I think you have a fourth product too - you are really good at explaining modeling issues. That need not be limited to election models! (I teach a masters level quantitative methods class and I used lots of examples from the newsletter and encouraged my students to read/subscribe). There are loads of models being (mid)used out there in public policy - it would be great to have you talk to people in those areas and discuss the pros and cons of the models. You could start with the excellent Roger Pielke Jr, who has a great substack on climate issues and sports. I’d love to read a transcript of you two talking modeling!
I don’t care about sports. Is there a way to opt out of your sports newsletters? I love when you analyze anything else, especially politics. But no sports, thanks. 💜
Why would you care about having an "opt out" plan?
Why not just quickly delete any notification you reccieve about sports?
f your concern is getting a lower price, personally I believe the annual subscription fee is pretty inexpensive for what you get. I say that even though in my past posts I've criticized Nate for what I believe to be a pro-Democratic bias in his writing.
Or just cancel your subscription and re-new it when it becomes a political season again.
Fnally, Nate's Substack is only a two-person operation. Wouldn't you rather have Nate spending his time thinking and writing rather than figuring out how to manage his subscription list every day, or, pay for software to do it for him?
If he starts to go heavy on sports, I’ll cancel. Always subscribe by the month as opposed to the year as there are no refunds if you cancel in the middle of a year.
I suppose you could go annual (cheaper) if you’re positive it’s worth it.
"Bird by Bird" Some Instructions on Writing and Life", by Ann Lamont, September 1995
Yes, this book is nearly 30 Years old. It is STILL CONSIDERED A "BIBLE" BY ANYONE WHO WANTS TO WRITE. Ann Lamont is an amzaing writer herself and has published a large number of highly-successful books, mostly novels. And, wait until you get to an early chapter where she reveals the source of the Title.
Nope. Anne Lamont is correct. I keep her book handy and heard her speak this past summer at the Sun Valley Writers Conference. But I did make one mistake. Her first name is "Anne", not "Ann" as I wrote earlier.
I don’t care about being right; I just wanted her name to be where someone could find her book since you spoke so highly of her. I also like “Help Thanks Wow.”
If you like that kind of stuff, this little book, written about 20 years ago, is amazing. "Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation" Why can a book about punctuation be so amazing? It is hysterical, ahort and has wonderful lessons on appropriate punctuation.
Consider the title. Think about the difference between:
"Eats, shoots and leaves" and "Eats shoots and leaves".
This is a cool article and seems like a lot of good advice. I like that you're not afraid to mix things up a little bit if you think you have something useful to say about a different topic.
Highlight of this post is "Misleading headlines may even produce unsubscribes instead." I believe it's the number one reason why traditional media has faltered (i.e., sensational headlines backed up more with opinions than solid sources), and a the primary reason why online/social media users must use caution (i.e., click bait). Personally, I am quick to unsubscribe after receiving even one article/post with what I consider a click bait headline.
I also shared this post with my two kids — one in college and one in the process of applying. Both enjoy writing in a way I never have. In 6th grade, my daughter blew my mind, explaining to her little brother that writing was just thinking on paper. You’re a good antidote to their risk-adverse up-bringing.
Anticipation of pieces like this is why after two months of monthly subscriptions I switched to an annual one (the discount helped, too). Congratulations, and keep it up as best you and Eli can.
Nate is unfortunately quite wrong on his take on Bluesky. Both EFD and Ben Ryan have rapidly built up followings in recent days. They are both grifters.
You've totally missed the point, Nate. Your subscribers are not here for advice as to how to start blogging. They are here - or should I say WERE here - to get leading polling information for the election. They did not get it. You let yourself down and showed us that you are just another arm of the propaganda media. You have been roundly rejected and I predict your substack will be gone by Easter at the latest.
You have no deep knowledge that enables you to speak for anyone but yourself, and your insight on even that may be somewhat limited.
When people like Nate do speaking engagements that include questions from the audience, there are always people who ask something like "I love your work and am trying to get into the field. Do you have any advice?"
This article strikes me as exactly how Nate would answer a process question if he didn't have a 2 minute limit in his book tour Q&A sessions.
Dan, see my comment elsewhere, which asks: What is the value proposition of investing our time and (admitedly small amount of) money when we read Nate's (and other aggregators and pollsters') stuff? What do we get back? Is it worth it?
In the recent election cycle, I chided Nate many times because I believe his comments and analyses were focused on being an unpaid advisor to the DNC and Harris campaign. He focused many times on using his model to focus on the issues he saw in the model that would help Harris win.
I infer (maybe incorrectly) from your writing that you hold some animosity toward Nate, his model and Silver Bulletin. I agree with you that Nate's work and writing was just another arm of the DNC and legacy media. But, I read it anyway, because I thought it was interesting, even though totally biased.
I have no personal animosity toward anyone. Nate puts a product out there that he believes has a place in the market. My pure guess is that his subscription base will fall similarly to the post-election ratings crater at MSNBC, CNN and other related media.
If we aren't paying for sophisticated predictions, what is it we ARE paying for?
I think you have a fourth product too - you are really good at explaining modeling issues. That need not be limited to election models! (I teach a masters level quantitative methods class and I used lots of examples from the newsletter and encouraged my students to read/subscribe). There are loads of models being (mid)used out there in public policy - it would be great to have you talk to people in those areas and discuss the pros and cons of the models. You could start with the excellent Roger Pielke Jr, who has a great substack on climate issues and sports. I’d love to read a transcript of you two talking modeling!
I don’t care about sports. Is there a way to opt out of your sports newsletters? I love when you analyze anything else, especially politics. But no sports, thanks. 💜
To my knowledge...
There is no "opt out plan" for sports.
