By Fareed Zakaria
When I was getting my PhD in political science, the course I probably found least interesting at the time was the mandatory one on statistics. And yet it has probably been the course that has, at a practical level, been the most useful in helping me understand politics, because it gave me a framework and understanding of how to analyze data. So to watch the divisions during the presidential campaign between political operators who think that politics is all art and no science on the one hand, and the statisticians on the other, has been fascinating.
I do think that the social sciences – even economics – are quite different from areas like physics and mathematics, because subjects like international relations require analysis to be textured and historical. However, it is also clear to me that one area where statistical methods have worked very well has been in analysis of voting, because this is an area where you have lots of very clear, tangible data. And you also have much repetition of the experiment, allowing you to reduce the chances of misleading anomalies.
What has this meant in practice this year? Statistician Nate Silver and others have turned these tools on American elections. And in Silver’s case, the results have been extraordinary – he looks to have correctly called all 50 states in yesterday’s election.
More from CNN: The anatomy of Romney's defeat
So why so much handwringing among political operators? Because Silver’s predictions suggest that a lot of what they are paid handsomely to do is actually worthless. Silver’s model has shown Obama in roughly the same place for the last four months – through the conventions, the debates and up until polling day. This suggests that the manipulations and tactics employed by the campaigns over this period have had little impact despite the fact that political operators get paid millions of dollars to effect week-to-week and month-to-month movements in support.
This isn’t just an intellectual divide. You can’t help but feel that when people like Karl Rove were saying that the momentum was with Romney, and were confidently predicting that he was going to win, that it was also in their own interests to be saying such things. After all, this is how political operators make their money, and they are keen to report to candidates that momentum is on their side, suggesting that as long as the candidate keeps writing checks, then he or she has a better chance of winning.
But I think the bigger and more fascinating takeaway from this debate is that the combination of the sophisticated statistical analysis (which can only provide us with this kind of accuracy when it is a big presidential election, during which there are many, many state polls) coupled with micro-targeting of voters, is the future of politics. Why? Because it allows campaigns to spend money incredibly efficiently, for example by placing ads in TV shows that certain audiences are much more likely to watch.
But all this raises a troubling question – if politics gets overrun by all this highly statistical analysis, will it start to look like drone warfare, where what you see outside is merely a shadow, while what is really happening is going on deep inside some control room where a bunch of geeks are analyzing and manipulating data with the latest technology?
So statistical-based targeting may very well be the future not just of American politics, but campaigns elsewhere – one thing we know about U.S. politics is that it is often a trendsetter for the rest of the world. Don’t be surprised if at Britain’s next general election you start seeing American-style, statistical drone warfare.
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Work for us | Help
Very informative. Social sciences coupled with mathematics; how far we've come. I think it'd be interesting to learn more about the 'statistics' and whether or not it is purely analytical, in terms of poling data, as opposed to mathematical (an equation t predict voting outcome).
STOP Obama's terrorism against medical marijuana cancer patients.
START planting marijuana seeds along every street in AMERICA.
He has. He just planted a seed back in Utah!
Slow news day? This is great if written prior to an election. Anyone can analyze after the fact.. with or without statistics.
Hey knucklehead,
There is no context to prove if Silver's statistical analysis was accurate or not until after the election. That is how science works and that is the intellectual divide that Zakaria is commenting on.
Science uses observation to collect a vast amount of data, then analyzes that data to look for patterns. Patterns are used to make predicitions. If the predicitions hold true, then you know you are on to something. You can't know the predications are accurate before the event occurs that you are trying to predict.
Get a clue. If you right-wingers continue to deny science your party will only continue it's decent into irrelevance.
I think this whole drone thing is just stupid! So my take is we are going to go to war over a country shooting down a robot more or less in the near future. Whats next? Computerized warfare like on Star Trek where casualities are calculated and people who are marked as casualities are ushered off to death rooms all just to save cities and money. This garbage sounds like a play script right from Brave New World.
Read the article before commenting.
They are mainly stochastic models.
Staistically, on the average a male from India has one b@ll. Therein lies the fallacy of statistics. Then again, it may be true in this case ! Point being to look at various measures before concluding.
