when it was an independent site.
If you remember, he used to have co-contributors who wrote some fantastic series of posts about their experiences visiting campaign field offices around the country etc. They were fascinating, and I used to really enjoy them.
It took the pressure off Nate having to come up with new content every day when sometimes there wasn't much new to say. Now he has to write posts even when he doesn't have much to report, so he often reaches and stretches, and he's not that good a pundit compared to many out there (Booman, for instance).
There wasn't much new data over the holiday weekend following the first presidential debate, hence the undue focus on some pretty weird outliers and plain scam polls. I can read rubbish like that anywhere on the Web. If he's not going to serve as a reliable editor of what's worth paying attention to and what isn't, then I have better places to spend my time nowadays.
His model is certainly contaminated at the moment with some rubbish polls like Gravis, and he doesn't seem to care as far as I can see. It's one thing to weight polls if they have a house effect, quite another to sometimes rely on them for a lede even if they're very suspicious or blatant outliers, as he has done.
I couldn't believe it last night when he cited that rubbish widely debunked CNN instapoll about the VP debate. Sure, he'll usually include a caveat when he mentions these less reputable polls, but why dignify them by mentioning them at all if they can't be trusted to signify anything? It's just filler.
I'll still be paying attention to him closer to the election because of his track record, but I'm afraid he's doing his reputation no good nowadays. We'll see whether he nails it this time, or even close.
= new reply since forum marked as read
