It takes a pretty smart mind for math to do what Nate Silver does with his statistical analysis, but it’s not like there aren’t a lot of people in the world who can easily understand Silver’s methodology and replicate it. He’s a good writer, too, but not to the point that people read him for his prose. If it’s true that the New York Times tried to keep him and was preparing to give him substantial staff and his own “mini-department,” then they should go out and recruit a statistician who can write and who has an interest in politics. I’m sure someone can be found, particularly since Silver has already laid the groundwork.
His analysis may have irked AdNags and several other bigfoot reporters at the Grey Lady, but it was the most accurate and informative political reporting that the Times produced, which is why it drove so much traffic to the site. There is no good reason to abandon that type of analysis now that we know that it exists.
For one thing, it provided countless people with reassurance when scoundrels like Dick Morris tried to psych us out with their “skewed polls” analysis. There was not one second during all of 2012 when I didn’t know with virtual certainty that Obama would be reelected, and my faith in Silver was the reason why. I probably owe him a couple years of my life that I didn’t lose to stress. The dogged truth, as expressed by Silver, was a powerful antidote to our horrible world of political punditry.
We can’t let something so valuable just vanish. If the Times doesn’t figure this out, someone else will, and they’ll get all the traffic and attention.