IIf your mother told you that than she might be actually correct !!! But the problem is she might have been lied over by a Pakistani
Doesn't it hurt the Indians (sub-continental Indian) that Obama won? If it was Romney, then he would have opened the gate to outsource all IT and technology jobs to India. Ouch! It hurts
. Even so, with Indian managers in all IT projects in this country, soon there will be no true Americans working in the IT industry, it will all benefit the Indians – and that is a fact. Why can't we train our returning US Soldiers in IT and get them the job? Think about it. Indian managers will not let that happen. They always prefer the Indians in the IT projects, ask anyone who has recently worked in IT
There are plenty of Indians in IT, but most stink at the job. IT is a face to face job, that's why it hasn't been outsourced. Companies tried the outsourcing of IT, and it cost them millions. No you can't teach most in the military IT jobs, because it requires a brain. They are good at killing, not much else.
Anything that helps to eliminate political robocalling to people on the national Do Not Call list is a good thing.
It'll be funny to see how those statistics catch on with the far right. Those same statistical techniques and mathematical models that accurately predicted that they were heading for a bad night (no matter what Karl Rove thought) are what power the predictions of climate change that they're so sure are a bunch of nonsense.
I don't understand how republicans process statistics at all, they lack reason. They must hire independents or democrats to provide their statistics.
all political parties have equal skills that are relevant to the day and age. If they didn't, they would disappear. You can bet that both dems and repubs will take notice of ideas in this article and find the expertise they need to use these techniques. The market system will disperse the required resources equally to both parties.. or at least, equal as far as the money they have to spend.... which, at 48% to 50%... is pretty equal!
RL: I'm not sure that predictions of climate change, or lack thereof, are driven by polling data.
"Those same statistical techniques and mathematical models that accurately predicted that they were heading for a bad night (no matter what Karl Rove thought) are what power the predictions of climate change that they're so sure are a bunch of nonsense."
Um, no, not really.
Militarily, this is Effects-based Planning. Long-established in AF doctrine and now generally shied away from in Army circles, it views the operating environment as a complex system with critical nodes to be influenced, either by precision attack, information ops, etc., in order to radically alter the strategic environment. Frankly, it has surprised me that it hasn't been more prevalent in the political environmnt as well. Bush and rove somewhat talked about it in 2004 with micro-targeting, Obama did in 2008 and again in 2012 with his numerous election offices and grassroots ground game combined with technical infrastructure, and it is likely the way of the future.
While the drone comparison may be apt is it is also designed by this philosophy, I think it fails with the secrecy context. This will be happening within the US, on the internet and elsewhere, in full view of political reporters. If you guys are actually doing your job, you should be able to see it happening, report on it, and make most of it transparent.
Suck this Romney!!! 8=====>
Obama's people?
Obama gets 4 more years. Sarah Palin's head explodes and Karl Rove sticks his head in a gas oven. Teabaggers everywhere are stringing more barbed wire around their trailers. There is justice afterall. Bwahahahahahahahha !!
It's Money Ball, political style. The GOP had WAY more soft money than the Dems, and they lost because they believed their own polls, instead of looking at all polls. They didn't even know they were in trouble until the returns started coming in.
All of the statistical analysis in the world won't do you any good, though, if you're not willing to act on it, and the GOP seems content to drive their bus over a cliff by continuing their lurch further to the right.
mark - "lurch to the Right" ? ?
More like a headlong dive to the Extremist Evangelical Right.
No, Mark, the GOP lost in part because they had a flawed candidate who won the nomination espousing one set of principles, then conducted his Presidential campaign espousing a different set of principles. And they lost in part because their flawed candidate offered a financial vision that leaned toward the rich and away from the middle class.
Agreed ... Mitt should have veered to the Right even further after the primaries. He was the master of doubling down on any bad policy.
Fundamentally, an incorrect analysis. Statistics doesn't drive voting, voting drives statistics. The reason the statistics were so accurate is that neither candidate had a vision or any new ideas so public opinion was very stable because people had no real reasons to change their minds. All statistics does is allow candidates to get specific info to voters who care about a specific issue. For better campaigns, we need better candidates and better ideas–not fewer statistics.
Agreed, the stability in the data was more the result of two fairly uninspiring candidates who were both willing to coast to election day, than the product of some amazingly accurate statistical model.
