Nate Silver, the renowned data journalist and election forecaster, is once again facing a wave of criticism as the US presidential election approaches. This isn’t a new phenomenon for Silver; his election predictions have sparked debate and anger in every presidential cycle since 2008. However, the current backlash, particularly from Democrats and progressives, feels more intense and reveals a deeper shift in Silver’s public persona and commentary, even touching upon figures like Peter Thiel.
The immediate trigger for this renewed anger is Silver’s forecast, which, since late August, has consistently shown Donald Trump as the slight favorite to win the upcoming election. As of recent data, his model still gives Trump a significant chance of victory. This projection has understandably unsettled those hoping for a different outcome.
However, the animosity towards Silver runs deeper than just disagreement with a forecast. For many on the left, the frustration is rooted in what they perceive as a change in Silver himself. Initially lauded for his data-driven debunking of biased pundits and his accurate predictions, Silver has increasingly used his platform to challenge progressive viewpoints, Democrats, and even public health experts. This combative approach has alienated many who once saw him as an ally.
In a recent interview, Silver himself acknowledged this shift, stating, “I think progressive epistemics have really deteriorated.” He expressed his surprise that progressives, much like the conservatives he previously critiqued, could become “detached from reality.” He elaborated that partisan bias and the echo chamber of the internet, especially platforms like Twitter, have significantly clouded the thinking of many on the left.
Critics, however, argue that Silver himself has fallen victim to this very phenomenon. They contend that outside the realm of election forecasting, Silver often resorts to contrarian, centrist punditry, offering poorly informed opinions on subjects beyond his expertise. This perception is further fueled by instances where his commentary has clashed with progressive ideals and public health recommendations.
While some criticism stems simply from discomfort with his Trump-leaning forecast, a significant portion reflects Silver’s evolved approach to public discourse. He is now far more vocal and opinionated, unafraid to challenge established norms and engage in controversial subjects, a stark contrast to his earlier, more reserved persona.
One particularly contentious area has been Silver’s consistent critique of the Democratic party’s decision to renominate Joe Biden. He openly questioned Biden’s fitness for office, arguing that his age was a significant liability. “It’s just the most obvious thing in the world, this guy’s a fucking walking corpse,” Silver stated bluntly, reflecting his concern about Biden’s ability to serve another term. This outspoken criticism further solidified his image as someone willing to challenge the Democratic establishment, contributing to the current wave of anger.
Alt text: Nate Silver, data journalist and founder of FiveThirtyEight, discussing election forecasts in a 2012 interview, highlighting his early career focus on data-driven analysis.
The Transformation of Nate Silver: From Data Darling to Contrarian Voice
In his initial rise to prominence, Nate Silver’s forecasts were embraced by Democrats as a source of reassurance. In the Obama elections of 2008 and 2012, his data-driven models confidently predicted Obama’s victories. Progressive online communities celebrated his takedowns of biased media figures and those attempting to skew polls to favor Republican candidates. Silver was seen as a kind of prediction wizard, his work at The New York Times and subsequent sale of FiveThirtyEight to ESPN cementing his status in the data journalism world.
However, Silver’s primary objective was never to provide comfort; it was to accurately predict outcomes. While his political leanings were generally liberal during the Obama era – his early writings appeared on the progressive website Daily Kos – his true passion lay in data analysis and forecasting. With a background in baseball statistics and online poker, he was driven by the challenge of predicting the future and outsmarting the odds. His book, The Signal and the Noise, published in 2012, delved into his methodology of distinguishing meaningful data (“signal”) from irrelevant or misleading information (“noise”).
The 2016 presidential election, marked by the rise of Donald Trump, presented a significant challenge to Silver’s forecasting approach. Initially, Silver, like many others, dismissed Trump’s candidacy, relying on early polling data that had historically proven unreliable in primary races. He expressed confidence that Trump’s campaign was doomed, underestimating the depth of Trump’s appeal and the changing political landscape. “That was one thing that I think I deserved to be criticized for,” Silver admits, acknowledging his misjudgment of early polling data regarding Trump.
The general election of 2016 was a different scenario. In a now crowded field of election forecasters, Silver’s model aligned with others in predicting a Clinton victory. However, in the final weeks, his forecast stood out by giving Trump a higher chance of winning than most other models. While he didn’t predict a Trump victory outright (his final forecast gave Trump a 28 percent chance), his analysis accurately highlighted the uncertainty of the race, a point that was ultimately vindicated by the election results.
