Another Slobber of Silver's Knob...

No shiny arrow shot swifter and loftier from obscurity to quotable authority than Nate Silver, whose FiveThirtyEight.com site became the expert sensation of the election season. (Five hundred thirty-eight is the sum of electoral-college votes up for contention.) Crunching poll numbers until they sang with clarity, Silver, a managing partner and sabermetrician at Baseball Prospectus and a former Daily Kos diarist, made many of the old pros look as if they were stuck in the previous century, milking cows. Not only did his disciplined models and microfine data mining command respect, his prognostications hit the Zen mark on Election Day. "This uncanny accuracy is the equivalent of dropping a penny from the top of a 50 story building and landing it in a shot glass," John Cole wrote at Balloon Juice. "This is sick accurate." Silver also became an instant cable-news savant, his geek-genius glasses and owlish mien worthy of a Starfleet sub-adjutant whose quadratic equations coolly foil an attack from a Romulan vessel while the senior officers are frantically poking at their touch screens. Combine blog cred and TV-niche stardom, and a fat book contract is the next-best thing to inevitable, and, sure enough, Silver scored a two-book contract said to be "in the neighborhood of $700,000," which is a pretty nice neighborhood, especially these days when people are stockpiling spam.

6 months ago Chiburb Comment 41 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

And for the record, good on him!

"A good cigar is like a beautiful chick with a great body who also knows the American League box scores. "
Klinger

by Chiburb on Jan 6, 2009 11:07 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

now that's some real head right there.

Sober, I was appalled at the women. Drunk I was told I danced with them all.

by colintj on Jan 6, 2009 11:18 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Indeed. Wolcott can sure turn a word.

"A good cigar is like a beautiful chick with a great body who also knows the American League box scores. "
Klinger

by Chiburb on Jan 6, 2009 11:40 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

nate doesn't answer my phone calls anymore.

he’d probably say it’s because of pecota and stuff but i think he thinks he’s too good for us now.

by larry on Jan 6, 2009 11:22 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

You see the same people on the way up as you see on the way down, Nate.

You prima donna POS. You never liked the Sox anyway. $700K is the price for humility? For loyalty to larry?

Good riddance.

I would rather douse a newspaper in gasoline, wrap it around my penis and light it on fire then relive that experience
by armedpp on Aug 29, 2007 2:36 AM EDT

by winningugly on Jan 6, 2009 12:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Silver isn't ignoring larry, just trying to learn how to use his phone with

$ having replaced 5 and S.

He’ll be back to him shortly.

"A good cigar is like a beautiful chick with a great body who also knows the American League box scores. "
Klinger

by Chiburb on Jan 6, 2009 12:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No, his girl will get back to larry. After she calls Obama.

I would rather douse a newspaper in gasoline, wrap it around my penis and light it on fire then relive that experience
by armedpp on Aug 29, 2007 2:36 AM EDT

by winningugly on Jan 6, 2009 12:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

538 was pretty damn accurate

by 815Sox on Jan 6, 2009 12:20 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Psh Michelle Malkin is way smarter than him

Vinny Del Negro interviewed for the job today. I mean come on! Nobody else thinks this is nuts?
by Juiceboxjerry on Jun 6, 2008 4:21 PM CDT actions actions 0 recs

by Ozzie Montana on Jan 6, 2009 12:38 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

She hot. HOT! And smart.

Which is HOT.

I would rather douse a newspaper in gasoline, wrap it around my penis and light it on fire then relive that experience
by armedpp on Aug 29, 2007 2:36 AM EDT

by winningugly on Jan 6, 2009 12:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

throws up

The greatest trick the White Sox ever pulled was convincing their fan base that "Ozzieball" ever existed.

by The Wizard on Jan 6, 2009 12:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

he probably digs Coultergeist too.

One foot in the tar pits…

"A good cigar is like a beautiful chick with a great body who also knows the American League box scores. "
Klinger

by Chiburb on Jan 6, 2009 1:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Swizzle sticks with big mouths are not hot.

