Ed Kilgore is correct that Nate Silver would be better off without a fan base that only loves him as long as he’s telling them what they want to hear. On the other hand, people should understand what Nate does well and what he doesn’t do well. Nate is the best at telling you how things stand in the present. For the most part, that’s what his models are really designed to describe. Some parts of the present aren’t going to change, like (for the most part) who the candidates are and what they’ve done so far with their lives. So, Nate can tell you that an incumbent senator is more likely to beat a state representative than a sitting governor. That element of his prediction will still be true in November. But the fundraising can change. The candidates can make gaffes. Scandalous information can come to light. World events can turn upside down or go completely pear-shaped.
What Nate is not good at is anticipating events. He’s not terrible at it, but he’s not your go-to guy for that kind of analysis. If you want to know who is going to win on Election Day, wait for the day before Election Day and ask Nate. If you want to know who is going to win right now, ask Nate, but also ask other people (like yours truly) who have pretty damn good records of predicting the broad outlines of elections months out from Election Day.
Right now, Nate’s incredibly pessimistic about the Dems’ chances of winning senate races in Montana, South Dakota, and West Virginia. I don’t think his degree of pessimism is warranted. That doesn’t mean I think anyone should be upset with Nate. He’s committed to being right, not pleasing me. And he’s one of the most valuable resources any analyst could ask for.
