We have complex feels about Nate Silver's new data driven context providing empire, 538. We like it better than Ezra Klein's well-funded vanity project, but then Silver slatepitch hired a climate change skeptic. We're tipping fast towards unlike, however, thanks to Silver's latest column, which is an
Methinks Nate is trolling for clicks to get his new site up and running. Nothing does that better than a cat fight with a front pager like Krugman.
Also, too, seems to me that someone with his savvy should have expected to be slapped down after hiring a climate change contrarian to report on cherry picked "facts". That's just waving a red cape at the bull.
Either my browser is trying to become an editor, or the whole first section of the article that appears here on teh Wonk is missing from the post on Happy.
Also, the tone of Nate's piece is really weird. The closing remark, and the use of the third person, certainly makes it sound like a troll, but the link he provides to Paul's 3/18 post is to a fairly mild, and quite reasonable, critique (unless, meta-something, Paul somehow missed the point of the article he is criticizing).
Then again, one of Paul's remarks about the 538 staffer article was that there was no supporting data, so the extensive and colorful (and overdone) list seems like an intended zing: "I'll give you data-driven".
Oh come on, surely he can't be serious?
Methinks Nate is trolling for clicks to get his new site up and running. Nothing does that better than a cat fight with a front pager like Krugman.
Also, too, seems to me that someone with his savvy should have expected to be slapped down after hiring a climate change contrarian to report on cherry picked "facts". That's just waving a red cape at the bull.
He just needs to add a Holocaust denier and he's ready for Fox prime time.
Bill Clinton, if you remove the word "beautiful".
He is neither Shirley nor Sirius.
yea, but how many times did Andy Warhol mention Nate in his diaries, hmmmm?
Either my browser is trying to become an editor, or the whole first section of the article that appears here on teh Wonk is missing from the post on Happy.
Also, the tone of Nate's piece is really weird. The closing remark, and the use of the third person, certainly makes it sound like a troll, but the link he provides to Paul's 3/18 post is to a fairly mild, and quite reasonable, critique (unless, meta-something, Paul somehow missed the point of the article he is criticizing).
Then again, one of Paul's remarks about the 538 staffer article was that there was no supporting data, so the extensive and colorful (and overdone) list seems like an intended zing: "I'll give you data-driven".
Puzzling article, Nate. Also, fairly pointless.