he and Jon Stewart had, was asked if he thought we ought to go to a popular vote; he said no; because that would allow the majority to decide who was president).  If it weren’t for the Electoral College, and the odd ways in makes some states more important than others (there aren’t any bilboards in New York, or New Jersey, not about the Presidential Race, here in Ohio… very prominent), this race would be very different, because in national polling, the numbers are a toss-up.

But where it matters, in the “battleground states” Obama seems to be ahead.  That’s what Silver is saying, and that’s what Chambers takes issue with.  He wants to see polling which is taking the national average, and applying it to the states.  If that were done, then would be saying Romney was fifty-fifty for the win. But reality, in this case, has a bias.  That bias is that Romney is behind in the places it matters.  Nate Silver sees it that way.  Intrade sees it that way.

Dean Chambers wants to see it another way.  He asking Nate Silver to massage the data, so the national press will tell the voters Romney has, “Momentum” (why do I suddenly recall, “Joementum“).  That would, almost certainly, cause some to decide they ought to vote for Mitt.  It would be self-fulfilling.  That, I think, is the real complaint.  The facts are hurting their dude, and they’d rather there were no facts; or a lie, than the truth.

If you don’t think so, take a look at the “polls” they have; and the loaded questions they are, so it seems, using to asses the actual sentiments of the electorate.  It’s echo chamber stuff (and if a lot of people take it, I can see them pulling an American Family Association and claiming the poll was sabotaged).  I wonder, if Nate Silver is right, and Romney wins, if Mr. Chambers is going to apologise for calling him a liar.

I’m not giving odds.


†For those who want to play along at home; I recommend this Taxonomy of Logical Fallacies.

7 thoughts on “Romney is going to win because Nate Silver is a Girlyman?

  1. The desire to have the data presented in a way that’s misleadingly favorable to your position even in cases where a real, concrete result is going to happen soon reminds me a bit of conservative denial of global warming and such. Reality tends to intrude even if you deny that it will.

  2. Right, and come election day he’s going to look a right prat if Romney loses. On the other hand, past failure doesn’t seem to stop people from listening to David Brooks, et all.

  3. I have bookmarked the fallacies page–that was fun.

    I have lost any shred of belief that any conservative, ever, is capable of arguing in good faith without insisting on negating facts.

  4. Dammit, lost the close tag.

  5. After “soon,” to the extent that it matters.

  6. You probably saw this map?

    This isn’t going to happen. Nothing remotely like this is going to happen. Everyone knows this isn’t going to happen. The methodology, which is goofy to begin with (averaging the results of the last four elections?), outright admits that it includes unquantifiable “fudge factors,” and it has Romney winning states where he isn’t even campaigning (Oregon??).

    I can see how it could bolster a Republican’s confidence–and maybe even create a positive voter-turnout effect–to say that Romney will win Ohio and Virginia, but what do you accomplish by making a map that amounts to “ROMNEY WINS EVERYTHING!”?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s