Wickersham's Conscience

Pundit credibility – the accuracy of prognosticators – is the subject of a well-written paper from Hamilton College. The statistical analysis is particularly impressive. WC recognizes that the study has its critics.

Here’s the abstract:

We evaluated the predictions of politicians, journalists, and pundits (collectively, “prognosticators”) over a 16-month period surrounding the 2008 United States federal elections.  We sought to test the accuracy of these predictions and understand what makes individuals unusually good or bad at prognostication.  We evaluated a random sample of Meet the Press, This Week, and Face the Nation transcripts and printed columns from the most prominent American prognosticators.  Ultimately, we determined that some prognosticators are significantly better than others, and there are characteristics that significantly impact a prognosticator’s predictive power.

(Yes, WC had read the criticisms of the study, including the situational bias favoring liberal commentators. It might explain Krugman; it doesn’t explain Thomas.)

For WC, there’s good news and bad news. The paper finds that WC’s favorite columnist, Paul Krugman, is by a considerable extent the most accurate predictor of events, getting 16 of 18 predictions right. Good writing and high levels of accuracy; what’s not to like?

More good news: liberal pundits are by a considerable margin more accurate than conservatives. Of course, Cal Thomas (correct only 1 time out of 16!) single-handedly pulled down the conservative score.

On the other hand, lawyers were by far the worst profession at predictions. Ouch.

WC makes no predictions regarding the accuracy of this essay.

Readers will recall that WC hosted the first-ever poll here at Wickersham’s Conscience to determine the best metaphor for Alaska’s Shame.

It started with a call for the perfect metaphor for Caribou Barbie. Too many of the suggestions were obscene; understandable, WC supposes. But WC winnowed the best non-obscene proposals and put them in a poll so that WC’s long-suffering readers could cast their preference. After all, The Quitter can’t complain about polls or democracy. Well, she can, but it would be hypocritical. Wait a minute…

So the results are in. The metaphor of choice is

Sarah Palin is the turd that won’t flush no matter how many times you try.

A bit sophomoric. It sounds like something a high school sophomore might come up with, but that’s hardly inappropriate.

As the late Mayor Daley would say, after the Chicago Machine delivered the mayorship to him yet another time, “Da pippul has spoke.”

Inquiring minds, concerned about the scientific accuracy of this poll are advised to re-read the notes following the poll itself.

WC has reviewed the comments and suggestions offered as the perfect metaphor for Sarah Palin. And WC is going to be thoroughly democratic about this (for a given definition of “democratic”). We’ll have a poll.

If WC has this set up right, you can only vote one time. This is not Chicago. So exercise your franchise wisely. Voting is open for a week. Final results will be published in a future blog post.

WC thanks you for your participation.

Rules:

1. Over Joe Miller’s objections, write-ins are permitted. Obscene ones will be deleted.
2. Poll Daddy provides this service for free. Who knows what personal data they are capturing from you. WC doesn’t.
3. Hacking is permitted, if you think you are good enough. If you get caught hacking, your lack of skills may be made public.
4. If you think this effort is serious, contact WC for a special offer on the Cushman Street bridge in downtown Fairbanks, Alaska.