Nate Silver Lets His Bias Show…Again

Posted by


>>Nate Silver has referred to Bernie Sanders
supporters as residue. I’m not even kidding. This was through Twitter, and then he proceeded
to double down. Now, this was in response to reports indicating
that Bernie Sanders has among the most diverse group of supporters. And this of course goes against the smears
that Bernie Sanders had to face during the 2016 election, the whole Bernie Bros stereotype. Now if you look at the numbers, and I’ll break
it down for you in just a minute, the majority of his supporters actually tend to be female
and people of color. Now, Nate Silver doesn’t like those results,
and so here’s how he worded things. Silver was discussing Sanders’ recent poll
numbers in Iowa. Warren had 22% in the poll, compared to Biden’s
20% and Sanders’ 11%. Someone on Twitter noted that a positive sign
for Sanders was that his support is more diverse than it was in 2016. And so Nate Silver responded to that tweet,
and here’s what he said. Not sure Bernie should get credit for having
more diverse support than last time, given that he has far less support than last time. A lot of voters have left him. White liberals have been particularly likely
to leave him for Warren, so the residue of what’s left is more diverse. How do you think that that’s okay to tweet
out?>>Yeah, look, guys, I’m not hung up on the
word residue, a lot of people are. I get why you are, and if Trump had said it,
people would be going nuts, like, what do you mean, calling people residue, etc.? I’m more concerned about the-
>>Bias?>>Yeah, the significant bias in terms of
content for Nate Silver. And so the jury’s now officially in. Because we’re dorks, we’ve probably debated
Nate Silver and whether he has a bias more than any other show by an order of magnitude,
okay? And so there’s some hosts here who defend
him to the hilt. There’s some hosts that are in the middle. I considered myself in the middle. I’m not in the middle anymore, because context
matters. When Bernie Sanders was up in the polls, and
he was a solid number two for a long time this year, right, Nate dismissed all of those
as not important, no way, not interesting. And he had 1000 excuses for it. The minute Bernie Sanders goes down, he’s
like, aha, everyone has left him! And it’s the residue of what remains, and
said, Nate, how do you not see it? I mean, you’ve never given him credit for
a positive poll.>>Nope, never.>>And all you’ve ever done is, the minute
there’s that one negative poll. And look, I think the trend is an interesting
one. I talked about the trend, and if you want
to give Warren credit, that makes a ton of sense. But needlessly putting down Bernie on that
poll, given the context of your other statements about how one polls don’t matter, all of a
sudden there’s a poll here in Iowa, which I love and I think is fascinating. But you take that poll and you go, aha, one
poll matters. Come on, get out of here, no. You’re the most biased guy in America, and
you’re supposed to be doing numbers. So that’s why it’s the worst. I mean, it’s one thing if idiot pundits on
TV run off at the mouth with their, Americans believe that the rich should get everything. Who cares what they think, right? But you’re supposed to do stats, and being
biased when it comes to polling like this is unacceptable.>>In some ways, it kind of reminds me of
the incident that we had early on in our race, after the Justice Dems endorsement with Jonathan
Weisman, where the defensiveness when people try to call you out on some of these things
is like, you hold a very influential position. Your context does matter, because people are
interpreting what you say to mean something because you are in these positions of looking
at the numbers and all of that. So all the more reason that we should be holding
them to a higher standard, because they’re the ones that are supposed to be giving us
reliable information.>>Look, there’s this funny, interesting split
between how the media treats Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. I like them both, I think they’re both wonderful
progressives. Morgan, you worked at the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau->>I did, yeah.>>Which you wouldn’t have been able to do
if it wasn’t for Elizabeth Warren.>>Exactly, yeah.>>Right, so, but they’ve been, and I’m not
saying this in a bad way, I love it. The press has been generally positive about
Elizabeth Warren. And so that goes to show you, we are not biased. If we thought that, with the coverage that
she’s gotten, if we were out here going, the press is biased against Elizabeth Warren. They write negative articles. You’d say, mm, I don’t know about you guys,
right? But no, the articles have been actually really
positive.>>So I have no problem with the positive
articles. But I do have a giant problem in the way the
press treats Bernie versus Elizabeth Warren. I think they see Bernie Sanders as a bigger
threat, and they wanna get rid of him, right? And will the positive media coverage continue
if Bernie is no longer part of the equation, and it’s against Joe Biden or a different
centrist Democrat->>No.>>Versus Elizabeth Warren. Exactly, so I hate the way the media has covered
his campaign. I think that it’s abundantly clear that they
wanna get rid of him and do whatever they can to squash him. And he has proposed, in my opinion, one of
the most important healthcare policies, Medicare for All. And he’s the one who supports it without any
question. He doesn’t have any conversations about equivocating
