I caught a brief segment of "Morning Joe" this morning. The big talking point was Michael Gerson's editorial in the Washington Post blasting Nate Silver for daring to take an analytical approach to predicting elections. Like good little bobble heads, the Morning Joe Zoo Crew all nodded their heads up and down agreeing with Michael's mocking of Nate's use of significant figures, averages, etc. The big take away was no mere "spreadsheet" could replace their accumulated wisdom, because they "know" how elections really work.
Well, that's really swell, but obviously they know absolutely nothing about math. For example, Nate's significant figure listing are based upon the values provided in his input data. And no idiots, Nate is not speaking with absolute certitude, he is merely presenting probability outcomes. Finally, if analyzing poll data is meaningless, which is about the level their arguments were sinking too, why do people take polls in the first place?
My soap box has been that this election is the war between the pundits and the modellers. If Nate and Sam are proven correct tonight, the "pundits" better think about enrolling in a remedial math course. Or maybe take off their shoes next time they try to tally electoral college votes.