That's because Nate Silver shows that all the drama that political journalists manufacture has next to nothing to do with what's really going on, that the race is never quite as uncertain as they say it is, and that numbers really do tell most of the story. In short, he makes them if not completely irrelevant, then much less relevant than they are now. And he shows them to be deeply mistaken at best and dishonest at worst about the reality they're covering. So yeah I'd expect political journalists to be resentful of Nate Silver.
Perhaps they could become relevant again by analyzing the actual data as opposed to engaging in this false personality narrative all the time, the kind of personality narrative that elevates corrupt individuals like Chris Christie because, well, he has a big personality. But I doubt they're going to do that.
That said, Krugman is more of a data-minded columnist, as you would expect since he's an economist, so I find his objections to Silver's new site surprising. I don't think Nate Silver ever said that data without interpretation is all there is; but that data with interpretation tells the actual story, as opposed to whatever all these political journalists are doing .
> That said, Krugman is more of a data-minded columnist, as you would expect since he's an economist, so I find his objections to Silver's new site surprising.
Krugman in his earlier blog posts was more specific:
"I feel bad about picking on a young staffer, but I think this piece on corporate cash hoards — which is the site’s inaugural economic analysis — is a good example. The post tells us that the much-cited $2 trillion corporate cash hoard has been revised down by half a trillion dollars. That’s kind of interesting, I guess, although it’s striking that the post offers neither a link to the data nor a summary table of pre- and post-revision numbers; I’m supposed to know my way around these numbers, and I can’t figure out exactly which series they’re referring to. (Use FRED!)
More to the point, however, what does this downward revision tell us? We’re told that the “whole narrative” is gone; which narrative? Is the notion that profits are high, but investment remains low, no longer borne out by the data? (I’m pretty sure it’s still true.) What is the model that has been refuted?
“Neener neener, people have been citing a number that was wrong” is just not helpful. Tell me something meaningful! Tell me why the data matter!"
So his objections do take the form of something like you'd expect - this post is just the latest in a series. Krugman clearly had very high hopes for the site - this is his 3rd of 4th post about it, which makes sense given Krugman's prior cheerleading for Silver.
Perhaps they could become relevant again by analyzing the actual data as opposed to engaging in this false personality narrative all the time, the kind of personality narrative that elevates corrupt individuals like Chris Christie because, well, he has a big personality. But I doubt they're going to do that.
That said, Krugman is more of a data-minded columnist, as you would expect since he's an economist, so I find his objections to Silver's new site surprising. I don't think Nate Silver ever said that data without interpretation is all there is; but that data with interpretation tells the actual story, as opposed to whatever all these political journalists are doing .