Understanding the US 2012 Presidential Election Result: How Models Triumphed over Big Data

by quantellia 17. November 2012 16:04

Today, opinions of what happened in the 2012 presidential election are beginning to settle.  Since history is often written from the perspective of the winners, many commentators have attributed the American right’s pre-election false confidence to a sort of blindness or group-think.  But there’s another truth.  Given what was known ahead of the election, the prediction that Romney would win was more defensible than the prediction that Obama would be re-elected.
The video above shows why.
The reason is simple. Take a look at this graph, reflecting data published by the social science data analysis network (SSDAN).
As you can see, the percent of African Americans who voted in 2008 is a clear departure from the historical trend.  It’s reasonable to assume that Republicans concluded that the pattern would revert to historical levels, which given the overwhelming amount of data going back over 30 years, is a completely rational, “big data” conclusion.  (Read Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman’s “Thinking Fast and Slow” for a clear and deep analysis of this phenomenon, which is called Regression to the Mean).
An alternative explanation, of course, is that in 2008, something exceptional happened. And that pattern continued into 2012.  Predicting the future requires an additional ingredient, beyond simply projecting historical trends:
The Future = Historical Trends + Unique events and decisions happening today
Nassim Taleb defines a “black swan” as an event that is 1) a surprise, that has 2) a big effect, and that 3) history rationalizes with hindsight:  “of course the right was ignoring the obvious”.  The reason Black Swans happen: ignoring the second half of the above equation.    Taleb describes dozens of historical events like this one, where misunderstanding exceptions to historical rules has led to disaster. 
Simply put, the future is not always like the past.  It is essential to know when it is, and isn’t.
Obama’s win qualifies on all three Black Swan criteria.  Since such a high percentage of blacks voted for Obama, this miscalculation can be seen as having misled many Republicans to believe in Romney’s guaranteed election, and perhaps even to have caused the loss through leading to an inappropriately small focus on the needs of blacks and other minorities. What’s missing is the ability to clearly analyze the right-hand side of the equation: how do we know when something new is unique enough that it changes the course of history? 
It is clear that the Democrats were masters of this “secret sauce”.  They built an on-the-ground voter turnout operation to bump the curve upward from its expected value in exactly the places that would affect the Electoral College result.  By being able to focus their resources on exactly where they would contribute most towards achieving victory, the Democrats effectively out-modeled the Republicans. 
Before the book is closed on this election, all who chronicle its history should ensure that the modelers on both sides are appropriately acknowledged.  Because from now on, close elections will be won by campaigns who base their strategic decisions on models that are better than those of their competitors.

Want to know more about how great models can drive value for your organization? Drop me a line at lorien.pratt@quantellia.com and/or visit http://www.quantellia.com to learn more.

 

Tags:

General | Politics

Pingbacks and trackbacks (1)+

Add comment

  Country flag

biuquote
  • Comment
  • Preview
Loading

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are my own personal opinions and do not represent my employer's view in anyway.

© Copyright 2019 The World Modeler Blog