Listen to the money talk
November 2, 2012 9:26 AM   Subscribe

FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver (wiki) has bet Joe Scarborough $1,000 that Barack Obama will win, on the basis of his model's projection that Obama's odds are about 75%. Silver's editor responds unfavorably to the bet, eliciting responses to her response.
posted by AugieAugustus (11 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: This is sort of sideshow-to-the-horserace stuff and we're already drowning in horserace proper. There's at least a couple pretty active election threads where this is already being discussed, maybe just head over there. -- cortex

Ugh. Can't get enough of those office politics, especially those of offices I don't work in.
posted by infinitewindow at 9:29 AM on November 2, 2012 [1 favorite]

I guess I can see where Sullivan's coming from, but Silver's not betting Obama will win, he's betting that his model is right. His model just happens to predict that Obama will win.

Keep in mind, too, that in a very real way, his development of that model is the only reason he has a job at the NYT. And the continued success of that model keeps him in a job. Which is to say: he's betting more than $1000 on the success of his model's predictions ... once a week or more?
posted by penduluum at 9:31 AM on November 2, 2012 [8 favorites]

That's nothing. David Axlerod bet his mustache.
posted by hydrophonic at 9:32 AM on November 2, 2012 [2 favorites]

Much as I dislike Scarborough and all, it is pretty classless to make this sort of bet involving Red Cross money during a major disaster. Scarborough totally one-upped him and showed real class (can't believe I strung those words and that name together like that) by saying they should both just donate to the Red Cross unconditionally.

Scarborough is often a tool. I've seen clip after clip of his show that has left me stunned and wondering why Brzezinski doesn't just slap his face and walk off the set. But regardless of whether Silver's model is right or not, Scarborough did the right thing with that response.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 9:36 AM on November 2, 2012

It should be noted that Silver's model is much more conservative than some other statisticians. Specifically, Sam Wang's Princeton Election Consortium currently has Obama's chances at 97%, based on state polls.
posted by 1970s Antihero at 9:36 AM on November 2, 2012

I want Axelrod to lose his mustache but not badly enough to root or vote for Romney.
posted by Mister_A at 9:36 AM on November 2, 2012 [1 favorite]

(Also: the mustache bet is a MUCH better condition for a wager on something like this than charity money.)
posted by scaryblackdeath at 9:36 AM on November 2, 2012

Well, after a week of scaly old pundit fucks telling his business it seems only right he ask one of them to put their money where their mouth is.
posted by Artw at 9:37 AM on November 2, 2012 [1 favorite]

Silver's editor is under the delusion that the NYT is lending its credibility to Nate Silver, when the reality is precisely the opposite.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:38 AM on November 2, 2012 [21 favorites]

Not to be too nitpicky, but Sullivan isn't Nate Silver's editor. She's the Public Editor at the Times -- like an ombudsman for the paper.
posted by bluefly at 9:38 AM on November 2, 2012

I'm just waiting for Mika Brzezinski to stab Scarborough in the neck live on-air.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:39 AM on November 2, 2012 [2 favorites]

« Older Yes, its all very funny, but now its time for the...   |   A story of disaster solidarity and mutual aid Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments