Interesting comment from a TPM reader concerning the Nate Silver/NYT dust up
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/11/twilight_du_doucherie.php?ref=fpblg
We've discussed this for awhile, and I continue to believe the stats driven analysis will never take hold of TV punditry. TV news is built around the idea of breaking news: something happens in the country and every journalist scrambles to react as fast as possible. The problem with Nate Silver, PEC, etc is that they pull the veil off what has always been described as a "horse race" and reveal that it resembles more of a chess match. Elections don't swing day to day, nor do comments or gaffes move the needle as quickly as pundits tend to tell us. Nate's model has largely looked the same for months. How does that type of stability translate into a typical hyperactive news cycle of pundits?
Consider this laughable glimpse into the mind of a pundit
http://thepage.time.com/2012/11/01/potential-tipping-point/
"I’m going to take a risk here and peel back the curtain to tell you what insiders are thinking." As if they are the only people capable of such insight, or that no one else is privy to the secret sauce they possess. No wonder these people are so threatened by Nate - he told people this secret weeks ago. Look, my views on who will win are well known but let's face it - the numbers favor Obama right now; they have favored Obama for most of the race. Romney made major gains after the first debate, it remains to be seen if that was enough to win this for him...but the fact remains Obama is sitting in a better position RIGHT NOW than Romney, and that has been the case for days; no, it didn't magically occur once Sandy hit. Who needs Halperin to tell them that, outside of a low info voter, or that guy who casually watches MSNBC while working out at the gym?
Nate is a threat and is being treated like one by the media, but it's more about pride and credibility than relevancy or ratings. Those low info voters will continue watching TV news, and TV news will continue entertaining them; because that's ultimately what it's all about.