adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Politics

Did Donald Trump destroy political prognostication forever? – CNN

Published

 on


These questions seemed particularly relevant in our current moment, as virtually every political pundit is in the business of making predictions about who will win the presidency on November 3. Some of these predictions are based purely on the numbers — figures are placed into a model and a result is spit out — while others are based on a blend of numbers and, for lack of a better word, gut instinct.
So, who’s right? Or is there even a right in all of this?
I asked those questions — and a few more — of Christopher Beha, the author of “The Index of Self-Destructive Acts” and also the editor of Harper’s magazine. Our conversation, conducted via email and lightly edited for flow, is below.
CIllizza: The novel’s main character — Sam Waxworth — is a numbers guy who made his name by predicting every state right in the 2008 election. The obvious comparison is Nate Silver. Was Nate (or anyone else) in your mind when writing the character of Sam?
Beha: I started thinking about this book in the early years of Obama’s first term, more or less in the same period when the book itself is set. Most traditional pundits thought the 2008 election would be a nail-biter, but a few data-driven outsider types (Nate Silver most prominent among them) predicted a near-landslide for Obama, which is what happened.
If Obama himself appeared to represent something entirely new — not just because of his race, but because he was the first post-Boomer president, seemingly untouched by the Boomer-era culture wars that Bill Clinton and George W. Bush in different ways represented; because he seemed pragmatic, technocratic, non-ideological; because he had not “waited his turn” and seemed less beholden to the traditional political power structures — these “data journalists” were the media equivalent of this newness. They quickly established themselves in the mainstream, despite predictable grumbling from the old guard. I found this generational tension interesting, and it was one of the elements that led me to create a character (very loosely) based on Silver. I was also interested in the limits of the kind of quantitative thinking that this new guard represented.
Here it’s worth mentioning in fairness to Silver — whom I don’t know at all — that he is generally very thoughtful about the way he uses data, and that he actually talks quite a bit about the limits of quantification. But there are many people in the “quant” camp who do not share this humility, and more extreme characters are naturally more interesting for a novelist.
So I would say that I borrowed some broad facts from Silver’s biography — Waxworth is from the Midwest; he went from baseball modeling to political modeling; he rose to fame after correctly predicting the outcome of the 2008 election — but that I borrowed Waxworth’s mindset from some of Silver’s less thoughtful brethren (whom I won’t name here).
Cillizza: A novel at least partly about electoral predictions, polls and modeling — and their limits. How much was this book influenced by 2016? And what does it say about 2020 — whether intentionally or not?
Beha: As I said, I started thinking about the book shortly after the data journalists rose to fame in 2008. I began actually writing it soon after the 2012 election, another win for the quant crowd. I was most of the way through it by 2016, when all of the prognosticators fell flat on their faces. All of a sudden, the world of the book seemed very far away, and the novel became almost a work of historical fiction. I tried not to let the post-2016 viewpoint seep into my Obama-era setting, but the fact of Trump’s election certainly changed some things.
We talk a lot about all the ways in which Trump represents something completely new and unprecedented, but he also represents a throwback to the pre-Obama era. He is of the same generation as Clinton and Bush, and he has stoked the culture war flames that were a signature feature of those earlier presidencies. We are all acutely aware of how naïve the “post-racial” dream of Obama’s election really was, but one could say the same about the dream of a post-ideological — technocratic, data-driven, pragmatic — America that Obama’s election also seemed to promise.
Trump destroyed whatever was left of that dream, and so it’s sadly appropriate that his victory also destroyed the credibility of many data-driven journalists who rose to prominence during the Obama years. After 2016, the book became, in part, about a moment when a particular dream of a rationally ordered society seemed within reach and about why that moment was bound to disappoint. I’m not sure what any of this has to tell us about 2020, except that even if Trump loses it won’t do away with the psychological undercurrents — particularly, our strange desire for chaos and disorder — that helped make Trump possible.

.duval-3width:100%;position: relative; border: 1px solid #979797; border-left: none; border-right: none;padding: 20px 0; box-sizing: border-box; -webkit-box-sizing: border-box; -moz-box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0 0 20px 0; max-width: 660px;
.duval-3 acolor: #1a1a1a; text-decoration: none;font-size: 0;
.duval-3 a:hover
color: #d9d9d9;
text-decoration: underline;
-moz-text-decoration-color: #d9d9d9;
text-decoration-color: #d9d9d9;

.duval-3>a>*vertical-align: top; display: inline-block;
.duval-3>a>divdisplay: inline-block; font-size:1.0666667rem;width: 80%; padding-top: 0px; padding-left: 2%;
.duval-3>a>imgwidth: 18%; height: auto;
@media screen and (max-width:640px)
.duval-3>a>*display:block; margin: auto;
.duval-3>a>divwidth: 100%;
.duval-3>a>imgwidth: 50%;

