Statistics are, but Nate's punditry -- often backed by flawed statistics -- really isn't. He's just contributing to the horse race spectacle, usually without offering any useful insights. It also doesn't help that, in doing so, he also (somewhat) influences the outcome according to his own personal biases. I'm sure there were plenty of Hillary voters out there who stayed home in 2016 because Trump "only" had a 30% chance of winning -- Matt talked on the pod about the same sort of phenomenon with Biden voters in Iowa back in February -- and that wound up being one of the proverbial thousand cuts that was enough to swing the election in a few districts.
Statistics are, but Nate's punditry -- often backed by flawed statistics -- really isn't. He's just contributing to the horse race spectacle, usually without offering any useful insights. It also doesn't help that, in doing so, he also (somewhat) influences the outcome according to his own personal biases. I'm sure there were plenty of Hillary voters out there who stayed home in 2016 because Trump "only" had a 30% chance of winning -- Matt talked on the pod about the same sort of phenomenon with Biden voters in Iowa back in February -- and that wound up being one of the proverbial thousand cuts that was enough to swing the election in a few districts.