NYT columnist says some positive things about election forecasting models

Mar 26 '12

Nate Silver writes:

The forecasts made by Robert S. Erikson and Christopher Wlezien, for instance, are done very well and do a good job of accounting for pertinent information without resorting to data-dredging.

Unfortunately, Nate doesn’t get to that until paragraph 55 of a 58-paragraph article. I fear that casual readers will be misled by the tone of the article and miss the important point that thoughtful political scientists do know what they’re doing here. (On the plus side, Nate does start off with a link to my article with Gary, which I think still holds up well after nearly 20 years.)