This is only a Preview!

You must Publish this diary to make this visible to the public,
or click 'Edit Diary' to make further changes first.

Posting a Diary Entry

Daily Kos welcomes blog articles from readers, known as diaries. The Intro section to a diary should be about three paragraphs long, and is required. The body section is optional, as is the poll, which can have 1 to 15 choices. Descriptive tags are also required to help others find your diary by subject; please don't use "cute" tags.

When you're ready, scroll down below the tags and click Save & Preview. You can edit your diary after it's published by clicking Edit Diary. Polls cannot be edited once they are published.

If this is your first time creating a Diary since the Ajax upgrade, before you enter any text below, please press Ctrl-F5 and then hold down the Shift Key and press your browser's Reload button to refresh its cache with the new script files.


  1. One diary daily maximum.
  2. Substantive diaries only. If you don't have at least three solid, original paragraphs, you should probably post a comment in an Open Thread.
  3. No repetitive diaries. Take a moment to ensure your topic hasn't been blogged (you can search for Stories and Diaries that already cover this topic), though fresh original analysis is always welcome.
  4. Use the "Body" textbox if your diary entry is longer than three paragraphs.
  5. Any images in your posts must be hosted by an approved image hosting service (one of: imageshack.us, photobucket.com, flickr.com, smugmug.com, allyoucanupload.com, picturetrail.com, mac.com, webshots.com, editgrid.com).
  6. Copying and pasting entire copyrighted works is prohibited. If you do quote something, keep it brief, always provide a link to the original source, and use the <blockquote> tags to clearly identify the quoted material. Violating this rule is grounds for immediate banning.
  7. Be civil. Do not "call out" other users by name in diary titles. Do not use profanity in diary titles. Don't write diaries whose main purpose is to deliberately inflame.
For the complete list of DailyKos diary guidelines, please click here.

Please begin with an informative title:

That was a tweet by David Frum, former Bush speechwriter, yesterday. Perhaps he has a point there. Maybe this election shows us there's something to this looking at the evidence, all the evidence (including the bits you don't like), and analyzing it in a rational way as opposed to thinking with your gut and cherry picking the bits of data that support what you'd really really like to be true.

Frum also tweeted this:

This was a quite stunning and very public failure, matched only by the stunning success of the reality-based geeky data nerds, who this time around started to get a lot of attention. Drew Linzer of Votamatic was on the BBC just now, being asked how he got the result spot on (assuming Obama does take Florida) whereas other pundits got it so so wrong.


You must enter an Intro for your Diary Entry between 300 and 1150 characters long (that's approximately 50-175 words without any html or formatting markup).

On election day Dan Rather, after accepting that all the polls showed it going for Obama, said

something in my gut tells me it's going to be a good day for Romney, but as a reporter you don't report your gut
Yet we have a media full of pundits who do just that. They report their guts, and they trust their guts because their guts are special guts, they are wise old guts who know know better than these young spotty nerds with their data and their computer models, and they've managed to convince a whole load of people that their guts are worthy of great respect, that the rumblings of their great guts deserve to be heard. And when those rumblings are exactly what people want to hear, they listen.

The gut of Dick Morris predicts a Romney landslide. The gut of George Will predicts a Romney landslide. The gut of Michael Barone reckons Romney will win with 315 electoral votes. Karl Rove says "it all comes down to the numbers", but the numbers all get churned around and twisted up in his gut until they produce the answer he wants to hear.

If people start to be a bit more skeptical of these evidence-free pundits, will that skepticism perhaps extend to the anti climate science gutthinkers: Anthony Watts, Senator Inhofe, Marc Morano et al? People with no qualifications in climate science but whose guts tell them it's all a load of baloney because it just doesn't feel right to them, it doesn't make sense to them, and we don't want it to be true so it can't be true and here are a handful of cherries that prove it. Don't look at the data, it's all a hoax, a multinational conspiracy and the scientists, the politicians, the computers and the data, they're all in on it.

So, is a bit more skepticism of the "skeptics" on the cards? I can feel it in my gut.

Extended (Optional)

Your Email has been sent.