As predicted by Nate Sliver and his 538 blog, the President was re-elected by a comfortable margin in the Electoral College. Obama's 2.2% margin over Romney in the popular vote was sufficient for at least 303 EC votes, and probably 332, because his campaign's strategy focused on that metric.
I'm a long-term, diehard 538 blog fan, so I pretty much knew how things would turn yesterday. But I also knew there was uncertainty in the validity of polling methodology, and therefore was not terribly confident or comfortable until the reporting precincts in Ohio creeped upwards of 70%. In retrospect, I should have been assured in the outcome.
Mr. Silver's model was nearly perfect, calling all 50 states and missing the popular vote by fractions of a percent. It's interesting to think about how the success of Nate's poll aggregation, statistical model approach will impact future elections. Surely it will result in more personal fame and fortune for Nate Silver, but what will it mean for the media's reporting on future elections and, indeed, voter behavior?
Will TV's so-called news journalists get away with claiming an election is a "razor tight" toss-up when evidence shows a clear lead for one candidate? Will partisan pundits be able to claim their candidate is leading by cherry-picking polls that favor them, or will program hosts point out the invalidity of that approach?
How will it affect voters' behavior when they are able to "see into the future" by peeking at a website or mobile app? Will the leading candidate's followers become complacent, or energized? Will the underdog's troops be dispirited, or will they rise to the challenge? Does a proven forecasting model alter the ability to forecast?
To the latter questions, I expect there will be no measurable change in voter behavior. Aggregated polls, processed intelligently, will be able to accurately predict most future elections as they did this time. Unless contests are exceptionally close, suspense will not be part of our election experience.
To the former questions, I'm uncertain how different media coverage will be. I do anticipate a plethora of "polls-of-polls" to be up and running by the next midterm election. There is only one Nate Silver, so all but the highest bidding cable or broadcast station will be in need of their own polling model guru. (But since Nate is the only one who's proven himself, most will tweak their models to match his results.) Most stations will move toward a stance of predicting a winner, versus their current tendency to label races as "too close to call".
In the old paradigm, it was in everyone's interest for races to be suspenseful. TV programs need drama to build and hold their audience. Winning politicians want to keep their followers engaged and energized. Losers don't want their voters to be dispirited and disengaged. So a "razor-tight" race is a win-win-win.
What will it be like when the question is not, "who will win Ohio", but, "at what point in the ballot counting will the expected victory be verified"?
Congratulations to Nate Sliver. Last night, you changed election forecasting – and reporting – forever.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Libya-gate: All smoke, no fire
There seems to be a lot of hair-on-fire concern in certain circles about the President denying Navy Seals (or Marines, or Global Response Staff, or Oliver North) from being allowed to enter the battle at our Libyan embassy. POTUS is guilty of treason, incompetence, neglect or something worse, they say. Nobody knows just what happened, but they are certain Obama is to blame for it.
I certainly don't know what happened at the embassy. It sure seems as though security was inadequate. That seems obvious, actually, except that I also don't know what is customary when it comes to securing an embassy against the possibility of mortar attacks. Was the Libyan embassy woefully unprepared, or was the situation normal and reasonable relative to other embassies and standard procedure? I don't know. We should find out, though.
The entire event – before, during and after – must be and certainly will be investigated. Whoever is at fault should be held to account, from POTUS on down. (Of course, we all know how government officials are punished for such failings. Not so much. But that's a different story.)
It's possible that Obama is culpable for neglect and malfeasance. He may have known security was too light, and when the attack was underway perhaps he chose not to react as strongly as the situation justified. It's further possible that in the aftermath of the disaster, and with full knowledge of his failings, he attempted to deny, divert and otherwise deflect the fallout prior to the election.
If he is found responsible for providing inadequate security he should pay a heavy political price. If he made bad calls during the incident, his judgment should be questioned. If he's guilty of attempting to limit the damage afterward to avoid fallout during election season, then, well, duh. What politician wouldn't have done that?
My sense is that security may have been inadequate for the known threats, but also that the extreme level of the actual threat was unknown. I think many people in government, from the CIA up to POTUS, believed the infamous YouTube video was in fact a catalyzing incident. I suspect a 9-11 terrorist attack was also suspected initially, but unproven.
I don't think that it matters whether it was called an act of terror or not – even if the reason for not using the "T" word was to avoid political damage in the heat of an election. Really, besides the Obama-Romney contest, what impact would applying the terror label have had?
This criticism, I believe, is driven by a sense of lost opportunity rather than actual outrage. Republicans dearly want a bona fide terrorist attack to hang around Obama's neck. After nearly four years without one they finally think they have it, but the prize is being denied them. (Poor Dick Cheney! He and his daughter (the straight one) spent 2009 popping up on the teevee to tell us we were unsafe with Obama at the helm and they've got nothing to show for it.)
In reality, there is as much reason to delay using the terror label as there is for being quick to do so. Events of this type always take time to understand and dissect. Had it been labeled al Qaeda immediately, then proved not to be, that would have also been bad.
Many people feel outrage because of the accusations of what Obama did or didn't do. I don't think these folks realize the total lack of evidence for, and highly suspect nature of those who make, these claims.
The accusations that marines were not allowed to carry live ammo, etc., have been categorically denied by everyone in a position to know. The charge that Seals were told to stand down seems to only exist on a Facebook image – Fox news, in their "exclusive report" (based on unnamed sources) doesn't even make that claim.
