When Nate Silver makes an argument and marshals robust quantitive evidence in support - I sit up and listen. This was the case with his Biden coverage, and it almost single-handedly persuaded me that Biden wasn't fit to run, months before the debate debacle. I honestly doubt he gets enough credit for having the courage to swing for the fences on an issue that must have made him unpopular with his peers.
On the other hand, when the quantative evidence for Nate's argument is weak or missing - those are the times I'd be more comfortable betting against him. Sure, he's a Smart Guy With Opinions - and I really like a lot of those opinions - but Smart Opinions are a dime a dozen, and as a category they don't outperform the random walk.
I've got to give a little defense at least for the Alaska post. It was one of the most fun and memorable posts of the entire year for me. Of course it was looking at a weird, unlikely outcome, and of course it didn't meet the rigor of the usual posts, but it was a fun hypothetical, and I think it's fine to have a post that is just plain fun every now and then.
Best take by Nate was immediately questioning the Harris decision to keep the Biden acolytes on and in particular O’Malley Dillion who looks even more pathetic in her post election comments. I guess in goes with the campaign’s strategy of Can’t think of one thing I would do differently.
I have this much sympathy for the Harris campaign, in that they were stuck with the short (by American standards) timeframe to get out and run their candidate. So going with the Biden staff who were already in place and prepared was probably their least worst option.
Though that Pod Save America podcast where they were all "it was an act of God, nothing we could have done, not our fault the campaign tanked" did annoy me. If everything they did had no effect, good or bad, on the result - then why the hell are they employed as strategists and managers and advisers and the rest of it? Particularly since we all know they'll turn up again in a little while still in high positions advising and managing and running Democratic campaigns.
All of the posts where Silver gives himself an F were overly bullish on the Democrats. Knowing that you're biased isn't enough to root bias out of your analysis.
Trump proposed giving green cards automatically to foreign students who graduated from a US college months ago. His VP is married to somebody that is noticably Indian. That horse exited the stable in the distant past.
To reinforce that Trump came out and gave a statement to the NY Post about how wonderful H1B's are. Don't buy the media narrative about a "civil war" in the MAGA camp over the issue. That stems from a desire to drum up controversy and fulfill some priors.
He's a political troll who uses obfuscation instead of direct citation to appear intelligent without risk, likely in a attempt to drive no risk 'engagement'.
The irony of him being a exact clone of the his democratic demagogue counterparts as far as tactics and strategy would be lost on him.
This entire thread highlights this, as he repeated 'Read the whole Article' instead of using the more concise and direct 'Comment was in response to the Footnote'.
As a libertarian, I'm more used to his type:
Constantly arguing that they are the only true Libertarian in the room, constantly nitpicking points without providing insight, and constantly citing some article or document and when asked to provide any sort of details they say 'You can look it up yourself', never addressing the core of the issue.
They also end up as the butt of many a joke, in end.
"Five libertarians walk into the room, Seven opinions emerge. One of them is *duck* that guy in particular."
Happy New Year Nate! You probably hear disproportionate criticism from me, but the reality is I have a lot of respect for your work. Your substack success is deserved!
Personally, I noticed when the rose-colored glasses went on but because you are always honest about your bias, it was something I figured into my own judgment. I appreciate what you do. Also, I salute you (and any other brave soul) who risks the wrath of the way too online groups to tell the truth. Happy New Year!
Wow, your weird time zone lines up with me finally being early into the comments. I wish I had something more meaningful to say other than I remember reading the RFK thing at the time and thinking something like “it’s awfully early to reach any conclusions….”.
But as long as it’s honest and well reasoned I’ll read it and keep supporting.
Yes! A "well-evidenced unpopular opinion ... ignor[ing] the vibes when the situation demands it" is exactly what I subscribe to Substacks for. The tradmedia seems to be all about the conventional story and has become almost useless except to learn what the conventional wisdom is. Question: Do you think this is true and if so why? I wonder if it is because they have early retired to many of their experienced people to hire younger, cheaper replacements. Sure, often from the best schools , but still less experienced and easier to be herded.
Nice round up of the year. I too was surprised by Harris' convention speech - it was very patriotic, dare I say? The emphasis on America as the policeman of the world surprised me, as it went counter to Democrat (and more importantly, the people supporting the Democrat candidate who liked to express opinions online) messaging. In an era of "colonizer this, colonizer that" being shoe-horned into everything from popular media to historical posts, the message about "We've got the rootin'est tootin'est army and we'll put boots on the ground to impose our values on others if they're not on the right side" was very very different to what I expected.
