It’s not mere disagreement. The way he processes political news into punditry is deeply flawed. He tends to view everything through a very bookish political science lens. That means he takes politicians at face value (“the US could take Greenland”) instead of having the good sense to push against it (“taking Greenland is insane, and only an insane person would suggest it”).
takes politicians at face value (“the US could take Greenland”) instead of having the good sense to push against it (“taking Greenland is insane, and only an insane person would suggest it”).
You’re arguing for MORE op-ed crap mixed in with the facts? Can’t we understand it’s lunacy without someone telling us how to feel?
Can you share an example? You can’t seriously be talking about his three country trade for Greenland which is pretty clearly a joke. (Though, there would be a delightful irony in missing the joke in a complaint about someone else taking things too literally.)
Edit: lol, wait are people downvoting because I committed the sin of asking for an example or I understood that a tweet about a threeway country trade that might be possible because “France is always into weird shit like that, the UK too” was a joke? Seriously?
He just completely misses what everyone liked about him. He handwaves Waltz as unexciting Minnesota Nice, which is not at all what the base was seeing.
Then the Harris campaign sends Waltz into a hole for a month while wandering around with Liz Cheney.
The link isn’t working for me but this doesn’t seem lile a particularly impressive critique of Nate Silver… Him having a reasonable take that was that he’s a fine pick that doesn’t add a bunch (like say, gasp voters outside the base) and that there were likely better picks doesn’t seem to support this “he’s overly political sciency.”
This reads like “I dislike the argument so he’s a bad pundit!” Even though, in the end, Waltz didn’t seem to move the needle and actually became an attack target for the Right for his statements on carrying weapons in war etc.
I’d suggest re-reading the actual article and thinking about what in particular you dislike.
Edit: though if you think a tweet suggesting a three country trade that ends with “France is always into weird shit like that, the UK too” isn’t obviously a joke, I don’t know how much utility there is to this conversation.
It’s not mere disagreement. The way he processes political news into punditry is deeply flawed. He tends to view everything through a very bookish political science lens. That means he takes politicians at face value (“the US could take Greenland”) instead of having the good sense to push against it (“taking Greenland is insane, and only an insane person would suggest it”).
You’re arguing for MORE op-ed crap mixed in with the facts? Can’t we understand it’s lunacy without someone telling us how to feel?
If that’s what you want, Silver could have said nothing. It’s not a suggestion worth taking seriously either way.
Can you share an example? You can’t seriously be talking about his three country trade for Greenland which is pretty clearly a joke. (Though, there would be a delightful irony in missing the joke in a complaint about someone else taking things too literally.)
Edit: lol, wait are people downvoting because I committed the sin of asking for an example or I understood that a tweet about a threeway country trade that might be possible because “France is always into weird shit like that, the UK too” was a joke? Seriously?
That’s not obviously a joke at all, but setting that aside, how about what I noted when Tim Waltz was announced as the VP candidate:
https://midwest.social/post/15399609/11501796
He just completely misses what everyone liked about him. He handwaves Waltz as unexciting Minnesota Nice, which is not at all what the base was seeing.
Then the Harris campaign sends Waltz into a hole for a month while wandering around with Liz Cheney.
The link isn’t working for me but this doesn’t seem lile a particularly impressive critique of Nate Silver… Him having a reasonable take that was that he’s a fine pick that doesn’t add a bunch (like say, gasp voters outside the base) and that there were likely better picks doesn’t seem to support this “he’s overly political sciency.”
This reads like “I dislike the argument so he’s a bad pundit!” Even though, in the end, Waltz didn’t seem to move the needle and actually became an attack target for the Right for his statements on carrying weapons in war etc.
I’d suggest re-reading the actual article and thinking about what in particular you dislike.
Edit: though if you think a tweet suggesting a three country trade that ends with “France is always into weird shit like that, the UK too” isn’t obviously a joke, I don’t know how much utility there is to this conversation.