538 is No Longer a Credible Source

Just my $0.02:

Thiel has an agenda he pursues in all things and he is perhaps more zealous than the Koch brothers. I would regard anything he is a part of with deep, deep suspicion.

But, maybe it is different here. I am not informed enough to say but when Thiel becomes part of the conversation look closely is my advice (that no one asked for).

This is a statement, not a question.

Gorsnak said:

And I posted one such Tweet.

Ask a question and I will do my best to answer it. It’s not clear to me what information you’re after or what you’re having trouble with.

You’ve never heard that extremely common turn of phrase? And can’t figure out what the very obvious implied question is? Hmm.

He made a statement and put a question mark at the end. Then he followed up with more statements. I am not certain what he’s asking, who he is asking it of, or even if he’s really asking anything. I could make some assumptions, but I thought it would be easier to just ask him what he wants to know.

It is not clear if he doesn’t understand me, @Gorsnak, the Tweet, or something else.

Person A: Tom Hanks was the first person on the moon.
Person B: He was??

Person B is making a statement?

Heck, that was a statement and not a question?

This convention is so natural and widely used I’m flabbergasted that you cannot parse it.

Who is the question directed to?

Which poster is person A in this analogy? Is it your opinion that someone made an obviously false statement?

There is no need for an analogy here. What is this obvious question and who is it directed to?

It’s not an analogy. It’s an example to clear up your confusion about what a question is.

There is a much more straightforward way to clear up what the question is.

A vs the. You claimed to have general difficulty with the concept so I thought I would be helpful.

You’re asking what the specific question is in “I’m not sure what you’re implying?”

It’s “what are you implying?”

I don’t want to put words in @Gorsnak’s mouth, but it seems somewhat obvious that when @Gorsnak stated that Nate Silver commenting on an election while working for a company that is funded by someone with a vested interest in the outcome of that election is, “Not a good look,” he was implying that Nate Silver commenting on an election while working for a company that is funded by someone with a vested interest in the outcome of that election is, “Not a good look.”

I kind of assumed that he must have been asking something else, but I am happy nonetheless to have cleared up any confusion.

DSeid had significant followup and clarification in 538 is No Longer a Credible Source - #53 by DSeid.

It’s unclear to me if you’re deliberately misunderstanding things in bad faith or honestly having trouble following (Whack-a-Mole managed it just fine!), but I do know that I’m not interested in engaging more.

It’s unclear to me if @DSeid is deliberately misunderstanding things in bad faith or honestly having trouble following @Gorsnak’s extremely straightforward post. I thought it would be better to seek clarification rather than make any assumptions.

I am completely befuddled by you here. Seriously and completely honestly.

The, I thought straightforward, question is why working for a company that has an investor with non controlling interest (whose politics you hate) is “a bad look” and what your bare links are supposed to be about other than documenting that Silver has been hired as an advisor by an online gambling company that Thiel’s funds have invested in but do not control or manage?

What unsaid thought is being implied is happening that would be bad?

Is it seriously being suggested that a minority investor is exerting editorial control over what an hired advisor writes on their own non-affiliated site? Or that Silver is fudging his model to comply with the wishes of that minority investor of a different company he was hired to advise? It is a way to pay him off to publish a model result that is consistent with most other model results, and to pontificate the same thoughts a huge number of other pundits are expressing?

Or just a claim that anyone who is in the political analysis business should not do any business with any company that has any investor with politics you dislike? Because that “looks bad” for … reasons?

There is something that you apparently think is somehow self evident (or maybe not as all you did was drop bare links) but is not. I don’t see anything that looks bad.

There. I have asked the same thing now in many more words. But really “Not sure what the implication is supposed to be?” was the essence.

Ah, so you knew what the implication was, but you disagree. That makes sense.

Goodness, I didn’t intend to provoke a furor. I thought the situation was noteworthy enough to be brought up. You will note that I, unlike many of the tweets about the matter, did not frame it as Silver being in the employ of Thiel. However, Thiel is one of the most odious people in the billionaire class, and being voluntarily associated even tangentially with odious people is apt to draw negative attention. I’m not myself feeling overly critical of Silver on this matter, though if I found myself in a similar circumstance I’d probably make a blog post somewhere distancing myself from Thiel. Unless he cannot do so without risking his employment, which would only confirm the misgivings people might have.

No. I did not know that. I imagined that. If that was the implication then I would think a person making such a charge could state it, in its absurd conspiracy theory glory, in a straightforward manner, rather than with a wink a nudge.

“Resolved: no one in the political analysis industry should have take any jobs for or gigs with a company that has a shareholder whose politics you hate.” Because it is a bad look.

@Gorsnak the stuff you read is pretty much a JAQoff. “I’m not saying Silver is a paid off GOP operative, I’m just asking questions.” (“Make him deny it boys.”)

If I was Silver I’d ignore stupid nonsensical shit that people say.

A former CEO of my company quit to work for someone who is a spineless odious GOP politician. Others in major authority positions of my company I am confident support and donate to Trump. They have actual control over my working conditions. And?

The logic gets McCarthyesque, guilt by vague and removed associations.

@Gorsnak stated clearly that he thought association with Peter Thiel was a bad look. No winks. No nudges.

You disagree with that. No big deal.

So back to 538 and it’s being so different. Here’s ABC’s introduction of Morris and his plans for the site:

Clearly his intent was to build something completely different. One has to credit him with accomplishing that, minimally. It is different.

And now it’s got to be torn down and rebuilt – 538 took down their presidential election model shortly after Biden’s announcement and hasn’t put up anything in its place. Not even a quick blurb of a “we’re taking a pause to collect data” narrative.

At one hand, completely understandable. On the other, pretty surprising IMHO. Wouldn’t think they’d want to be perceived as quite so flat-footed in today’s “now now now” media environment. Probably won’t matter in a week or so, though – one Morris gets something out, they’re back on the horse.