Of course, we heard nothing like that for the entire rest of the campaign.
As to Shapiro over Walz, I agree there, but I wonder how much difference it would have made in the end. Again, going by what I'm reading online (and who knows how accurate those takes are), Harris picked Walz over Shapiro mainly because Shapiro came across as too ambitious, while Walz was content to be in the background and just do as he was told. In hindsight, that smacks of lack of confidence on Harris' part, that she was afraid of being outshone by her VP pick, and (for me) aligns with all the stories about staff turnover all throughout her career: that she micromanages, doesn't like to be told what to do, takes a long time to make decisions, and it's her way or the highway.
I hadn't heard about Trump's lawsuit, and while I think it's not a good idea, part of me doesn't think it's completely bad. Again, online suggestions about "how could Selzer have gotten it so wrong?" did lean in some quarters to what sounds almost like conspiracy theories: that she wanted Anyone But Trump to win, so she decided to burn her credibility by releasing that poll in the hopes that it would incline the undecided to "if Harris has such a big lead, she must be going to win, so I better cast my vote for her" and discourage potential Trump voters for the same reason - such a big lead couldn't be made up, so no point voting for him.
Like I said, it smacks of conspiracy theory, but I think everyone is looking for a reason as to why a very well-regarded pollster got it so wrong.
On a different note, I'm enjoying the sub-reddit SomethingIsWrong2024 https://www.reddit.com/r/somethingiswrong2024/ , where we get the blue version of QAnon about how Trump totally stole the election and Harris is going to pull the rug the day she is supposed to certify the result by revealing all the evidence they are gathering in secret all this time. After four years of "election denialism should be a crime", to see the other side indulging in it amuses me (as a non-American without a horse in this race, insofar as whoever the American president is - be it Tweedledee or Tweedledum - it's going to influence global affairs and those of my own country, so our politicians need to be adept and prepared to suck up to whichever person wins it).
I'm also petty enough to enjoy the fury in turning on Merrick Garland who is now, it seems, actually really a Republican in disguise and it's all his fault that Trump won by not prosecuting Trump earlier, or stopping him from running at all, or something.
2025 is shaping up to be interesting times once again!
While it seems preposterous that she would thumb the scale, her comments attending that last poll almost sounded partisan, which surprised me at the time. She seemed full of Harris joy as she released poll results.
Fully agree, Nate, that you had good record this year. You and Nate Cohn over at the NYT were about the best on the polling. Both of you drove me bananas at times, but data are data, even when one doesn't like them. We need more Nates in the world modeling the way scientists think.
RE: The lists:
Your treatment of Timothy Snyder in the Biden revisionism post was an ad hominem cheap shot. Snyder was not whitewashing Biden or his record. He was noting the extraordinariness of a single act: the most powerful man on the planet deciding to give up his power. Snyder is among a specialist group of historians with the scholarly bona fides to make that judgment. Expertise should show some respect for expertise.
OK OK you were right about Josh Shapiro. I thought so from the beginning. Pennsylvania proved it. Josh comes out of 2024 stronger for the fight in 4 years, imho.
Thank you for this always interesting and enlightening Substack. Happy New Year! (Please don't forget New Jersey elects a governor in 2025.)
Exactly, the idea io Biden benevolently ceding power for the good of the country is nonsense. He had to be dragged out of the race, kicking and screaming, after initially seeking out and following the wisdom of Hunter Biden.
Vibecession takes now that we have clear reversals of opinion post election? Biden speaking at the DNC after prime time conspiracy when they had to cut videos prepared beforehand due to time issues? Harris woke-ism faults being choices of Obama alumni and not Biden campaign?
My name is Peter Rich. I signed up for the Silver Bulletin in October for the election. I thought I was signing up for 1 month only. When I was billed for November, I left a detailed voice message, asking you to cancel my subscription. But I was billed again for December. Please cancel my subscription and refund the amount you charged me for December.
I have a random thought as we leave 2024. If slavery in what became the US began in 1619 and ended in 1865; then, it will be 2111 or 2112 (I didn't dive that deep) until the country has more history post slavery. A person born in 2025 will be about 86 before that happens. Just a random thought for the new year.
When Nate Silver makes an argument and marshals robust quantitive evidence in support - I sit up and listen. This was the case with his Biden coverage, and it almost single-handedly persuaded me that Biden wasn't fit to run, months before the debate debacle. I honestly doubt he gets enough credit for having the courage to swing for the fences on an issue that must have made him unpopular with his peers.
