2. Don't cringe at advertising your commentary. It's what hooked my on 538 and why I followed you when you left. The model is great, but it's your immunity to the 'buzz' that makes up so much commentary that is well worth the subscription.
I will note that I’m disappointed about the congressional and gubernatorial model news. Particularly with both the house and the senate very closely divided currently, the stakes (while lower than the presidency) are quite high. I often find myself spending more time looking at the congressional forecasts than the presidential one. I understand that you are limited to the same 24 hours within the day as the rest of us, but I hope you’ll reconsider this choice. Perhaps there is a way you can provide fewer updates and even less commentary on this model, but still run it occasionally for those interested in perusing it.
Just wanted to voice this piece in case there are others who feel the same as me!
I will echo too that your commentary is why I’m a subscriber, and I definitely don’t always agree with you - but I value it. I commented in the past about this, but I pursued and earned a Statistics PhD in no small part due to how you hooked me as a teenager when I was reading analysis from Poblano on daily kos haha.
All that is to say, congrats and looking forward to it all!
Does anyone else remember the website “Is Nate Silver a Witch,” which was just a soothing gray background with the single word “yes”?
I used to pull up that website and smile at it goofily before jumping into poll analysis at the old 538 and while I am already happily paying $80/year here it would totally be worth the $95 to continue reading all the nerdiest deep dives.
Nate
1. Woohoo on the news!
2. Don't cringe at advertising your commentary. It's what hooked my on 538 and why I followed you when you left. The model is great, but it's your immunity to the 'buzz' that makes up so much commentary that is well worth the subscription.
This is exciting news!
I will note that I’m disappointed about the congressional and gubernatorial model news. Particularly with both the house and the senate very closely divided currently, the stakes (while lower than the presidency) are quite high. I often find myself spending more time looking at the congressional forecasts than the presidential one. I understand that you are limited to the same 24 hours within the day as the rest of us, but I hope you’ll reconsider this choice. Perhaps there is a way you can provide fewer updates and even less commentary on this model, but still run it occasionally for those interested in perusing it.
Just wanted to voice this piece in case there are others who feel the same as me!
I will echo too that your commentary is why I’m a subscriber, and I definitely don’t always agree with you - but I value it. I commented in the past about this, but I pursued and earned a Statistics PhD in no small part due to how you hooked me as a teenager when I was reading analysis from Poblano on daily kos haha.
All that is to say, congrats and looking forward to it all!
Your commentary is worth the price of admission.
Any plans or ideas to talk on a podcast? Miss hearing you talk with Galen and stupid jokes, scoffs, and data-driven dismissal of stupid takes.
Anything coming on the NBA playoffs! Playoffs
Hooray! It all sounds awesome. I hope to hear a certain whiz kid on your pod, at least as a guest. 😉
Your transparency and obvious rigor are commendable and appreciated! Thank you for the Silver Bulletin!
Exciting news
i eat cats
Thank you for not letting me click refresh on the model over and over this year, even though I will want to.
Does anyone else remember the website “Is Nate Silver a Witch,” which was just a soothing gray background with the single word “yes”?
I used to pull up that website and smile at it goofily before jumping into poll analysis at the old 538 and while I am already happily paying $80/year here it would totally be worth the $95 to continue reading all the nerdiest deep dives.
$80 well spent. I'm already in.
Yet the question nags, how do you ensure the integrity and of your raw data? Bot or not on a level even you cannot detect any more.
"And so it begins"
Does the model incorporate the 16 factors that Prof Lichtman has used to correctly predict 9 of the last presidential election winners?