By the way, the URL on that image is registered to "Political Media Inc" and redirects to a contributions page for specialoperationsspeaks.com – an organization whose mission statement is to remove Obama from office. Facts and outrage or lies and opportunism?
The only other source on this topic that I can find is the father of a Navy Seal who died at the embassy. This father is expressing his grief by going on Glenn Beck's show to make bizarre accusations about Obama, Biden and Clinton. Apparently the father could tell that none of these officials really felt grief about the incident in their hearts. Mrs. Clinton promised him they would arrest and prosecute the film maker. Uh huh. Sure she did. Forgive me if I'm not moved to outrage by that freak show.
The question of security at the embassy is a meaningful one. Finding the truth will not bring anyone back to life, and it will not result in criminal punishment for any bureaucrats or elected officials. But the answers should be found and made public. (It should not be used to tie up Obama in impeachment hearings throughout his second term.)
The other accusations have no supporting evidence. The one about Obama denying the Navy Seal's request doesn't pass the smell test. Obama has proven himself to be pretty aggressive and willing to take risks when it comes to deploying the Seals. But regardless of that, do Navy Seals really call the President to request a mission? I think it works the other way around.
So let's all calm down on this one. Yes, Fox will continue to talk about it right up until next Tuesday (and probably beyond), but there are no smoking guns here. Let's turn our attention back to Fast and Furious, ok?
I certainly don't know what happened at the embassy. It sure seems as though security was inadequate. That seems obvious, actually, except that I also don't know what is customary when it comes to securing an embassy against the possibility of mortar attacks. Was the Libyan embassy woefully unprepared, or was the situation normal and reasonable relative to other embassies and standard procedure? I don't know. We should find out, though.
The entire event – before, during and after – must be and certainly will be investigated. Whoever is at fault should be held to account, from POTUS on down. (Of course, we all know how government officials are punished for such failings. Not so much. But that's a different story.)
It's possible that Obama is culpable for neglect and malfeasance. He may have known security was too light, and when the attack was underway perhaps he chose not to react as strongly as the situation justified. It's further possible that in the aftermath of the disaster, and with full knowledge of his failings, he attempted to deny, divert and otherwise deflect the fallout prior to the election.
If he is found responsible for providing inadequate security he should pay a heavy political price. If he made bad calls during the incident, his judgment should be questioned. If he's guilty of attempting to limit the damage afterward to avoid fallout during election season, then, well, duh. What politician wouldn't have done that?
My sense is that security may have been inadequate for the known threats, but also that the extreme level of the actual threat was unknown. I think many people in government, from the CIA up to POTUS, believed the infamous YouTube video was in fact a catalyzing incident. I suspect a 9-11 terrorist attack was also suspected initially, but unproven.
I don't think that it matters whether it was called an act of terror or not – even if the reason for not using the "T" word was to avoid political damage in the heat of an election. Really, besides the Obama-Romney contest, what impact would applying the terror label have had?
This criticism, I believe, is driven by a sense of lost opportunity rather than actual outrage. Republicans dearly want a bona fide terrorist attack to hang around Obama's neck. After nearly four years without one they finally think they have it, but the prize is being denied them. (Poor Dick Cheney! He and his daughter (the straight one) spent 2009 popping up on the teevee to tell us we were unsafe with Obama at the helm and they've got nothing to show for it.)
In reality, there is as much reason to delay using the terror label as there is for being quick to do so. Events of this type always take time to understand and dissect. Had it been labeled al Qaeda immediately, then proved not to be, that would have also been bad.
Many people feel outrage because of the accusations of what Obama did or didn't do. I don't think these folks realize the total lack of evidence for, and highly suspect nature of those who make, these claims.
The accusations that marines were not allowed to carry live ammo, etc., have been categorically denied by everyone in a position to know. The charge that Seals were told to stand down seems to only exist on a Facebook image – Fox news, in their "exclusive report" (based on unnamed sources) doesn't even make that claim.
 |
| Did Facebook really ban the user who first posted that image, as claimed? I don't know, but I do know others who posted it without being punished. |
The only other source on this topic that I can find is the father of a Navy Seal who died at the embassy. This father is expressing his grief by going on Glenn Beck's show to make bizarre accusations about Obama, Biden and Clinton. Apparently the father could tell that none of these officials really felt grief about the incident in their hearts. Mrs. Clinton promised him they would arrest and prosecute the film maker. Uh huh. Sure she did. Forgive me if I'm not moved to outrage by that freak show.
The question of security at the embassy is a meaningful one. Finding the truth will not bring anyone back to life, and it will not result in criminal punishment for any bureaucrats or elected officials. But the answers should be found and made public. (It should not be used to tie up Obama in impeachment hearings throughout his second term.)
The other accusations have no supporting evidence. The one about Obama denying the Navy Seal's request doesn't pass the smell test. Obama has proven himself to be pretty aggressive and willing to take risks when it comes to deploying the Seals. But regardless of that, do Navy Seals really call the President to request a mission? I think it works the other way around.
So let's all calm down on this one. Yes, Fox will continue to talk about it right up until next Tuesday (and probably beyond), but there are no smoking guns here. Let's turn our attention back to Fast and Furious, ok?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)