What Really 'Hit Romney'

  Saturday November 10, 2012

What Really 'Hit Romney'

Slate has an article claiming that Romney, ‘the numbers Guy,‘ never knew what hit him. That his team were sure they were going to win because their models were built on lower minority turnout than in 2008. Whoops. Here‘s my version: nothing hit him. What happened is simply, we have finally gotten to the tipping point in politics; we have crossed the boundary, the point where Kasparov can no longer beat Blue Gene. Nothing hit the Mittster, he‘s just the latest victim of one of the longest standing characters of this blog: the spineless constrictor known as technology. It never really hits anything, it quietly crawls up and covers its victim and then it starts to squeeze. Later, it coats the outside of the mass and unhinges its jaws. The parcel is in a coma for the buh bye phase.

I read something recently that Blue Gene didn't really even outplay Kasparov, but instead psyched him out by doing some whack ball stuff that made him think he had no route to victory. After the victory, the president got all teary in front of his little brigade. I'm not so inclined to see the grandeur here. The article that looked behind the nerd curtain (here) describes an operation that‘s more actuarial-fed undertaker than breathless rethinker of strategic vistas.

Read the article, here‘s my redux:

‘in 2008, we had a bunch of databases, this time around we made one big one.‘ – Wait, in other words, in 2008, we had tiny little fragments that could be used to extract possibly relevant data, this time we decided it was a good idea to try and make one model for the problem. Brilliant! Wow, um, on the innovation scale, I‘m going to give that like a 1950 (for the year it would have happened barring all the countervailing forces [chief one being absent: money (more on that)].Once we had a database we could figure out where we could get money then who was likely to vote for us.With a large sample, we were able to get more accurate predictions.

The big question, that‘s not answered here, is how did this team model things? and were they advantaged by the fact that the race ended up being largely about a couple states? Of course is the answer to the latter. From a technology perspective, does anyone think that the cream of the crop of what could be done with data is represented by this? Of course, it‘s not. In fact, this operation could have been done in 1988 if they had been smart enough about it and willing to endure some pain. What we are seeing is that as is always the case with technology, the appliers generally don‘t have a long reach so they only start to deploy it when it starts to dangle down in their face. What we saw in 2012 was the Wehrmacht meeting the Polish Equine Cavalry on 9/1/39. This was not two evenly matched foes. I would be inclined to say we will have to see what turns up next time. History is always the story of the fearsome mismatch (Franco Prussian War) followed by the horrible stalemate (WWI) (with a lot of arm sales in between).

The other sign that we have passed the political datapocalypse is the surly little spat that broke out between the media and Nate Silver at the end of the race. Silver made his name in the last cycle by making more accurate predictions than people who have been in the business for a long time. Why? Because he developed a whole new model? No. Because he developed a metamodel that incorporated the error of his competitors and essentially diminished its ability to actually cause harm to the guesses being proffered. The guy who completely redid the model for evaluating the likelihood of a loan being repaid (tragically he finished his work in 2008 right as the world economy built by the Mittster and his other numbers guy friends on Wall Street was turning into a smoking hole. That dude deserves a lot of credit: for digging out of the old wrong way of looking at a fundamental problem in value exchanges. But then, he had to do some work. So nevermind that. Much easier to just setup some big, stupid raking operation that pulls in other people‘s data and the smooths it. I‘d be super amazed if we ever get any real details about Silver‘s model beyond what we have heard. Mainly because I don‘t think there are any. It‘s kind of like the Woody Allen film where everyone‘s running around ready to kill each other over a recipe for chicken salad.

What was really interesting about the Silver Episode though was the degree to which the standard media finally got to look forward into a world where they just look like a bunch of uninformed people who have not taken any time to do any work, offering opinions of little to no value, across expanses of time that are breathtakingly broad. Morning Joe airs for 3 hours every day and in the end, Joe offered a stuttering, spit-filled condemnation of Silver because, as psychologists are fond of saying, Silver made joe um, not feel good about himself (actually the psychologist would point out that the Other can‘t make you feel bad about yourself, in other words, you already felt this about yourself, that person evoked that feeling). Folks, the billions spent on this election are the real story here, and the idea that they were part of a war of geniuses has forever been blown up. Loved Trump‘s tweet about how every single race where Rove‘s Crossroads poured money, the Rs lost. I laugh at the liberals who are still all wound up about Citizens United. Um, it‘s looking like the best jobs plan to hit the economy in ages: rich imbeciles spend tons of money putting naive, stupid messages out through antiquated channels while their bumbling candidates blow up walls that took decades to build with a few words of stupidity and, sorry, no amount of money can rebuild them before judgment day. If there was a strategic genius in this cycle, it was McCaskill, who was the most beatable bloated boil out there, but survived because she literally spent money to get Akin the nomination and in a fashion that made her look brilliant, he quickly undid his own jugular and bled out. (The other genius of this strategy is that it‘s impossible to repair after its occurred for fear of doing other damage; the Rs all urged him to withdraw because otherwise they look like they are supporting his middle ages monastery theory of the rape prevention magic trigger.)

Here‘s what I hope for the next cycle: that some people who truly can figure out what to do with data go and help some of the fledgling parties that are consigned to the periphery right now. For instance, the Green Party, if they could get 5% of the vote, would unlock Federal support and would be included in the debates. Try and imagine what a stupid world it is that thinks two super smart women talking about having concern for the planet and poverty are too nutty, but listening to 20 debates with Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann, and the Greek Isles cruising bloated sarcophagus Newt Gingrich is a suitable use for all that air time. The dark side of the electoral college is most the population lives in states where their vote matters zero, but that could be turned to an advantage. When I told my girlfriend I voted for Jill Stein, her eyes got all wide and she said ‘you could throw the election to Romney.‘ I laughed and told her there was a 20 point buffer in CA last time and it was around 10 this time. In California, we are already down to a one party system: the Republicans literally can‘t do a thing anymore. For technologists, what we should see in this little glass ball is that technology, as usual, can either unlock unavailable power and enrich stagnant environments, or it can end up in the hands of bag and taggers who just use it to smother their opposition. Pluralism might actually be possible if the former were the case.

( Nov 10 2012, 05:06:52 PM PST ) Permalink

View the original article here