Here's a shoddy interview by Deborah Solomon with a professor of economics at Yale named Ray C. Fair whose models predict that Bush will win in a landslide. More interesting even than the econometrics and the research is the unescapable bias of the New York Times interviewer. The first thing to notice is the headline (admittedly not written by the interviewer).
Bush Landslide (in Theory)!Whew, only in theory! What a relief! [Upon reflection, it may be that since the "!" is outside the "()" it applies more directly to the "Bush Landslide" than to the "in Theory".]
Ms. Solomon's statements are in italics.
As a professor of economics at Yale, you are known for creating an econometric equation that has predicted presidential elections with relative accuracy.Fine and good so far, and quite interesting.My latest prediction shows that Bush will receive 57.5 percent of the two-party votes.
The polls are suggesting a much closer race.
Polls are notoriously flaky this far ahead of the election, and there is a limit to how much you want to trust polls.
Why should we trust your equation, which seems unusually reductive?As if the simplicity/complexity of the model is in any way related to its accuracy. Professor Fair responds to the question Ms. Solomon would have asked, if she knew what she was talking about.It has done well historically. The average mistake of the equation is about 2.5 percentage points.
In your book ''Predicting Presidential Elections and Other Things,'' you claim that economic growth and inflation are the only variables that matter in a presidential race. Are you saying that the war in Iraq will have no influence on the election?I can imagine that Ms. Solomon is getting quite frustrated by this point. Professor Fair keeps returning to the data despite her efforts to convince him that his methods aren't aesthetically pleasing.Historically, issues like war haven't swamped the economics. If the equation is correctly specified, then the chances that Bush loses are very small.
But the country hasn't been this polarized since the 60's, and voters seem genuinely engaged by social issues like gay marriage and the overall question of a more just society.
We throw all those into what we call the error term. In the past, all that stuff that you think should count averages about 2.5 percent, and that is pretty small.
It saddens me that you teach this to students at Yale, who could be thinking about society in complex and meaningful ways.Ms. Solomon doesn't seem to understand that the accuracy of the data demonstrates that the model is meaningful, regardless of whether or not it seems "complex" enough for her satisfaction. In reality, her frustration illustrates that the model is mathematically simple but conceptually complex -- she refuses to comprehend it because her intuition tells her that other things should be more important than they apparently are.I will be teaching econometrics next year to undergraduates. Econometrics is a huge deal, because it is applied to all kinds of things.
Professor Fair's next response is classic.
[Snip some divergence.]This is sure to be another stumper for a journalist -- someone saying something just because it's true, despite it's potential political implications? Unfathomable.Are you a Republican?
I can't credibly answer that question. Using game theory in economics, you are not going to believe me when I tell you my political affiliation because I know that you know that I could be behaving strategically. If I tell you I am a Kerry supporter, how do you know that I am not lying or behaving strategically to try to put more weight on the predictions and help the Republicans?
I don't want to do game theory. I just want to know if you are a Kerry supporter.
Backing away from game theory, which is kind of cute, I am a Kerry supporter.
I believe you entirely, although I'm a little surprised, because your predictions implicitly lend support to Bush.
I am not attempting to be an advocate for one party or another. I am attempting to be a social scientist trying to explain voting behavior.
But in the process you are shaping opinion. Predictions can be self-confirming, because wishy-washy voters might go with the candidate who is perceived to be more successful.And there, my friends, you have the essence of the journalistic bias against reporting Bush-favorable news, in black and white.
(HT: tjic and Clayton Cramer.)
That's pretty appalling, isn't it? Ultimately, I think this sort of thing is self-defeating. If Democrats see in the paper that they're invulnerable, they get bad information and make decisions based on it. GIGO. The major papers and media outlets are all in very liberal areas of the country and it creates an echo chamber.
With Michael Williams, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Dean Esmay, Donald Sensing, Justin Katz and others failing to report Kerry-friendly news, I think it all works out in a balance.
JT: Yeah, because we compare in readership to prime time news.
This started off ok, cos as a reporter you've got to take the contrary view otherwise the whole interview would be "oh you're prediction's so great, I bet it's accurate too." "yes, it is. thankyou." But she lost me around the "It saddens me that you teach this to students at Yale" part.
Joel: all of the people you mention are editorialists of one stripe or another: they're supposed to have a point of view. It's when supposedly objective reporting is biased that there's a problem.
Objectivity in reporting depends on two things:
1.) The reporter
2.) The editor who lets what the reporter does be published or broadcast.
Many reporters... especially in big news outlets... are Democrats. They try to be objective, for the most part.... but "down-the-middle" is, for them, probably to the left of what most people who visit and post here.
It's just like the 700 Club. When they report on a story, it's objective... for them. Their "down-the-middle" is probably to the right, ideologically, of the moderate majority.
According to the Pew Research Center's poll that's often cited when referencing media bias, 30-some percent of Americans identify themselves as "conservative"... and 20-some percent identify themselves as "liberal"... the remaining 50-some percent as "moderate".
So, it would seem that conservatives have little to worry about. They're still in the majority... among those who aren't moderate.
Two Bush's and one Reagan were elected in the midst of this supposed "liberal media". I don't think conservatives should whine about the media so much. Major network news (ABC, CBS, NBC) is declining in influence anyway.
Mark: I can see why you'd want to trivialize the right's complaints as "whines", but you must admit that the leftward media bias does in fact influence elections 10-15 points in the Democrats' favor. At least according to Evan Thomas, an editor at Newsweek.
That's all too conjectural.
Mark: It's conjectural for an editor at Newsweek to say that the media is horribly biased against Bush? I think he has some first-hand experience. His number is certainly an estimate, but there can't be any question that the media has a significant impact on what people know, and thus how they vote. I think it's very disingenuous of you to charaterize these facts as "whining", when they appear to be highly relevant.
Ugh. You guys have no concept for cause and effect, it seems.
If a baseball team shows a statistical correlation between winning and playing at fields that face west, do you think that there is actually something to this?
Or maybe, enough tests were run, seeing if a correlation exists at each direction of north south east or west, and then once they see that the statistical correlation exists somewhere, they act like that model has some business actually predicting the future. That is, that the correlation is related to cause and effect.
I guarentee you that if you run enough numbers you are going to find natural correlations. But often times because the correlations exist, this doesn't mean you can actually conclude something from it as far as the future is concerned.
Thats where these stupid stats we get in sports are so incredibly stupid. For example,
brett favre is 2-13 when playing on days that vinny testaverde has thrown for more than 250 yards. Ri - freaking - diculous. And dont tell me otherwise.
Just because this crap supports a bush win, which I hope for, dont act like it is science.
Michael,
George Bush got more favorable mainstream press than Al Gore did in 2000. The mainstream press coverage of Geroge McGovern was disastrous for his campaign.
The greater dynamic is that the press likes a close race.
15 points. Is that net or one direction? If Thomas is saying that the current race of 46% Kerry, 45% Bush would actually be 31% Kerry, 60% Bush without the mainstream press, I just don't buy that.
JT: Good point about the press liking a close race.
jimmy: Fields that face west will put the sun in the eyes of players during afternoon games. I don't know if this was a hypothetical example or a real study, but the facing of a field could actually affect the performance of left/right-handed players.
As for statistics in general, you're right the correlation doesn't imply causation, but it's generally a good estimator. I'm not sure why you're so revulsed by the idea of using correlation to make predidictions, considering it works so well.
this is a wonderful website. i got alot of my informantion from this site for my project thank you very much you changed my .......mark..bye