I don& #39;t agree w/everything here (I& #39;d respectfully say that you& #39;re missing a ton of great, smart work at 538 if this is your view) but I think your thread is a thoughtful one. And I get what you& #39;re saying abt the popular perception of the site. 1/ https://twitter.com/theREAL_mjammy/status/1293640470208356359">https://twitter.com/theREAL_m...

It& #39;s somewhat exhausting to defend the "538 is too academic" thing because, yeah, on some level, there& #39;s some truth to that. And I think the new model design will hopefully help make it a more broadly popular product. Not just for "politics junkies" (a despicable phrase) 2/

The model is obviously a product that differentiates the site from other sites. So we certainly write off it, and write stories driven by numbers. But to say the site is "correcting and clarifying others& #39; bad stats takes" rings hollow 3/

I do think a certain someone whose name is on the site has a Twitter persona that sometimes goes that direction! But he also writes long and thoughtfully—I must emphasize this—OTHER PEOPLE work at the site besides Nate. And offer different strengths and perspectives 4/

I do think you& #39;re point abt probabilistic thinking getting into the political bloodstream is well taken. I think we (media) all need to be more meta in thinking about our effects on the election, esp after 2016, and I do think the site is making good faith efforts. 5/

Ugh, *your*.

Anyhow, I hope you& #39;ll keep listening and reading. I appreciate the thoughts. I obviously think about this, too. A lot!