Are Talking Heads Blowing Hot Air?
An Analysis of the Accuracy of Forecasts in the Political Media


- In this paper, we report on the first-ever test of the accuracy of figures who made political predictions. We sampled the predictions of 26 individuals who wrote columns in major newspapers and/or appeared on the three major Sunday television news shows (Face the Nation, Meet the Press, and This Week) over a 16 month period from September 2007 to December 2008. Collectively, we called these pundits and politicians “prognosticators.” We evaluated each of the 472 predictions we recorded, testing it for its accuracy. Based on an analysis of these predictions, we answer three questions:

- Which prognosticators are most accurate? We found wide disparities in the predictive accuracy of these individuals, and we divided them into “the good, the bad, and the ugly.”

- Which characteristics are associated with predictive accuracy? We examined the effects of age, education, ideology, and other factors on accuracy.

- What is the purpose of media pundits? We discuss whether the ordinary citizen should look to pundits for deeper analysis of events, or whether pundits are simply a more enjoyable way to learn about the events of the day. We also consider alternative viewpoints, including the notion that pundits are useful as representatives of opposing points of view in the country, and the idea that they are simply entertainers.

- According to our regression analysis, liberals are better predictors than conservatives—even when taking out the Presidential and Congressional election questions. Whether this holds true from election season to election season needs further evaluation; liberals may have implicit benefits from Obama winning the 2008 election. Tentatively, however, we can assert that liberals are better predictors than conservatives. Additionally, individuals with law degrees were less accurate than those who did not possess law degrees.

- A final important implications is that we did not discover that certain types of predictions tended to be more or less accurate than others. For example, we did not see that economic predictions were more accurate than healthcare predictions. This suggests that prognosticators on the whole have no unique expertise in any area—even on political predictions, like the Presidential or party primary elections.

Originally Posted By 44Regular:
For what it's worth, they're all in it for the money. Look where the money is coming from and you'll know everything you need to know.

Originally Posted By 44Regular:
For what it's worth, they're all in it for the money. Look where the money is coming from and you'll know everything you need to know.

Originally Posted By 44Regular:
There are exceptions of course, but most of the pundits make a good living off their ability to persuade people to buy their book or whatever it is they're selling. Some profit from promoting a particular candidate or some special interest legislation. I agree that some (a few) really believe in what they believe and just want to spread "the truth".

Originally Posted By theinvisibleheart:


yes and no.

For some, it's a matter of ego.

For others, it's an issue of past investment.

If you've held a particular POV all your life and/or very long time, you are heavily vested into it and you stand to lose more than you gain if you were to let truth change your POV, LOL.

Once I remember exchanging notes with a very well known economics/law professor who was also a very well known political pundit/radio talk show commentator/guest/writer for conservative side.

Even when evidences overwhelmingly went against his original claim(corporate free market always work), he kept on supporting his original contention.

Originally Posted By 19suburban96:
Sort of like caring what people think on an internet forum

Originally Posted By theinvisibleheart:


No. Data shows that web behavior differs from real public behavior due to anonymity factor.

Originally Posted By Kihn:


You may be the prime example of your own position.

Originally Posted By rob78:
I avoid radio and TV pundits. The hyperbole is simply too great to sift through.

I read a rather large cross-section of newsprint online and cull objective information.

I find that I don't need a talking head to tell me how to think...liberal or conservative.

Originally Posted By theinvisibleheart:
unless I'm mistaken, I believe selective filtering out of info/POV contrary to what you hold will take place.

Best way is to be aware that one is fallible, likely to hold wrong POV/info, and balance out POV/info.

E.g., if you are ultra conservative, seek out ultra liberal POV and vice versa.

Originally Posted By rob78:


see part in bold.

Objective information is objective.


I don't need a pundit to tell me what to think. As far as I'm concerned, they all should be stripped and tossed into a dirt ring and allowed to fight to the death. This, of course, after DC politicians have had their turn.

Originally Posted By theinvisibleheart:
not really.

Politicians reflect the desire of 2 parties: voting block and folks who give them money. If you are politician who gets elected by a liberal group and receives fund from liberal special interest, you tend to reflect their wish.

If you are politician who receive votes from conservative group and gets fund them, you tend to be conservative.

You can easily see this in Mitt Romney(liberal at state level and turning conservative at national level) and Reagan(pro-abortion at state level and pro-life at national level).

Democrat from conservative state is pro-gun but at national level, they tend to be anti-gun due to funding/weight of anti-gun coalition at national level.

Republican from liberal state is anti-gun but at national level, become pro-gun.

Most folks, including doctors, scientists, most common folks, would probably exhibit the same weaknesses.

Human perception is not unbiased BTW. E.g., we tend to overweight recent event and extrapolate our personal experience TOO MUCH, giving more weight to it than it should.

A more balanced system is if one is pro-something, look at anti-side.

If one is anti-market, look at free market side.

One of the worst thing one can do is when one filters out information based on labeling. That info is from pagan, Christian, Moslem, gay, straight, white, not white, Austrian school, neoclassical school, etc. so it's worthless and too biased.