In a lot of small ways, Gelman (and the Economist team) engage in more transparency, and self-critique about forecasting practices relative to the 538 team. I

In a lot of small ways, Gelman (and the Economist team) engage in more transparency, and self-critique about forecasting practices relative to the 538 team. I don't mean to come off as a Nate Silver hater. My criticism is made with a lot of affection, and awareness of how much he discusses the role of uncertainty in his work. But the Economist team has made some legitimate critiques of some wacky tail behavior in the 538 model[1] which Nate Silver has basically dismissed without engaging, whereas the Economist team has written plenty critiquing their own model[2]. I mean this is Gelman's whole schtick about the scientific process: he thinks that errors are to be expected and should be transparently discussed and fixed and iteratively improved over time. That's partly why they've released all their code on Github, and Gelman has sort of poked at 538 for not doing the same with their code. [1] https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/10/24/reverse-engineering-the-problematic-tail-behavior-of-the-fivethirtyeight-presidential-election-forecast/ https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/10/24/reverse-en... [2] https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/10/24/reverse-engineering-the-problematic-tail-behavior-of-the-fivethirtyeight-presidential-election-forecast/ https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/10/24/reverse-en...