I would rather douse a newspaper in gasoline, wrap it around my penis and light it on fire then relive that experience
by armedpp on Aug 29, 2007 2:36 AM EDT

by winningugly on Jan 6, 2009 1:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

AHA ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE ELITE LIBERAL MEDIA

WHY DON’T YOU JOIN BLAGOEVICH AND RAHM AND HUSSEIN OBAMA FOR A TEA PARTY.

Vinny Del Negro interviewed for the job today. I mean come on! Nobody else thinks this is nuts?
by Juiceboxjerry on Jun 6, 2008 4:21 PM CDT actions actions 0 recs

by Ozzie Montana on Jan 6, 2009 2:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

YOU FORGOT AHMADINEJAD

HAMAS TOO

The greatest trick the White Sox ever pulled was convincing their fan base that "Ozzieball" ever existed.

by The Wizard on Jan 6, 2009 3:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

White Sox First Fan

http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/cws/fan_forum/first_fan.jsp

The greatest trick the White Sox ever pulled was convincing their fan base that "Ozzieball" ever existed.

by The Wizard on Jan 6, 2009 2:05 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

kenny's interview (video)

http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200811053667019&c_id=cws

The greatest trick the White Sox ever pulled was convincing their fan base that "Ozzieball" ever existed.

by The Wizard on Jan 6, 2009 2:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Nate takes down the rag part of the WSJ

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/01/did-wall-street-jorunal-fire-their-fact.html

The greatest trick the White Sox ever pulled was convincing their fan base that "Ozzieball" ever existed.

by The Wizard on Jan 6, 2009 2:16 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Wiz, that's like sooooo yesterday!

"A good cigar is like a beautiful chick with a great body who also knows the American League box scores. "
Klinger

by Chiburb on Jan 6, 2009 2:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

where's the byline in that wsj editorial? or is there supposed to not be one?

Sober, I was appalled at the women. Drunk I was told I danced with them all.

by colintj on Jan 7, 2009 2:53 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Most editorials at most newspapers are unsigned.

Op-ed columns get bylines.

"A good cigar is like a beautiful chick with a great body who also knows the American League box scores. "
Klinger

by Chiburb on Jan 7, 2009 7:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Sigh.

Damn this non-newspaper-reading generation.

EVERYBODY PICK US FOR 3RD OR 4TH SO I DINK WE DOIN POOTY GOO
Sox Machine

by Sox Machine on Jan 7, 2009 5:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I blame it on the funnies. They stopped being funny around the time

the kids should’ve been reading them, then graduating to sports, etc.
No wonder they turned to violent video games.
;-)

"A good cigar is like a beautiful chick with a great body who also knows the American League box scores. "
Klinger

by Chiburb on Jan 8, 2009 9:23 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

and the rout is on

http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-political-coverage/

The greatest trick the White Sox ever pulled was convincing their fan base that "Ozzieball" ever existed.

by The Wizard on Jan 7, 2009 3:12 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Holy crap. Nate certainly didn't get my vote...

Not that what he did wasn’t great, but “coverage” means (to me) more than analysis of polling. I know he did more than that, but DKos or The Field better describe the category. Again, my humble opinion.

"A good cigar is like a beautiful chick with a great body who also knows the American League box scores. "
Klinger

by Chiburb on Jan 8, 2009 9:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

and there’ll be a new leader if Kos whores the link

The greatest trick the White Sox ever pulled was convincing their fan base that "Ozzieball" ever existed.

by The Wizard on Jan 8, 2009 7:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

nate is getting a little too big for his britches

and is appropriately dressed down for it.

http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2009/01/be-careful-when-you-criticize-experts/

"The panda is a national treasure, and I love and respect [him], so I didn't fight back," Zhang said. "The panda didn't let go until it chewed up my leg and its mouth was dripping with my blood."

by larry on Jan 12, 2009 1:19 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Prof certainly handled his "teaching moment" delicately,

as opposed to NS’s commentary/assessment. An adult response, as opposed to NS.

Act like you’ve been there before, Nate. And make sure you score before going into your touchdown dance.

I would rather douse a newspaper in gasoline, wrap it around my penis and light it on fire then relive that experience
by armedpp on Aug 29, 2007 2:36 AM EDT

by winningugly on Jan 12, 2009 1:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

if you whip it out and put it on the table,

you better be damn sure it’s best in show.