On the other hand, when the quantative evidence for Nate's argument is weak or missing - those are the times I'd be more comfortable betting against him. Sure, he's a Smart Guy With Opinions - and I really like a lot of those opinions - but Smart Opinions are a dime a dozen, and as a category they don't outperform the random walk.
I've got to give a little defense at least for the Alaska post. It was one of the most fun and memorable posts of the entire year for me. Of course it was looking at a weird, unlikely outcome, and of course it didn't meet the rigor of the usual posts, but it was a fun hypothetical, and I think it's fine to have a post that is just plain fun every now and then.
Best take by Nate was immediately questioning the Harris decision to keep the Biden acolytes on and in particular O’Malley Dillion who looks even more pathetic in her post election comments. I guess in goes with the campaign’s strategy of Can’t think of one thing I would do differently.
I have this much sympathy for the Harris campaign, in that they were stuck with the short (by American standards) timeframe to get out and run their candidate. So going with the Biden staff who were already in place and prepared was probably their least worst option.
Though that Pod Save America podcast where they were all "it was an act of God, nothing we could have done, not our fault the campaign tanked" did annoy me. If everything they did had no effect, good or bad, on the result - then why the hell are they employed as strategists and managers and advisers and the rest of it? Particularly since we all know they'll turn up again in a little while still in high positions advising and managing and running Democratic campaigns.
All of the posts where Silver gives himself an F were overly bullish on the Democrats. Knowing that you're biased isn't enough to root bias out of your analysis.
Trump proposed giving green cards automatically to foreign students who graduated from a US college months ago. His VP is married to somebody that is noticably Indian. That horse exited the stable in the distant past.
To reinforce that Trump came out and gave a statement to the NY Post about how wonderful H1B's are. Don't buy the media narrative about a "civil war" in the MAGA camp over the issue. That stems from a desire to drum up controversy and fulfill some priors.
How is this at all relevant to the post you're commenting on?
Read the whole thing.
I did and I don't see the relevance. What is the heading of the section you think this applies to?
Read the whole article.
Carefully.
Oh, I get it, you're a troll.
He's a political troll who uses obfuscation instead of direct citation to appear intelligent without risk, likely in a attempt to drive no risk 'engagement'.
The irony of him being a exact clone of the his democratic demagogue counterparts as far as tactics and strategy would be lost on him.
This entire thread highlights this, as he repeated 'Read the whole Article' instead of using the more concise and direct 'Comment was in response to the Footnote'.
As a libertarian, I'm more used to his type:
Constantly arguing that they are the only true Libertarian in the room, constantly nitpicking points without providing insight, and constantly citing some article or document and when asked to provide any sort of details they say 'You can look it up yourself', never addressing the core of the issue.
They also end up as the butt of many a joke, in end.
"Five libertarians walk into the room, Seven opinions emerge. One of them is *duck* that guy in particular."
See footnote 1
Learn how to read.
Read the whole article.
Carefully.
The link on the first footnote
Happy New Year Nate! You probably hear disproportionate criticism from me, but the reality is I have a lot of respect for your work. Your substack success is deserved!
Personally, I noticed when the rose-colored glasses went on but because you are always honest about your bias, it was something I figured into my own judgment. I appreciate what you do. Also, I salute you (and any other brave soul) who risks the wrath of the way too online groups to tell the truth. Happy New Year!
Wow, your weird time zone lines up with me finally being early into the comments. I wish I had something more meaningful to say other than I remember reading the RFK thing at the time and thinking something like “it’s awfully early to reach any conclusions….”.
But as long as it’s honest and well reasoned I’ll read it and keep supporting.
Happy New Year!
Yes! A "well-evidenced unpopular opinion ... ignor[ing] the vibes when the situation demands it" is exactly what I subscribe to Substacks for. The tradmedia seems to be all about the conventional story and has become almost useless except to learn what the conventional wisdom is. Question: Do you think this is true and if so why? I wonder if it is because they have early retired to many of their experienced people to hire younger, cheaper replacements. Sure, often from the best schools , but still less experienced and easier to be herded.
DST is easy worst take.
Did Silver ever post Part III of his election autopsy? It was supposed to be a 3 part series, but I only see parts 1 and 2 on his substack.