or conceding things to centrists. He’s strong on it. He has the receipts to prove it. And I just hate the way that he gets smeared
over and over again. There’s no positive reporting on Bernie Sanders.>>Yeah, I just wanna ask the reporters one
thing. Look, I’m thrilled with the coverage that
Elizabeth Warren is getting. I just think it needs to be balanced, right? And do you really, if you’re a mainstream
media reporter, do you really believe that the mainstream media has given fair coverage
to Bernie Sanders, really? I mean, can you say with a straight face that
he’s gotten as much positive coverage as the other candidates? No, no one in their right mind could say that. I mean, you’d have to live in an alternative
fact world to believe that. You know that’s not true. So then I guess your supposition is, well,
Bernie Sanders is so bad, he deserved all those negative articles. And all the other candidates are generally
good, and they deserve the positive coverage. Then how could you not see your bias? You’ve made a presupposition that Bernie Sanders
is bad, and hence must have terrible articles written about him. And yet you say there’s no bias. It’s incredible to me that you can’t see it.>>Well, look, he threatens their power structure,
right, or long-standing American power structure. That is what Bernie Sanders threatens, right? He’s not having a conversation about protecting
the American people. He’s having a conversation about empowering
American people, and power is a zero-sum game. People in positions of power stand to lose
some of that power if the system is made more equal, right? So I think that’s the reason why some of these
individuals have absolutely no interest in covering him positively.>>Well, and at the very least, I think we
should be respectful of people who have views and are supportive of Bernie Sanders. I know a lot of people that I’m meeting in
the 3rd District in Ohio where I’m running that are very enthusiastic about Bernie. And they are good people and really hard-working
people that are putting a lot of their time and energy into supporting him. And just like the people that are supportive
of Elizabeth Warren, they deserve respect. And describing them as residue is not very
respectful.>>I agree.>>And by the way, look, you see it in almost
everything that Nate does. I’ll give you one last tweet from him. He said, you know who had diverse support,
trying to put down Sanders one more time, he said, de Blasio, that’s who. He had a 0% among whites, 0% among blacks,
0% among Hispanics, 0% among men and among women, 0% among college graduates, and it
gets on and on and on. So what is he doing there? Attacking another progressive that was in
the race, de Blasio, and then comparing Sanders to 0% support. So that’s two put-downs of progressives for
the price of one. Now, he could have picked John Delaney. But he wouldn’t do that, cuz John Delaney
is a beloved establishment figure. So I’m not saying that Nate Silver is pretending
that John Delaney has a real chance of winning this race. But it’s interesting that whenever he had
to pick an example of someone who didn’t do well, his gut instinct was, let me put down
another progressive. Instead of John Delaney, who’s been running
for two straight years, and never shows up in any of this polling. But he knows that his establishment friends
will get a chuckle out of the de Blasio comparison. They’ll be like, I do declare, no one likes
de Blasio, right? But if he’d said it about Delaney, he’d get
a sideways glance. Hey, hey, be cool, he’s a fellow Democrat,
unity, unity. What are you doing here? And so look, finally, the reality of that
poll in Iowa is, I think that it is real. So if you’re a Sanders supporter, you should
be concerned. And I was just in Iowa, and a lot of people
have Warren at either number one or at number two. The way that the caucuses work is, if your
candidate doesn’t get 15%, then you go to your number two, in which case Warren will
win even by a larger margin, if the election was held today. Now, do I think Bernie Sanders has a comeback
in him, is it possible? Yes, I definitely believe that, okay? So do I know if Warren or Sanders is gonna
win? I don’t, but the real takeaway from that poll,
and what Nate Silver should have focused on, is Biden’s at number two. And once he slips to number two, ain’t nobody
thinks that Biden can make a comeback. You ask any reporter off air, and they’ll
say, no, of course Biden can’t make a comeback, cuz his support has no energy, it has no enthusiasm. It’s not real support, it’s based on name
recognition. And once he loses that name recognition advantage
and slips to number two, he’s a goner.>>Well, then he can rely on his inspiring
proposals, right?>>Yeah, good luck trying to find them, whereas
Warren and Sanders both have incredible proposals. And so, if you’re in the prognostication game,
which of course I am, well, look, Bernie made a comeback already in some of the national
polling by outflanking Warren on the left. And so I think, my guess would be that he
would do more of that, and that that would be how he rises back up. So we’ll see if I’m right. That’s why I say it ahead of time, and the
rest of the folks never do. So there’s also good news for Bernie Sanders
in the national polling. So it’s a combination of polls, look at it
holistically. But overall, if you’re progressive, this is
a dream come true. I think very soon, the top two candidates
are gonna be both progressive.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *