The Secret Sauce Behind a Parody Pundit’s Predictive Powers

"This is my life. This is who I am. I am Carl Allison Diggler, and I called it again."

If everything this election cycle is parody–and some days it does feel as if sweeping generalizations like that are entirely accurate–then some parody might, at its core, be truth.

Of course, to be effective, parody should be rooted in truth, but we’re talking about parody with preternatural oracle-like abilities.

Here is Carl Allison Diggler, a pundit that is the creation of two Cafe.com writers, Felix Biederman and Virgil Texas, describing his impressive showing in the predictions horse race over the Super Tuesday elections horse race:

I called the winners of 20 out of 22 Super Tuesday contests (pending the GOP result in Alaska) and literally got every result right on the Democratic side — better than any of my colleagues, be they Bloomberg quants, clean-cut Politico analysts, or the face of dishonesty and cowardice, 538’s Nate Silver. While others were too afraid to call exotic locales like American Samoa and Minnesota, I bit down and dove into danger. None of you could last one minute in my world. You don’t have the courage, gut, or charisma. I have called winners of the week since the time of McGovern. I called the surge of John Anderson when I was but a boy. This is my life. This is who I am. I am Carl Allison Diggler, and I called it again.

Brendan James, writing in IBTimes, takes a look at how Diggler has managed to both skewer the practice of punditry and be more accurate than those he (it?) mocks:

“Nate Silver, he used a math model, and that just doesn’t work, because this is an ahistorical election,” [Biederman] said, pointing out the baffling performance of Trump, not to mention Sanders’ surprising success taking on Clinton from the left.

So what’s Biederman and Texas’ secret sauce? “What we go by is like, personal hate of a candidate, the broad prejudices of their voters, anecdotal experience, and sexual pathology.”

“Dig’s gut is way better than Bloomberg or Politico because we’re not afraid to be wildly offensive,” he added.

The lesson is, if you’re still trying to apply data and logic to 2016, you’re losing the game.