Why would you care about having an "opt out" plan?
Why not just quickly delete any notification you reccieve about sports?
f your concern is getting a lower price, personally I believe the annual subscription fee is pretty inexpensive for what you get. I say that even though in my past posts I've criticized Nate for what I believe to be a pro-Democratic bias in his writing.
Or just cancel your subscription and re-new it when it becomes a political season again.
Fnally, Nate's Substack is only a two-person operation. Wouldn't you rather have Nate spending his time thinking and writing rather than figuring out how to manage his subscription list every day, or, pay for software to do it for him?
If he starts to go heavy on sports, I’ll cancel. Always subscribe by the month as opposed to the year as there are no refunds if you cancel in the middle of a year.
I suppose you could go annual (cheaper) if you’re positive it’s worth it.
"Bird by Bird" Some Instructions on Writing and Life", by Ann Lamont, September 1995
Yes, this book is nearly 30 Years old. It is STILL CONSIDERED A "BIBLE" BY ANYONE WHO WANTS TO WRITE. Ann Lamont is an amzaing writer herself and has published a large number of highly-successful books, mostly novels. And, wait until you get to an early chapter where she reveals the source of the Title.
I’m pretty sure she’s Anne Lamott. Ha! My autocorrect tried to make it Lamont, so maybe that’s what yours did!
Nope. Anne Lamont is correct. I keep her book handy and heard her speak this past summer at the Sun Valley Writers Conference. But I did make one mistake. Her first name is "Anne", not "Ann" as I wrote earlier.
Also here’s the cover:
https://www.google.com/search?q=bird+by+bird+anne+lamott&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari#ebo=0
Anne Lamott is correct. Look at Wikipedia article under nonfiction; it has the book you mentioned.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Lamott
YOU ARE SO RIGHT AND I AM SO WRONG!
Even though I've read the book twice, I've had the spelling of her name wrong for a very long time!
Thanks for the correction.
I think Bird by Bird by Anne Lamontt is just as good as Bird by Bird by Anne Lamott!
I don’t care about being right; I just wanted her name to be where someone could find her book since you spoke so highly of her. I also like “Help Thanks Wow.”
If you like that kind of stuff, this little book, written about 20 years ago, is amazing. "Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation" Why can a book about punctuation be so amazing? It is hysterical, ahort and has wonderful lessons on appropriate punctuation.
Consider the title. Think about the difference between:
"Eats, shoots and leaves" and "Eats shoots and leaves".
This post illustrates one of the things I like best about Nate Silver - his deep-seated practicality.
This was a kind thing to do. Thank you.
The first should be, be right. 😉
This is a cool article and seems like a lot of good advice. I like that you're not afraid to mix things up a little bit if you think you have something useful to say about a different topic.
Highlight of this post is "Misleading headlines may even produce unsubscribes instead." I believe it's the number one reason why traditional media has faltered (i.e., sensational headlines backed up more with opinions than solid sources), and a the primary reason why online/social media users must use caution (i.e., click bait). Personally, I am quick to unsubscribe after receiving even one article/post with what I consider a click bait headline.
I really loved that McDonald's inflation post!
I definitely think the content is what determines how people respond to a post, not the title or image.
You definitely are inspiring me to blog some more now, even though my newsletter is not a full-time thing, rather a passion project.
LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAME
Nate, you are a person I’d have at my imaginary dinner party.
I also shared this post with my two kids — one in college and one in the process of applying. Both enjoy writing in a way I never have. In 6th grade, my daughter blew my mind, explaining to her little brother that writing was just thinking on paper. You’re a good antidote to their risk-adverse up-bringing.
Anticipation of pieces like this is why after two months of monthly subscriptions I switched to an annual one (the discount helped, too). Congratulations, and keep it up as best you and Eli can.
JFC, Nate is an interesting columnist/blogger/whatever to follow and read, along with all other sorts of content. Leave it at that, FFS…
Nate is unfortunately quite wrong on his take on Bluesky. Both EFD and Ben Ryan have rapidly built up followings in recent days. They are both grifters.
You've totally missed the point, Nate. Your subscribers are not here for advice as to how to start blogging. They are here - or should I say WERE here - to get leading polling information for the election. They did not get it. You let yourself down and showed us that you are just another arm of the propaganda media. You have been roundly rejected and I predict your substack will be gone by Easter at the latest.
Haters gonna hate!
No, you've totally missed the point.
You have no deep knowledge that enables you to speak for anyone but yourself, and your insight on even that may be somewhat limited.
When people like Nate do speaking engagements that include questions from the audience, there are always people who ask something like "I love your work and am trying to get into the field. Do you have any advice?"
This article strikes me as exactly how Nate would answer a process question if he didn't have a 2 minute limit in his book tour Q&A sessions.
Dan, see my comment elsewhere, which asks: What is the value proposition of investing our time and (admitedly small amount of) money when we read Nate's (and other aggregators and pollsters') stuff? What do we get back? Is it worth it?
In the recent election cycle, I chided Nate many times because I believe his comments and analyses were focused on being an unpaid advisor to the DNC and Harris campaign. He focused many times on using his model to focus on the issues he saw in the model that would help Harris win.
I infer (maybe incorrectly) from your writing that you hold some animosity toward Nate, his model and Silver Bulletin. I agree with you that Nate's work and writing was just another arm of the DNC and legacy media. But, I read it anyway, because I thought it was interesting, even though totally biased.
I have no personal animosity toward anyone. Nate puts a product out there that he believes has a place in the market. My pure guess is that his subscription base will fall similarly to the post-election ratings crater at MSNBC, CNN and other related media.
If we aren't paying for sophisticated predictions, what is it we ARE paying for?