Profiling Another Blog

Analysis of another blog in my field, for inspiration and direction: FiveThirtyEight.com
Assignment for Aug. 31

In a political world increasingly defined by polling numbers and electoral struggles, FiveThirtyEight.com provides a statistics-based blog on goings-on both inside and outside the Beltway. Nate Silver, who started as a career baseball statistician, now uses his powers to predict (with great accuracy) the results of elections, check the accuracy of polling and other meters of public opinion, and just generally break down every political question to numbers and regression models to take a stab of measuring the unmeasurable.

FiveThirtyEight rose to prominance during the 2008 election and the year running up to it, rising from a relatively unknown corner of the net to the 57th-ranked blog on technorati.com, an amazingly quick ascent. Between calculating the Democratic primary results and eventually nailing the popular vote spread (52.4%-46.3% predicted, compared to 52.3-46.2 actual), Silver has earned his credibility with consistent results and an eye for effectively weighing the day-to-day developments in politics. During the 2008 election season, Silver posted a few times daily, often more, aggregating polling results on the congressional, gubernatorial, and presidential races as well as providing commentary for any current developments. In recent months his personal posting rate has fallen to several updates per week, with supplemental content provided by a few other bloggers who have a similar statistical bent.

In this post of Nate Silver’s final election projections on the morning of November 4^th, he explains not just what he thinks the numbers will be, but why:

Our model projects that Obama will win all states won by John Kerry in 2004, in addition to Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, Ohio, Virginia, Nevada, Florida and North Carolina, while narrowly losing Missouri and Indiana. These states total 353 electoral votes. Our official projection, which looks at these outcomes probabilistically -- for instance, assigns North Carolina's 15 electoral votes to Obama 59 percent of the time -- comes up with an incrementally more conservative projection of 348.6 electoral votes.

We also project Obama to win the popular vote by 6.1 points; his lead is slightly larger than that in the polls now, but our model accounts for the fact that candidates with large leads in the polls typically underperform their numbers by a small margin on Election Day.

Far more wonkish posts outline the exact models used, showing the probability of each state being one by each candidate. By building a foundation of rock-hard methodology, referenced in each post as the information becomes relevant, Silver maintains both a casual voice and professional reliability.

This simultaneous accessibility and credibility has brought him a vast, broad readership. He is referenced and linked to across the web, with his data analysis often considered something of a primary source. Because of his transparent calculation methods and well-documented models, Silver can defend his assumptions against other bloggers who, quite often, take issue with certain posts. He truly brings something new to the table, even though his work is based upon widely available data.

Besides election analysis, Silver, who leans left, has been keeping tabs on Obama's campaign promises as well as the ongoing health care debate. He still maintains a monthly list of which states are most likely to have a senate seat switch parties in the upcoming midterm elections, but he has certainly turned his eye to the ongoing policy battles with critical analysis of other bloggers' assertions as well as generating his own thoughtful graphics and theses.

In this gaping hole between election seasons, filled by the heated back-and-forth on health care, Silver’s mathematical commentary is appreciated in a world of fiery misinformation and partisan attacks. His years of experience making a living off his statistical expertise show through in each post, compensating for minor details that others often overlook, paying off in consistency and credibility.

My blog, obviously, won’t have the statistical clout. I’m inspired, though, by his impartial data analysis used to bolster any ideological arguments made. Rational analysis of research to a logical conclusion is exactly what I’d like to shoot for.

Hello World!

(this post cross-posted from our Moogle forum)

Hello world!
This semester I'm excited to delve into the ongoing health care debate. As a relatively new, fresh-faced political junky, I have a long way to go in figuring out the facets of health care policy itself (reimbursement rates, co-op systems, drug subsidies) as well as the political side of the battle (various committees putting together legislation, key players, etc). As a Political Science major, I'm naturally excited about such a momentous project put before our legislators by Obama, and I hope that the ongoing developments will fuel my writing as I try to break down both the political and practical aspects of American health care.

I come to the debate, though, from an admittedly liberal perspective; I'm that guy with the laptop festooned with "No on 8" and Obama campaign stickers. However, I'm hopeful that further examination of the arguments of each side will drive me to a more centrist conclusion. Currently, pessimism is settling in, with the public option's chances waning to be replaced by what sounds by a relatively spineless co-op system. Republican pleas for bipartisan compromise have come across to me as little more than a begging for concessions through what often seem to be bad faith arguments.

A focused dissection of health care policy should fill a void left by the various forms of media and the corners that they understandably cut in their coverage. Bloggers, especially those with a partisan posture (which is the vast majority), have a vested interest in "securing their base" to both hold onto loyal readers and seize new ones; try as we might, there is an inherent appeal to placing ourselves in "echo chambers," and surrounding ourselves with assenting voices. I've read Steve Benen (Washington Monthly) for years now, for instance, but while he is an astute and convincing writer, his blog is essentially a case built day by day against the Republicans. When you know your author enters the fray with certain preconceptions (that the GOP has given up on rational, good-faith debate, as in the linked post above) the partisan blogger also loses his or her own credibility to some extent.

As we seek out our respective, ideological blogs, we tend to be drawn similarly to cable networks, with Fox holding down the right wing and MSNBC (and CNN, to a large extent) holding down the left. Just as blogs clamber for readers, these stations need to duke it out for viewers and advertising dollars. It is entirely in their interest to cultivate a select group of loyal viewers and hold them than to use their position for the full manifestation of our First Amendment. With their enormous national clout, they have the power to make or break a legislative battle, to sweep scandals under the rug or to end careers.
I have no such clout, so I have no reason to be anything but even-handed and discerning.

Again, with the sole goal of informing myself and my audience along the way, while I may come to partisan conclusions, I aim to approach each development, each twist and each turn, with a critical eye, healthy background research, and an open mind.