So he's calling out a guy for making his error bars too narrow??
Silver seems to have a fair point. At least in 2010, Wang apparently structured his model in a way that almost completely ruled out results that actually happened, and it wasn't even a partisan bias on Wang's part from what I can tell, since he overestimated Angle, a Republican, while underestimating the GOP's chances in the House in the same year.
Silver calls out Wang for predicting a two point Angle victory when Silver predicted a three point Angle victory. He calls out Wang's predicted 51 seat GOP House gain when Silver predicted 53. The only difference was that Wang's model only had a standard error of 0.5 points for the Senate race and two seats in the House, while Silver's prediction came with a plus-or-minus thirty seats in the House and a similarly broad range for the Senate election.
Silver's complaint is accurate but he's making a mountain out of a molehill here. Sure, in past elections Wang's model significantly underestimated uncertainty but that's irrelevant because he corrected it after 2012. Nate Silver is literally calling out another election predictor as unreliable by hyping up the fact that the guy used to have a single methodological error that has long since been corrected.