Despite this relatively accurate assessment amidst widespread miscalls, Silver faced criticism from the left, both before and after the election. Some accused him of downplaying Clinton’s chances, while others criticized him for not predicting a Trump victory. “I was trying to warn everybody it was a close election,” Silver recalls, expressing frustration at being “villainized” despite his efforts to signal the race’s competitiveness.
This experience marked the beginning of Silver’s growing disillusionment with left-of-center discourse. Throughout Trump’s presidency, he increasingly pushed back against what he perceived as a censorious “groupthink” within progressive circles. He voiced his opinions on various issues, sometimes sparking outrage for what he considered innocuous observations.
The COVID-19 pandemic further amplified this trend. Silver attempted to apply his data analysis skills to the unfolding crisis, offering his perspectives on the pandemic’s trajectory and public health responses. This foray into public health commentary drew criticism from epidemiologists and public health experts who felt he lacked the necessary expertise. He advocated for rapid vaccine rollout and a swift return to normalcy, arguing that public health experts were underestimating the broader societal costs of prolonged restrictions, particularly school closures. He even controversially suggested the “lab leak” theory of COVID-19’s origins was plausible, further distancing himself from mainstream progressive viewpoints.
In the past year, Silver launched his independent Substack newsletter after leaving FiveThirtyEight. A central theme of his writing has been the argument that Biden’s age poses a significant problem for the Democratic party. He argued that this concern was legitimate and not adequately acknowledged within mainstream media and Democratic circles. He even suggested that Biden should consider stepping aside if he couldn’t run a robust campaign, a view that was initially met with resistance but gained traction as concerns about Biden’s age and performance grew.
Alt text: Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight offices in New York City, illustrating his leadership in data-driven journalism and the evolution of his career.
The Current Forecast and the Peter Thiel Controversy
For most of August, Silver’s current election forecast initially favored Kamala Harris, giving her a narrow edge. However, towards the end of the month, Trump overtook Harris, and the forecast now indicates Trump as the slight favorite. This shift has drawn praise from Trump himself, who acknowledged Silver’s forecast and his “respected” status.
The fluctuating forecast has predictably triggered strong reactions. Many who support Harris have expressed outrage, with some resorting to conspiracy theories. One such theory involves Silver’s recent advisory role with Polymarket, an online prediction market. Baseless claims have emerged suggesting that Peter Thiel, a prominent investor in Polymarket and known for his conservative leanings, is somehow influencing Silver’s analysis to skew it against Harris.
Silver has vehemently denied these accusations, stating that his involvement with Polymarket does not compromise his objectivity and that any suggestion of influence from figures like Peter Thiel is unfounded. He clarified that his advisory role is independent and does not grant any investor undue influence over his forecasts or commentary. “Peter Thiel isn’t paying me any more than he’s paying someone who works for Facebook or Lyft,” Silver stated, dismissing the conspiracy theories.
A more data-driven critique of Silver’s current model centers on the argument that it unfairly penalizes Harris for not experiencing a significant polling “bounce” after the Democratic convention. Typically, nominees see a temporary surge in polls post-convention, but this cycle has been unusual. Silver himself acknowledged this point, noting that adjusting the model to account for the absence of a conventional bounce would result in a near 50-50 prediction.
Despite the debates over the nuances of the forecast, it is undeniable that current polling data indicates an extremely tight race, particularly in crucial swing states like Pennsylvania. Therefore, the intense focus on whether Harris is a slight favorite or a slight underdog seems to miss the larger point: the election is highly competitive and could swing either way.
Regarding the broader criticism of his commentary, Silver remains largely unfazed. He dismisses the outrage from what he calls “Blue MAGA” circles, suggesting that there is a substantial audience for his work beyond these highly partisan groups. He points to the success of his new book as evidence of his continued relevance and appeal.
Silver views the criticism from his progressive detractors with a degree of amusement, stating that it “doesn’t impact my life in any way” and that engaging with them can be “fun.” This dismissive attitude further reinforces his image as a provocateur, someone who is not afraid to challenge conventional wisdom and engage in intellectual sparring, even if it means attracting controversy and anger.
In conclusion, the current backlash against Nate Silver is a multifaceted phenomenon, reflecting not only disagreement with his election forecast but also a deeper unease with his evolving public persona and commentary. His willingness to challenge progressive orthodoxies, coupled with his data-driven approach that sometimes yields uncomfortable conclusions for those on the left, has positioned him as a lightning rod for criticism. While conspiracy theories linking him to figures like Peter Thiel remain unsubstantiated, they highlight the charged political atmosphere and the intense scrutiny faced by public figures who dare to deviate from established narratives, especially in the lead-up to a pivotal election.
