Nate Silver’s Contradictory Affinity for Democrats Exposed

It is interesting to delve into the political leanings of popular pollster and statistician Nate Silver, whose predictions were heavily relied upon until the recent election that he misjudged, giving similar odds to Harris and Trump. There’s a subtle vibe of underlying support for Democrats in Five-Thirty-Eight, currently an ABC-owned franchise and it’s hard to think that Silver does not have a hand in it. Interestingly enough, he seems to have disdain towards progressives, considering them too left-wing and a departure from classic liberal values, something not commendable. A look into his past words and actions reveals his political ambiguity; with a disposition at times favoring the Democrats, and at others criticizing them.

In a 2012 interview, Silver situated himself between being a libertarian and a liberal, and to decide between Gary Johnson and Mitt Romney should he vote. Strangely enough, he corrected himself in 2023, claiming he meant he would’ve decided between Johnson and Barack Obama. His subsequent voting records show a clear inclination towards the Democratic side. However, it is noteworthy how he voted for John Kasich in the 2016 New York Republican presidential primary, citing what he believed could have been a stark contrast between a Trump-led GOP and a Kasich-led one.

As if Silver’s political stance wasn’t bizarre enough, he also frequently critiques progressives, arguing they’ve become excessively to the left and less liberal over time. His voting records in recent times indicate support for Kathy Hochul and Kamala Harris, albeit accompanying these votes with criticism of certain Democratic actions and stances. Silver, thus presents himself as a contradictory figure, favoring yet critically analyzing those he seems to support.

My own perspective comes from glimpses of tweets sent to me by various readers, as I don’t follow anyone on Twitter. Having said that, I admit to having a liking for the rough battles of Twitter, much more so than the superficial courtesy and virtue signaling that Bluesky radiates. However, I want to point out that I do not hold animosity towards those acquaintances of mine who left Twitter due to constant exposure to pro-Trump sentiments, and sought political comradery elsewhere, like Bluesky. I firmly believe that the vitriol exists on Bluesky too; it’s only projected at conservatives and Republicans, and non-adherents to ‘progressive’ leftism.

It raises an alarm when one sees sites that continually target Jessie Singal, for merely sharing scientific facts, as he perceives them, facts that disassemble the dogma of gender activism. I do share posts from both platforms, but I find myself gravitating towards Twitter, where my follower count outnumbers my Bluesky follower count by a staggering 37 times. Bluesky, notably, has put me on several lists to be mass blocked – most likely due to my opinions on contentious issues like Israel and gender activism.

This brings us back to Nate Silver, the liberal/libertarian pollster, with a knack for statistical analysis, benefiting from his background. Silver suggests that despite a slight decline, Twitter continues to retain its influence, contradicting claims made by Elon Musk regarding the platform. This continued relevance is attributed to it coming down from a high peak period of exponential growth, rather than falling down a cliff. On balancing the prospects between Twitter and Bluesky, Silver optimistically brasens that Bluesky won’t be overtaking Twitter anytime soon.

Silver proceeds then to examine the intricate dynamics of these two platforms, focusing much on Bluesky, the newbie. However, given that my familiarity with Bluesky’s history and its contents is somewhat limited, I cannot fully agree nor disagree with his below analysis. One particularly pernicious behavior Silver highlights is ‘shooting the messenger’, a rampant tendency on social media to attack you not just for what you say but also because they simply dislike what you discuss.

Then we have ‘Blueskyism,’ a term Silver employs to describe an ideology he believes jeopardizes Democratic electoral victories. Moderation is generally a winner for elections, but exceptions certainly exist. The ultimate goal always lies in amassing popularity and recruiting new followers. It is here, according to Silver, that Blueskyism fails due to its intolerance for differing views. He mentions Zohran Mamdani’s shift from concentrating on contentious cultural topics to focusing on the cost of living, resulting in a possible triumph at the New York Mayoral election. This, in my opinion, earns Nate Silver a demerit; touting Mamdani, despite whatever personal charisma he might possess, presents unfeasible policies and intolerable ‘anti-Zionism’ or whatever else one might call it.

Onto the three distinguishing features of ‘Blueskyism’ from Silver’s perspective: Smalltentism, Credentialism, and Catastrophism. A great deal of commentary is excluded from this analysis, and I highly encourage one to delve into it on their own for a detailed understanding. Importantly, Silver concludes this with a pragmatic realization – the decline of Bluesky’s user base isn’t likely to continue indefinitely.

Agreeable or not, I find myself siding with Silver’s insights on the different atmospheres infused within Twitter and Bluesky. Although I face more opposition on Twitter relative to my views, Bluesky seems to push more against views that are seemingly downright sensible, such as accepting the biological binary sex. I have been banned more frequently on Bluesky than on Twitter.

But despite the friction I face there, and the repeated disciplinary actions against me, I rarely share posts from my Bluesky feed in my morning posts. The content suggested for me is more sanctimonious and humorless than I care for, reinforcing why Twitter is perhaps the necessary evil of this tale. Arguably, while Nate Silver and I share an ambiguous political affinity, our experiences and preferences diverge on these platforms and their sociopolitical climates.