"The panda is a national treasure, and I love and respect [him], so I didn't fight back," Zhang said. "The panda didn't let go until it chewed up my leg and its mouth was dripping with my blood."

by larry on Jan 12, 2009 1:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not convinced yet nate is wrong

The paper (.pdf) Mankiw refers to, written by Berkley Economists Christina and David Romer, is the sort of thing that will make your head spin. But the gist of it is that (i) It is very important to differentiate the motivation for different types of tax cuts or tax increases, and (ii) a certain type of tax cut or tax increase may have a much larger effect on growth than is generally acknowledged.

The type of tax cut that Romer and Romer think falls into this category is what they call an “exogenous” tax cut — one designed not to counter business cycles, but rather a “spontaneous” tax cut under relatively healthy economic circumstances.

This is very much not the type of tax cut that we are contemplating right now. Instead, what is being contemplated is a countercyclical action in an unhealthy economy designed to return the economy to normal growth. Romer and Romer are not all that keen on this type of tax cut; in fact, they argue that such “countercyclical fiscal policy is not achieving its intended purpose,” and that “policymakers’ efforts to adjust taxes to offset anticipated changes in private
economic activity have been largely unsuccessful”. You might also have inferred this from the fact that Christina Romer, who is the chair of Barack Obama’s incoming Council of Economic Advisers, released an impact assessment (.pdf) yesterday positing a much lower multiplier on a “stimulative”/countercyclical tax cut.

This is not a trivial detail. It’s as if Mankiw had said…

“A new study has shown that cholesterol can actually reduce your risk of a heart attack! So stop for a Triple Whopper Value Meal on your way home — and don’t forget to supersize it!”

…but omitted the fact that the study was referring only to HDL ("good") cholesterol — not the LDL ("bad") cholesterol likely to be found in abundance in your Value Meal.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/01/intellectual-dishonesty-gasp-from.html

what’s nate error here?

The greatest trick the White Sox ever pulled was convincing their fan base that "Ozzieball" ever existed.

by The Wizard on Jan 12, 2009 3:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

read the link, including the comments.

nate is out of his league. he should also watch his mouth/fingers. intellectual dishonesty is a mighty high charge to blithely throw around.

by larry on Jan 12, 2009 3:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I did but I'm not convinced

romer writes about tax cuts under healthy economic circumstances and says they may have a larger impact on growth than acknowledged

then mankiw writes ‘see? we need tax cuts’

but we aren’t under healthy economic circumstances

The greatest trick the White Sox ever pulled was convincing their fan base that "Ozzieball" ever existed.

by The Wizard on Jan 12, 2009 5:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

read comment #8

by larry on Jan 12, 2009 9:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

url?

it can’t be the one I’m looking at

The greatest trick the White Sox ever pulled was convincing their fan base that "Ozzieball" ever existed.

by The Wizard on Jan 12, 2009 9:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

it's what i linked.

by larry on Jan 12, 2009 9:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think I get your point but still no dice

Using your bed net example, if one study finds a significant benefit in one area, it is true that it might not benefit another area. However, to say that we should not try bed nets where malaria is a problem, just because it might not have similar results, seems foolish.

what is this “might not” business?

mankiw is the one that uses the “might not” portion of the study to argue about a benefit that doesn’t apply in the current situation

and I don’t like the malaria/bednet analogy used here

bednets have been proven to be effective against malaria

mankiw argues for something using a point that doesn’t apply now
mankiw argues for tax cuts using romer’s ‘in healthy economical times…’ point

we aren’t in ‘healthy economical times…’

you can’t use the romer point

The greatest trick the White Sox ever pulled was convincing their fan base that "Ozzieball" ever existed.

by The Wizard on Jan 12, 2009 10:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i can see how someone who took from reading the editorial this:

then mankiw writes ‘see? we need tax cuts’

but we aren’t under healthy economic circumstances

might not get the point. he wasn’t arguing for tax cuts per se – he was asking a series of questions which – get this – question the efficacy of increased spending and whether tax cuts might do the same thing and better. additionally, he highlights that it is open to debate whether the study he cites may apply in different economic conditions than the ones under which they were conducted. simply because a variable changes does not mean that the effect is different or non-existent. it’s supposed to provoke thought, not knee jerk idiotic responses that don’t actually address what was written.

and let’s leave the economic arguments for an economics site considering neither you nor i is qualified to properly discuss this topic. my point in posting what i did was not to get into the details of who is right or wrong – which is a complete unknown – but to point out that someone apparently is getting a pretty big ego and thinks he can start acting like a dick to people when he isn’t quite up to fulfilling the role.

by larry on Jan 13, 2009 9:44 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't see anything wrong with nate's critique

please tell me if and where my point breaks down:

romer writes a paper that deals with taxcuts under healthy economic circumstances
romer’s paper doesn’t say anything about taxcuts under unhealthy economic circumstances

now here’s mankiw oped:

WHEN the Obama administration finally unveils its proposal to get the economy on the road to recovery, the centerpiece is likely to be a huge increase in government spending. But there are ample reasons to doubt whether this is what the economy needs.
…
MIGHT TAX CUTS BE MORE POTENT?
…
The evidence, however, is hard to square with the theory. A recent study by Christina D. Romer and David H. Romer, then economists at the University of California, Berkeley, finds that a dollar of tax cuts raises the G.D.P. by about $3. According to the Romers, the multiplier for tax cuts is more than twice what Professor Ramey finds for spending increases.

so mankiw uses romer’s paper to point out that tax cuts raise the GDP and might be good at the moment

but romer’s paper studies taxcuts under healthy economic circumstances
not under under unhealthy economic circumstances

don’t you see how this is “dishonest” to do?

and let’s leave the economic arguments for an economics site considering neither you nor i is qualifiedto properly discuss this topic.

of course
I don’t argue for or against taxcuts
my argument has to do with using a point that hasn’t been made, in order to bolster your argument

if romer’s paper dealt with taxcuts under unhealthy economic circumstances, then you could use it

The greatest trick the White Sox ever pulled was convincing their fan base that "Ozzieball" ever existed.

by The Wizard on Jan 13, 2009 1:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

good fucking god. what you just did is dishonest. it's not dishonest if you point out in the very article under what conditions the study was done.

there was absolutely nothing dishonest about what the guy wrote and it was patently ridiculous to say so, let alone in the manner nate did it.

maybe you’d like to quote the rest of the pertinent stuff, eh.

Why this is so remains a puzzle. One can easily conjecture about what the textbook theory leaves out, but it will take more research to sort things out. And whether these results based on historical data apply to our current extraordinary circumstances is open to debate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/business/economy/11view.html?_r=1&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

please point out the dishonesty. or, actually, don’t because i have a great distaste for wasting my time.

ben sheets: will throw baseball for food.

by larry on Jan 13, 2009 1:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

if you can't defend your point, don't blame me

there was absolutely nothing dishonest about what the guy wrote and it was patently ridiculous to say so, let alone in the manner nate did it.

why? i’m trying to get you to explain why but you don’t do it

in the quoted piece it says that it is open to debate if romer’s paper applies to the current circumstances

DUH!

if you aren’t sure if it applies, don’t waste our fucking time with opeds in the new york fucking times telling us ‘romer showed us it applies in X, now is not X but who knows, it may apply now too’

I can go to a fucking number-teller down the street and get the same fucking answer:
it may apply now too sir

please point out the dishonesty

the dishonesty was to use romer’s paper to bolster an argument that romer’s paper doesn’t examine

The greatest trick the White Sox ever pulled was convincing their fan base that "Ozzieball" ever existed.

by The Wizard on Jan 13, 2009 2:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

the argument against tax cuts that I have seen

(and I’m not convinced one way or the other) is that people will use the extra money to service existing debt and/or save rather than spending it until such time as the economy recovers; this money for proposed tax cuts would be better used by the Government on capital projects to stimulate an ailing economy.
There’s been a cut in VAT here, the pair of socks that I just bought were labelled up as £3, I paid £2.94, I would still have bought the socks for £3, it’s been one of the most stupid tax cuts I have seen, being as most of the stores are discounting heavily anyway. That tax cut has cost the UK £14 billion.

number one when it mattered!

by hoodlight on Jan 13, 2009 7:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs