Beware the "Probabilities"

This must be quick -- we need to be cautious as a midnight cat when it comes to win "probabilities" in the fall election, as announced by news media organizations.  Sam Wang of Princeton Election Consortium is the best in this regard because he takes the time to explain what a probability means.

For those who take the time any probability is a snapshot based on current polling.  There is, at the same time, an argument to be made that past polling is a somewhat good predictor of future outcomes.  What I object to is turning someone's probability number into mathematical certainty.  Here is where Wang is good.  He makes clear that  probabilities are based on past and current polling only (in his model).

Others such as the late professor Neil Postman wrote a great deal about the numerical approach to life, and the dangers of such an approach.  And, rather than be awed by numbers, we should be skeptical -- at the least -- of turning politics into something one can put on an abacus.

Yet the drive to just know what is going to happen is strong, and understandably so with so much at stake.  The Princeton Election Consortium is still showing a "70%" chance of the Democrats holding the Senate in November.  I urge involvement on the part of all who care about the economic and health rights of all Americans, to get busy -- give money, volunteer, whatever is possible.

Then, let's continue the struggle for fair elections, and a fair economic system for all.