He has said part three is coming
Nice round up of the year. I too was surprised by Harris' convention speech - it was very patriotic, dare I say? The emphasis on America as the policeman of the world surprised me, as it went counter to Democrat (and more importantly, the people supporting the Democrat candidate who liked to express opinions online) messaging. In an era of "colonizer this, colonizer that" being shoe-horned into everything from popular media to historical posts, the message about "We've got the rootin'est tootin'est army and we'll put boots on the ground to impose our values on others if they're not on the right side" was very very different to what I expected.
Of course, we heard nothing like that for the entire rest of the campaign.
As to Shapiro over Walz, I agree there, but I wonder how much difference it would have made in the end. Again, going by what I'm reading online (and who knows how accurate those takes are), Harris picked Walz over Shapiro mainly because Shapiro came across as too ambitious, while Walz was content to be in the background and just do as he was told. In hindsight, that smacks of lack of confidence on Harris' part, that she was afraid of being outshone by her VP pick, and (for me) aligns with all the stories about staff turnover all throughout her career: that she micromanages, doesn't like to be told what to do, takes a long time to make decisions, and it's her way or the highway.
I hadn't heard about Trump's lawsuit, and while I think it's not a good idea, part of me doesn't think it's completely bad. Again, online suggestions about "how could Selzer have gotten it so wrong?" did lean in some quarters to what sounds almost like conspiracy theories: that she wanted Anyone But Trump to win, so she decided to burn her credibility by releasing that poll in the hopes that it would incline the undecided to "if Harris has such a big lead, she must be going to win, so I better cast my vote for her" and discourage potential Trump voters for the same reason - such a big lead couldn't be made up, so no point voting for him.
Like I said, it smacks of conspiracy theory, but I think everyone is looking for a reason as to why a very well-regarded pollster got it so wrong.
On a different note, I'm enjoying the sub-reddit SomethingIsWrong2024 https://www.reddit.com/r/somethingiswrong2024/ , where we get the blue version of QAnon about how Trump totally stole the election and Harris is going to pull the rug the day she is supposed to certify the result by revealing all the evidence they are gathering in secret all this time. After four years of "election denialism should be a crime", to see the other side indulging in it amuses me (as a non-American without a horse in this race, insofar as whoever the American president is - be it Tweedledee or Tweedledum - it's going to influence global affairs and those of my own country, so our politicians need to be adept and prepared to suck up to whichever person wins it).
I'm also petty enough to enjoy the fury in turning on Merrick Garland who is now, it seems, actually really a Republican in disguise and it's all his fault that Trump won by not prosecuting Trump earlier, or stopping him from running at all, or something.
2025 is shaping up to be interesting times once again!
While it seems preposterous that she would thumb the scale, her comments attending that last poll almost sounded partisan, which surprised me at the time. She seemed full of Harris joy as she released poll results.
Fully agree, Nate, that you had good record this year. You and Nate Cohn over at the NYT were about the best on the polling. Both of you drove me bananas at times, but data are data, even when one doesn't like them. We need more Nates in the world modeling the way scientists think.
RE: The lists:
Your treatment of Timothy Snyder in the Biden revisionism post was an ad hominem cheap shot. Snyder was not whitewashing Biden or his record. He was noting the extraordinariness of a single act: the most powerful man on the planet deciding to give up his power. Snyder is among a specialist group of historians with the scholarly bona fides to make that judgment. Expertise should show some respect for expertise.
OK OK you were right about Josh Shapiro. I thought so from the beginning. Pennsylvania proved it. Josh comes out of 2024 stronger for the fight in 4 years, imho.
Thank you for this always interesting and enlightening Substack. Happy New Year! (Please don't forget New Jersey elects a governor in 2025.)
Snyder is a hack.
Exactly, the idea io Biden benevolently ceding power for the good of the country is nonsense. He had to be dragged out of the race, kicking and screaming, after initially seeking out and following the wisdom of Hunter Biden.
Vibecession takes now that we have clear reversals of opinion post election? Biden speaking at the DNC after prime time conspiracy when they had to cut videos prepared beforehand due to time issues? Harris woke-ism faults being choices of Obama alumni and not Biden campaign?
My name is Peter Rich. I signed up for the Silver Bulletin in October for the election. I thought I was signing up for 1 month only. When I was billed for November, I left a detailed voice message, asking you to cancel my subscription. But I was billed again for December. Please cancel my subscription and refund the amount you charged me for December.
I have a random thought as we leave 2024. If slavery in what became the US began in 1619 and ended in 1865; then, it will be 2111 or 2112 (I didn't dive that deep) until the country has more history post slavery. A person born in 2025 will be about 86 before that happens. Just a random thought for the new year.