Basically its Moneyball adapted for politics. Just like in baseball the old guard that went by their gut feelings are worried
The giving or receiving of Political Influence Money or OTHER present or future emolluments - including that used for financing campaigns - should be an offense punishable (individual, first offense) by five years in one of Arizona's fine Hard-Rock, Desert-Tent prisons. . A second offense will rarely if ever become in question.
In the same situation, Corporations should face mandatory dissolution - and stockholders should ALSO face penalties beyond their mere financial losses - They "need to have some skin in it".. . Stockholders need to PAY ATTENTION to the behavior of Corporate Governance ! ! !
OORRRRR, just ban private donations for public elections.
Most of the established & industrialized world relies strictly on public funding for their Presidential-level elections.
That would require more intelligent and efficient campaigning, which is abhorrent to all American politicians and bureaucracies, but possible due to the implementation of statistical analysis.
One can also look at statistics in this manner. The probability that hindu Indians are spineless is correlated with the notion that on the average an India male has one t!t (recall, Scaramucci). Now, the correlation is direct and the probability is > 0.7. Confidence level is 0.99. That explains why this nation has been left so far behind by likes of China and tormented by Talibans thus making it fall right in the laps of Americans. Which is a good thing from US perspective. So statistics can play a powerful role in geo politics as per foregoing.
16 miles off Iranian coast means it is Iran's airspace !!! You violate their airspace and when got chased than complaining about it, doesn't make any sense.
US is is getting and being made desperate for Iran when there is practically no need for it. Iran is a sovereign nation that has never attacked any country. We should not get provoked by false agenda of Israel to attack them.
We need enough focus, political will and energy at home instead of opening another war front.
Definitely US should try to stop Iran making a nuclear bomb but it should strictly avoid a military conflict at the moment as we cannot afford it !!!!!!
With all the analysis the people in politics have brains like "a caleidoscope of contradictory nonsense" because the analysis is based on lies. They lack common sense and can not distinguish between propaganda and reality. Another words, they lose contact with reality as was very obvious with the Republicans and Romney. Amerrican people are tired of endless wars, tired of lies by the people that supposed to represent them, angry at Wall Street crooks for losing money in their 401Ks, angry about offshored jobs , open borders to illigal immigration and their unresolved problem. Their presidential candidate Mitt tells them that he will do more wars, increase military and balance the budget at the same time ????? We need to do fewer statistics and more honest appraisals. Why is there high unemployment ? We offshored jobs.Why is our standard of living declining ? We kept open borders, work visas to lower wages and shipped our industries overseas so that the Chinese can get richer. You can not create jobs out of thin air.
Since you mentioned voting I will add my comment that was rudely removed by DISQUS twice. Can your statistics tell you why there are long lines in Florida ? I will tell you without using statistics. People were sent ballots by mail even if they always go to vote. You arrive at the voting desk , you have to prove who you are and next to your name it shows that a ballot was sent to you. Well, you have to be checked you can vote twice. So you are sent to next desk and the check is by phone which is busy for over 25 min. When the officials at the table get some yoyo that must be deaf and dumb at the other end the form needs to be filled out, you have to show driver license, voter ID and for about 15-20 minutes they are checking you out. Then, they send you back to the first table to check you over again after you stand in line. After you get a sticker you move 5 ft further and again you are checked . Finally you get to vote.The whole thing should have taken me 10 min or less , but it took over an hour -no wonder people were waiting.
This is FALSE FALSE FALSE. Please think and research something before you type your nonsense to a national audience.
In Florida, for instance, when you absentee vote your vote does NOT get counted unless the race becomes really close or there is a dispute, in which case they absolutely do check the voter rolls to make sure votes don't get counted twice.
You think the election officials across America (of all party flavors) are a bunch of morons who didn't see this kind of issue? The only moron here is you.
I researched. I was in line with at least 4 people that were delayed as I stood at the table. I am only reporting on what I saw, Cris-how can that be false ?
The press wonders why it keeps loosing credibility….maybe continuing to print the opinions of a plagiarizer has something to do with it, huh???
As they say Statistics and Algebra are not everyone's cup of tea.. Try the Honey Boo-Boo section of news and I am sure it will make your day.
Isaac Asimov's Foundation Triology is about the use of statistics like this.
Good article. Fundamentally it is quite obvious why the GOP lost. A party cannot keep talking down on various groups all year long such as women, racial minorities, gays, welfare recipients etc. Then last minute discover them like Jesus and expect to win. Don't they think no one notices. Normally Democrats are apathetic voters who often don't care to vote. So, I was surprised in what big numbers they came out to vote. If the GOP continues like this, 2012 will have been their last chance EVER to win the Presidency.
I expect the "Angry White Men" of the GOP to get angrier and believing if they talk down on various groups even louder and more forceful that they convert people to their thinking.
Folks, this is not 1950 anymore.
During 1996 debate, Clinton told Bob dole that he had nothing against his age but he thinks GOP ideas are old. America did have a chance to see the proof that those ideas are old and dysfunctional because of 2-term W. Bush presidency. So, over analyzing semantics is counter productive. Strategists, good polling can help but politicians have to close it for themselves which is exactly what Obama did for himself.
"one thing we know about U.S. politics is that it is often a trendsetter for the rest of the world"
Yeah, look, evaluate, do completely opposite. Capital punishment, abortion, gay rights + gun laws.
I hope Zakharia bothered doing his research properly this time... after the debacle over his plagiarising the gun article he wrote.
Well said. Startling.
I wasn't good at statistics, so I hated doing researches and taking on issues like elections in my studies of political science.
Why do you think, Mr. Von Hettlingen, that anyone cares whether you enjoyed any particular college class?
Solution for terrorist factory of the world – Pakistan's problem's Step aside and let them blow up themselves. We are getting targeted only coz we are trying to stop
them.
The world will be a better and safe place without them. Just make sure to seal off the borders, so that the garb doesn't get spilled over.
Hmmmmmmmmm, I swear I read this somewhere else. Must be deja-vous. It certainly wouldn't be plagiarism, would it? CNN is too upstanding to employ two-bit plagiarists–aren't they?
the thing about statistics: they are like bikinis : what they reveal is interesting – what they hide is vital
Out-standing article – valid suppositions – I have a minor-degree in statistics & statistical-research – fascinating subject, to me – blended in perfectly with my major degree = communication arts – (Class of '53, BU).
PhD in political science.... next time spent your time useful and get a degree in something useful.... every idiot can become a politician in this country and you got a PhD in pencil sharpening really????
I have immense respect for you, Fareed, but I don't agree that statistical analysis is actually impacting anything. Behind the curtain, it simply reports the bottom line, what large numbers of people are thinking. I don't see how that actually changes people's minds. Regardless of what statistical analysis the GOP might have employed, Romney was not going to win. The analysis may tell you what is working, but I don't see major changes to voters mindset because of it.
A teabagger's dream vacation is a trip to the Barbed Wire Museum in Kansas.
Zakaria – are you telling us about your PhD in politics because you lost your credibility as a writer, thinker, fortune-teller?
It's becoming increasingly difficult for voters to avoid being manipulated. I think we need a time out on targetted politicking.
I like this article save for the drone analogy, which seems forced to take advantage of the current Iranian issue.
Electioneering has become more of a smart-bomb campaign, not drone warfare. And seeing how well it worked, expect more!
What an idiot... His Sunday show should be scrapped. It's so depressing....
Please return to your cave in Pakistan. You will find tasteful shows and biryanis of your likings
Interesting. Hopefully this will lead to more scientific, evidence based campaigns. Do rallies work? Does kissing babies work? Where is the proof? There is a bunch of stuff that is being done but no one knows if it actually makes a difference.
Nice article! You always have a nice article Fareed... Keep it up!
Why dont you crawl into your rathole in India aka Hindoo-stan
Man, why does Zakaria get paid the big bucks to write about common sense? He needs to go back to Pakistan.
Speaking of statistics, what are the odds that Mr. Zakaria actually wrote this article?
lol, I was wondering about that too. probably pretty good, seeing as he was recently caught:)
The use of modeling and statistics for better targeting should not be a surprise. Businesses have been using the technology to improve sales for 20 years. The surprise is the amount of time it took for political campaigns to catch on.
Math and only math determine outcomes. Sociology has nothing to do with it. Your side gets the turnout then you win. Way too many conservatives stayed home.
Silver's correct predictions are impressive but do not mean that ad money was wasted–there was no significant movement in numbers because both sides were constantly investing in preventing the other side from making that happen. If one side had stopped it's ad campaign, they could have fallen behind significantly. FZ, looks like you did not take the courses on Game Theory and Strategy in your PhD studies.
I suggest you read this book: "The Art of Strategy" (http://www.artofstrategy.net/) and this paper: "Advertising Effects in Presidential Elections (http://www.columbia.edu/~brg2114/files/AdEffects.pdf). Fascinating reads. But coming back to your initial point, hats off to Nate Slver.
Very true. Zakaria should understand more about mass communication for as a journalist than he seems to understand.
How to test another countries air defenses? Send a drone.
nice catch... you think obama sent that thing in to check on iran's response? if thats true, the we should prepare for war
Here is one reason why Statistics can be a powerful tool. Predictability !!! Analysis of Variance indicates that the probablity that an Indian Hindu's brain is attached to his @ss is on the order of 0.9999 !!! Wow ....that explains it al....doesn't it.
nice article. thank you!
Ok – so the stats worked and didn't lie, which is hardly surprising I make a living out of data analysis. What does surprise me is the surprise that the pundits got it wrong. Their role is to believe their side will win, and convince enough people to believe that. And they are paid good money by other self interested groups in the media to push that view strongly. In other words they are paid to create 'spin' – spinning the truth to create a new more palatable truth for their employers which does not really exist. that is the nature of modern political discouse, there is no reality. it is therefor hardly surprising that the more believable discourse won. The interesting thing for as an outsider is the fact that so many don't vote. If these people did vote regularly, I don't think Obama or Romney would even be candidates. The discourse would be more moderate and the weird side of politics would know they were considered weird.
Ps please convince Obama that using drones is not the way to make friends and influence people, if you want to win the war you you need too win the 'hearts and minds' as well.
What happened to Fareed Zakaria's Sunday broadcast? We miss it very much. He is has the most interesting and intelligent news commentary program on TV.
Drones. Coming to your neighborhood.
Mr. Zakaria: One cannot help but wonder, if you plagiarized as a professional, then your moral make up, according to statistics, is such that you must have plagiarized on your way to your Ph. D.
What does everyone think about this?
google "how algorithms shape our world" and watch the video to the end
Nice column for those of us who have to teach that core stats course to unwilling grad students.
Thank you Fareed!
"This suggests that the manipulations and tactics employed by the campaigns over this period have had little impact"
Wrong, the data don't rule out this possibility, but you cannot conclude this from the data. In product advertising, the amount of money spent does not seem to increase sales. However, when advertising revenue is cut, sales drop off and market share goes down. The trick is determining how much advertising is needed to maintain market share. The same could easily be true for politics. Without all the money and campaigning, support might drop. We have no data addressing this possibility.
Obama supporters are doing helluva job of making Obama looking really, really bad in comparision.
Romney & Ryan lost because nothing they said would add up to anything other than Armagedon of the United States of America.
We should all read Isaac Asimov's "Foundation" trilogy. He postulates that Psychohistory, a statistical way of looking at past, present and future history, has evolved to the point where we can predict accurately the large-scale movement of historical events. We may be closer to that than I thought!
Sid
Statistical analysis is really nothing at all like drone warfare. It is simply a poor analogy.
Fareed Zakaria takes small snippets from the Economist and then makes them a full article. Has not learned from his pliagirism charges yet.
Kakaria – in addition to statistics you should have also taken courses in critical thinking and analysis. While net net Obama stayed the same over 4 months despite what the Romney team did was because the Obama team was smarter. Whatever new and damaging crapola the Romney threw, the Obama team countered it. Had the Obama team not done anything, which is what you suggested wasn't necessary, they would have been adversley impacted and lost the election. So step back from your numbers Fareed, and see the big picture.
Drones are so popular in US: I think one of them should run for a President next time!
I think Zaharia is right but misses the larger point. WE – the voters – control things. WE have allowed our process to be reduced to this. WE have shown ourselves to be highly manipulable and not sophisticated consumers of information. WE do not hold politicians accountable for nakedly shameful spin and reversal of previous statements and policies, nor for failure to disclose anything that might commit them. And on and on, ad nauseum. If we did a better job ourselves as an electorate, this cottage industry of market-research driven campaigns would be neither necessary nor particularly helpful for candidates.
Please do not blame yourselves: you do not control things! Both Democrats and Republicans may have different rhetoric but represent the same interests! So nothing really matters!