I've done sports radio fairly regularly over the past several years, and a small handful of television appearances on regional cable. But this CNN gig was a different thing entirely. One thing I didn't fully appreciate is how labor-intensive all of this is. Morning shows are intended to give the appearance of spontaneity -- and to some extent, because of the fast, almost caffeinated pace, they are. But there is also an enormous amount of due diligence involved. Between the anchors and the guest and especially the producers, there are probably 100 minutes of preparation for every minute of live television that you see.
75 comments
Hi Nate, great job today on CNN! Quick question for ya'...
The CNN map had Colorado and New Mexico red, and in your discussion you mentioned that Iowa and New Hampshire were the most likely states to flip sides.
Did you not mention Colorado and New Mexico due to time constraints on the segment, or are you not all that confident that they will flip to the Democrats?
Hmm... the cnn folks gave you lip service but didn't really seem to respect the work - for some reason they came off flippant about it and seemed to cut you off a couple of times. Too bad for them! You did a great job!
Nice Nate. Funny how they kinda pushed you for a solid numerical sound bite.
Did they ask you to narrow it down to five states in the interest of time, or did you just think that was the easiest thing to talk about (instead of, say, Obama's chances in the Southwest or along the eastern seaboard)?
Fine debut. I was surprised by your emphasis on states in the NE quadrant of the country. Colorado and New Mexico combine for twice the EV as Iowa, and appear almost as likely to flip. You're also showing Nevada split 50/50 as of this morning. Next time you're on, I'd love to see you discuss where the map might expand, particularly in the Mountain West and South Atlantic Coast.
nate do they pay you for these kinds of appearances?
Hey Nate,
Why didn't you all discuss the big ass John McCain ad on the site and how great John McCain is.
Well now that you got on TV maybe you will at least get laid.
I agree - the anchors came off as aloof - but I think they were just worried you'd begin a discussion that they wouldn't be able to keep up with. I love how the female jumped in "key voting block??" as it to say - "see i understand!"
About time someone put you on the teevee to begin sharing your great work. Way to go Nate!
I agree with Anon above, in that that show was the antithesis of what you really do. Nice job though, you didn't let them back you down to a talking point.
I also like that your title was "Baseball Stat Master" You should put that on the back of the next BP book.
I agree that you did great, Nate. Too bad the CNN folks didn't really understand the concept of a statistical projection (no surprise there). The whole point of it is that you're not saying how each state will come out; rather, given the likelihood of each state coming out a certain way, what the expected electoral outcome is.
I got really annoyed the way they kept pressuring you to say how each state (particularly the statistical dead heat states Michigan and Ohio) would come out. A nonsensical question under your analysis. You handled their questions great, though, when you reframed the issue back to your projection for the overall electoral college vote (as of today).
$10 says anon at 9:57 AM is loser Dick Bennett from ARG. Any takers?
It was also strange that they used essentially the Bush-Kerry map rather than your map...or even CNN's own map of the current battleground states. CNN's map (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/10/electoral.map/index.html) shows NM as lean-R (which is a whole different discussion), but at least shows Colorado as a battleground. Odd that they decided to make it red, rather than blue as you (rather solidly) project, but made Michigan blue despite the fact that it is a statistical dead heat.
I guess this is what happens when you devote 30 seconds to something that requires substantially more time to explain.
Aren't you the cutie ? Woof
why is everyone so concerned about the mccain ad? nate's an obama supporter and can donate the proceeds to obama, or keep them for himself. who the fuck cares? if you're so fucking morally opposed - go somewhere else.
They really fundamentally misunderstood (or misrepresented) the nature of your site and your analysis. They sort of turned you into another political pundit, rather than making clear that you were doing a statistical analysis of demographics, polls, and other factors. That's what's gotten you all the buzz on the Intertubes and it's what makes your site so great. It must be incredibly hard to get your message across on these shows, but next time you're on you should try to get a few sound bites in just saying exactly how your analysis works. Still, I can't imagine doing better my first time on one of these shows, and I'd probably do a whole lot worse.
What's funny is that if they'd had you on to talk about baseball, I bet they'd have been much more eager to talk statistics. But the media a) still isn't used to that approach to politics, in the way they are to baseball; and b) have a bit of an interest in protecting the idea that there are some "pundits" who can better discuss and predict what will happen in elections than anyone else. That's an uphill fight for you, but one that's really worth fighting when you have the chance. Your site suggests that, frankly, we don't need pundits. It's like you're the index fund and they're the managed mutual fund. But keep pushing: eventually people will get it.
Jeff-
Not to mention the fact that the readership of 538 is not going to be at all swayed by a John McCain ad, let alone go to his website and donate $$$.
Why did you pimp Ohio as the end all/Be all of the campaign? It's clearly obvious at this point that Obama has a better shot at Virginia/Colorado combo than Ohio and with Virginia/Colorado/Iowa, without New Hampshire, Obama gets 270...
Honestly, I'm disappointed. I think the producers got to you and pushed you in the direction of pimping Ohio... anyone inside the Obama campaign will tell you Ohio is priority, but not THE PRIORITY that you make it out to be... however CNN would love to keep it the way it is, and the producers no doubt infected your brilliance in the prep time.
I'm concerned you're spreading yourself thin Nate... Rasmussen, CNN Punditing, TNR... If you're going to build a Media Presences, at least please stay true to the facts of the Map. Read your own site before you select 5 states to focus on...
Z,
What I'd like to know is how much this site's traffic has increased due to the CNN appearance (the more eyebals that go into this website, the more Nate's way of looking at things will catch on - plus, Baseball Prospectus will get some residual traffic).
JRVJ
The hosts seemed rather outclassed by you, and the format seemed to end up diminishing what you do. They really should give you a 30 minute special and creative control and access to the graphics department to really delve into what you do and present the breaking open of the electoral map.
I bet the Obama campaign would fund something like that if the media rejects the idea ;)
Good job with what you had to work with though!
kubla000: How is Virginia (13 EV) projected as a 36% shot for Obama more of a battleground state than Ohio (20 EV) projected as a 50% shot for Obama.
That's a difference in expected value of +5.32 electoral votes in favor of Ohio.
Yes it's ironic that the very media whose simple-minded horserace predictological mentality you are critiquing puts you on in order to get your predictions but not really your projections or analysis. But you handled the situation very well, IMHO. Congratulations!
I hope this will lead to more electronic media exposure where you can show how you actually approach this subject, including, as has been pointed out, the importance of Obama's broadening the electoral playing field.
Nice job Nate, glad to see you succeeding. A cable news interview isn't really the right medium to showcase your work though.