Silver's reputation as a math wizard often obscures his innovations as a journalist. But it's the latter that makes him so valuable to ESPN and ABC News.
The discussion of "who got it right" has pretty much begun and ended with Nate Silver. I'm a fan of Silver's, but some other names deserve to appear on the honor roll. So here's who I trust more now that the election is over.
I have a simple rule when predicting presidential elections: The polls, taken together, are typically pretty accurate.
Nate Silver's forecast isn't an outlier. In fact, it's actually quite a bit friendlier to Romney's chances than the other models, and only a little more bullish on Obama than the betting markets.
If the Redskins won their last home game before the election, the incumbent party will hold the White House. This has held true in 16 of the last 17 elections (2004 was the exception). It's also ridiculous example of overfitting.
That's the key question, right? So here are some of the more thoughtful estimates from the election wonks.
The problem isn't the weather forecast. It's the economics of telling you about the weather forecast.
Drunk oil speculators, the egalitarianism of pharmacy and other stories we missed.
Shepherd Fairey's sentencing, Zadie Smith on Jay-Z, and other stories we missed.
Hibbs' model now estimates that Obama will get 47 percent of the two-party vote, while Romney will get 53 percent.