Saturday, October 27, 2012

Is Paul Krugman a Better Political Forecaster than Economic Forecaster?

Probably. He writes:
For a few days there the Romney campaign was boasting a lot about having Big Mo — and the press corps actually fell for it, briefly. At this point, however, the reality seems to be sinking in: if Romney has Big Mo, it looks like this:
Despite the Denver Debacle and its aftermath, state polls are showing a clear Obama lead in the electoral college, which if anything is getting a bit stronger. The polls could be systematically wrong — although the most likely sources of systematic error are undercounting of cell-phone-onlys and Latinos, both of which would suggest that Obama’s position is stronger, not weaker, than the polls say. Or there could be a game-changing event, even in these waning days. But the odds are strongly in Obama’s favor — three to one, says Nate Silver, even better than that, says Sam Wang.


  1. This is why politics is pure BS. It's one guy telling everyone else something that is completely unprovable, and another guy telling them the opposite that is completely unprovable. The rest of us have to sit here and listen to them plot plan and secure their own future by stealing it from the rest of us. They justify the whole situation by having stolen the funds to build themselves an Army of the past 100+ years.

  2. Krugman is right. It is all part of the farce we call democracy. Obama will win, over the next week plus we will see the polls "showing" the majority of undecided voters choosing Obama.