Cillizza: The book feels like a running argument between what can be empirically known (in politics, baseball, life) and what, well, can’t. And which matters more. Where do you think media coverage of this election falls on that continuum?
Beha: On the most fundamental level, the future by definition can’t be empirically known, because it doesn’t yet exist. (These days we are more aware of this than ever: if you’d asked a thousand pundits and futurists in August 2019 what August 2020 would look like, not a single one would have said we’d be coming off a double-digit drop in GDP and that we’d all be wearing masks.) In that sense, the results of an election that hasn’t happened yet is by definition unknowable. It’s natural for us to want to know the results now, since the outcome is important to us. And it’s natural for the media to cover certain events by putting them in relation to this unknowable future, particularly now that the election is actually quite soon. Something like Biden’s VP pick can only really be understood in terms of how it relates to his election chances — how it relates to those chances is what the pick is “about.”
But it is not only when the election is a few months away that the media puts things in this context. I remember reading something in early 2017, soon after Trump’s inauguration, about how the polling on some decision of his affected the Republicans’ midterm chances. There seemed to me only two possible answers to that question — either “it doesn’t” or “we can’t possibly know.” In any case, the impulse to pose the question in the first place struck me as pathological. All these outlets had just completely whiffed on 2016, and yet they could not break themselves of the habit of talking in pseudo-empirical terms about completely unknowable things.
Cillizza: You’ve created a Twitter look-alike in the book: Teeser. Why — and what role (positive, negative, neutral, something else) does social media (and Twitter in particular) play in both the book and our modern politics? [Beha himself is not on Twitter].
Beha: There are various ways in which the world of the book is just slightly askew from the real world. For example, the major New York newspaper where one character works is the Herald, rather than the Times. These things allow me to place fictional characters within otherwise non-fictional contexts. The creation of Teeser serves a similar role. Twitter was not quite ubiquitous in 2009, and I did not want to be held to the standards of documentary truth for what is, after all, a novel.
As far as your second question, I’m on the side of those who think that social media’s influence on politics, journalism, culture, society, and just about everything else has been almost completely pernicious. There are some exceptions, but the net accounting has to be negative. Donald Trump is paradigmatic public figure of the social-media era. I think that about sums the situation up.
Cillizza: Finish this sentence: “If Sam Waxworth was handicapping the 2020 election, he would give Biden a _______% chance of winning.” Now, explain.
Beha: Oh, I don’t know, let’s say 73.2.
It’s worth noting here that even this way of putting it — not “I predict that Joe Biden will win,” but “I calculate that Joe Biden has a 73.2% chance of winning ” — has been bequeathed to us by the data journalists, who have taught us that predictions have to be probabilistic rather than deterministic.
In some ways, this is an obvious improvement over the alternative, since it acknowledges the fact that we can’t really know today what will happen four months from how. But it also introduces the false sense of precision that comes from numbers. If I say, “Joe Biden is going to win” or even “Joe Biden is probably going to win,” it’s obvious that I’m just making a more or less educated guess. If I say, “there’s a 73.2% chance that Biden will win” this suddenly seems much more empirical, but at the end of the day, it’s still just my best guess. And the nice thing about probabilistic predictions, from the pundits’ standpoint, is that you’re never wrong — either outcome is given some chance.
One of the things that the data journalists promised to add to the punditry mix was some sense of accountability. That sort of went out the window after 2016.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Politics

Political parties cool to idea of new federal regulations for nomination contests

Published

 on

 

OTTAWA – Several federal political parties are expressing reservations about the prospect of fresh regulations to prevent foreign meddlers from tainting their candidate nomination processes.

Elections Canada has suggested possible changes to safeguard nominations, including barring non-citizens from helping choose candidates, requiring parties to publish contest rules and explicitly outlawing behaviour such as voting more than once.

However, representatives of the Bloc Québécois, Green Party and NDP have told a federal commission of inquiry into foreign interference that such changes may be unwelcome, difficult to implement or counterproductive.

The Canada Elections Act currently provides for limited regulation of federal nomination races and contestants.

For instance, only contestants who accept $1,000 in contributions or incur $1,000 in expenses have to file a financial return. In addition, the act does not include specific obligations concerning candidacy, voting, counting or results reporting other than the identity of the successful nominee.

A report released in June by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians expressed concern about how easily foreign actors can take advantage of loopholes and vulnerabilities to support preferred candidates.

Lucy Watson, national director of the NDP, told the inquiry Thursday she had concerns about the way in which new legislation would interact with the internal decision-making of the party.

“We are very proud of the fact that our members play such a significant role in shaping the internal policies and procedures and infrastructure of the party, and I would not want to see that lost,” she said.

“There are guidelines, there are best practices that we would welcome, but if we were to talk about legal requirements and legislation, that’s something I would have to take away and put further thought into, and have discussions with folks who are integral to the party’s governance.”

In an August interview with the commission of inquiry, Bloc Québécois executive director Mathieu Desquilbet said the party would be opposed to any external body monitoring nomination and leadership contest rules.

A summary tabled Thursday says Desquilbet expressed doubts about the appropriateness of requiring nomination candidates to file a full financial report with Elections Canada, saying the agency’s existing regulatory framework and the Bloc’s internal rules on the matter are sufficient.

Green Party representatives Jon Irwin and Robin Marty told the inquiry in an August interview it would not be realistic for an external body, like Elections Canada, to administer nomination or leadership contests as the resources required would exceed the federal agency’s capacity.

A summary of the interview says Irwin and Marty “also did not believe that rules violations could effectively be investigated by an external body like the Office of the Commissioner of Canada Elections.”

“The types of complaints that get raised during nomination contests can be highly personal, politically driven, and could overwhelm an external body.”

Marty, national campaign director for the party, told the inquiry Thursday that more reporting requirements would also place an administrative burden on volunteers and riding workers.

In addition, he said that disclosing the vote tally of a nomination contest could actually help foreign meddlers by flagging the precise number of ballots needed for a candidate to be chosen.

Irwin, interim executive director of the Greens, said the ideal tactic for a foreign country would be working to get someone in a “position of power” within a Canadian political party.

He said “the bad guys are always a step ahead” when it comes to meddling in the Canadian political process.

In May, David Vigneault, director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service at the time, said it was very clear from the design of popular social media app TikTok that data gleaned from its users is available to the Chinese government.

A December 2022 CSIS memo tabled at the inquiry Thursday said TikTok “has the potential to be exploited” by Beijing to “bolster its influence and power overseas, including in Canada.”

Asked about the app, Marty told the inquiry the Greens would benefit from more “direction and guidance,” given the party’s lack of resources to address such things.

Representatives of the Liberal and Conservative parties are slated to appear at the inquiry Friday, while chief electoral officer Stéphane Perrault is to testify at a later date.

After her party representatives appeared Thursday, Green Leader Elizabeth May told reporters it was important for all party leaders to work together to come up with acceptable rules.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 19, 2024.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

New Brunswick election candidate profile: Green Party Leader David Coon

Published

 on

 

FREDERICTON – A look at David Coon, leader of the Green Party of New Brunswick:

Born: Oct. 28, 1956.

Early years: Born in Toronto and raised in Montreal, he spent about three decades as an environmental advocate.

Education: A trained biologist, he graduated with a bachelor of science from McGill University in Montreal in 1978.

Family: He and his wife Janice Harvey have two daughters, Caroline and Laura.

Before politics: Worked as an environmental educator, organizer, activist and manager for 33 years, mainly with the Conservation Council of New Brunswick.

Politics: Joined the Green Party of Canada in May 2006 and was elected leader of the New Brunswick Green Party in September 2012. Won a seat in the legislature in 2014 — a first for the province’s Greens.

Quote: “It was despicable. He’s clearly decided to take the low road in this campaign, to adopt some Trump-lite fearmongering.” — David Coon on Sept. 12, 2024, reacting to Blaine Higgs’s claim that the federal government had decided to send 4,600 asylum seekers to New Brunswick.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 19, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

New Brunswick election profile: Progressive Conservative Leader Blaine Higgs

Published

 on

 

FREDERICTON – A look at Blaine Higgs, leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of New Brunswick.

Born: March 1, 1954.

Early years: The son of a customs officer, he grew up in Forest City, N.B., near the Canada-U.S. border.

Education: Graduated from the University of New Brunswick with a degree in mechanical engineering in 1977.

Family: Married his high-school sweetheart, Marcia, and settled in Saint John, N.B., where they had four daughters: Lindsey, Laura, Sarah and Rachel.

Before politics: Hired by Irving Oil a week after he graduated from university and was eventually promoted to director of distribution. Worked for 33 years at the company.

Politics: Elected to the legislature in 2010 and later served as finance minister under former Progressive Conservative Premier David Alward. Elected Tory leader in 2016 and has been premier since 2018.

Quote: “I’ve always felt parents should play the main role in raising children. No one is denying gender diversity is real. But we need to figure out how to manage it.” — Blaine Higgs in a year-end interview in 2023, explaining changes to school policies about gender identity.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 19, 2024.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending