Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Who is the Most Reliable Political Prognosticator?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-08-11 09:44 AM
Original message
Who is the Most Reliable Political Prognosticator?


Time for a quick quiz. Who here finished all his grading today and, with the exception of scraping his carcass out of bed tomorrow morning to go to graduation, has now officially started his summer break? If you answered me, you're right! So let's get caught up on some blogging.

We start on a light note. Ever wondered who the most accurate political prognosticator is? Well, according to this study, it's Paul Krugman. Surprise! In fact, here are the top six: Krugman, Maureen Dowd, Ed Rendell, Chuck Schumer, Kathleen Parker and Nancy Pelosi. Notice anything? Except for Parker, all of them hail from the left end of the spectrum. Actually, I was disappointed to see Dowd in the list, since for various reasons she's one of my least favorite pundits. But otherwise I see little surprising here.


And the bottom five? Starting from the bottom, we have Cal Thomas, Lindsey Graham, Joe Lieberman, Carl Levin, and Sam Donaldson. All of these folks were wrong more often than they were right. Notice that the bottom two are both hard right-wingers, with the odious Lieberman winning the bronze for unreliability.

Now, there are certainly all sorts of reasons to be skeptical that these results have any great significance. I only skimmed the study itself, which acknowledges many of the obvious difficulties. Just so there is no misunderstanding, I am linking to this study simply because it supports what I already believed anyway.

End

http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2011/05/who_is_the_most_reliable_polit.php
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
HopeHoops Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-08-11 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
1. My cat. He drops a smelly pile of shit in the litterbox and - WHOA! That's what Congress produces!
He's right every time.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Poiuyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-08-11 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
2. So the Nobel Prize winner knows what he's talking about!
What a surprise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-08-11 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
3. "We understand that being better than a coin flip is not a high bar to set"
also, "prognosticators on the whole have no unique expertise in any area"
http://www.hamilton.edu/news/polls/pundit

<snip>

Implications

We have discovered a number of implications from our regressions and analysis of the data. First, we have discovered that six of the analyzed prognosticators are better than a coin flip (with statistical significance.) Four are worse, and the other 16 are not statistically significant. A larger sample can provide better evidence addressing the question of if prognosticators on the whole are better than a coin flip. We understand that being better than a coin flip is not a high bar to set, but it is a serious indictment of prognosticators if they are, on average, no better than a flipped coin.

According to our regression analysis, liberals are better predictors than conservatives—even when taking out the Presidential and Congressional election questions. Whether this holds true from election season to election season needs further evaluation; liberals may have implicit benefits from Obama winning the 2008 election. Tentatively, however, we can assert that liberals are better predictors than conservatives. Additionally, individuals with law degrees were less accurate than those who did not possess law degrees.

A final important implications is that we did not discover that certain types of predictions tended to be more or less accurate than others. For example, we did not see that economic predictions were more accurate than healthcare predictions. This suggests that prognosticators on the whole have no unique expertise in any area—even on political predictions, like the Presidential or party primary elections.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue Meany Donating Member (986 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-08-11 10:30 AM
Response to Original message
4. The one who controls the vote counting...n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 11th 2024, 06:47 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC