NS: I wouldn’t say it came naturally. I think I went from being about a C on TV to being a B+ by the end. It’s definitely something where you need practice—it’s not completely natural in terms of your body language and other stuff. You want to look straight ahead, but you also don’t want to be so stiff. I think sometimes you learn lessons that are good starter rules, but kind of un-learn them eventually. ‘Don’t play with your hands a lot, because the frame’s going to capture your neckline and a little below, and you don’t want hands popping into and out of the frame.’ But if you gesture and gesticulate a lot—or a little bit, I should say—that can add some life and body, I think, to the appearance. So there are little things like that. I sometimes wear glasses on these appearances because my eyes tend to dart around a little bit, and you wouldn’t notice in person, but you’d certainly notice on television. So there are little tricks you learn.
By the end it was kind of fun. But there are also times when you’ve slept for all of three hours, and you have to do a TV hit, and you definitely hope they have a makeup person there, and whatever else. And other times you’re like, “This is fun,” and you’re in the right mood, and everything goes great. It’s definitely not something I anticipated doing when I started the Web site back in March.
MG: And what are your plans for later on? Are you going to stay in politics?
NS: Yeah, I think I’ll be trying to split my time in some reasonably intelligent way. But I’m looking to probably write a book next year (one good thing about the media appearances is you have publishers who are interested in your stuff). And, on the site, we’ll talk about the Congress. I think that, as compared with this point four years ago, there’ll be a lot more real news. Obama seems very ambitious about what he wants to accomplish. He has Democrats in both chambers of Congress, so he doesn’t have very many excuses not to get some stuff accomplished, so I think people will be interested in what he’s doing.
And there’s all this fascination over his chief of staff and stuff like that…and some of that stuff, I think, is kind of boring, but what I’m more interested in is the politics of it—Who are the key swing votes in the Senate? Who does Obama have to maintain good relationships with, and who can he afford to piss off?—and to kind of narrate that play-by-play, and everything else. Now, for example, which senators are up for re-election next year? There are a group of four or five moderate Republicans in tough races in 2010 in the Senate, and if Obama is popular, they’re going to have a difficult time if they look like they’re obstructing what he’s trying to do. Likewise, there are red-state Democratic senators who, if Obama is unpopular, might want to position themselves against him. So you’re going to go from a de-facto filibuster-proof majority of sixty-four or so senators if he’s popular to barely getting fifty on some votes if he’s not. There’s a group of about a dozen swing votes in the Senate between moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats of various stripes.
MG: While it focuses on Congress, will FiveThirtyEight keep its current numbers-and-narrative formula?

"Silver’s unique combination of accuracy with numbers and accessibility with narrative made FiveThirtyEight, founded in March 2008, the first blog ever to be selected as a Notable Narrative by Harvard’s Nieman Foundation."
And that distinction is well deserved!
My initial visit to his blog-site was shortly after its launch in March of this year, during the Democratic Presidential primaries, and I've never stopped going.
When the nominees were finally chosen and their Presidential campaigns really kicked off, FiveThirtyEight became THE place for me to go, nearly everyday, for in-depth and accurate polling information.
To the degree that I trust any polls or projections, Nate Silver is the man_and he's to be commended for a job well done!
Posted by Deb. J. on Wed 12 Nov 2008 at 08:47 AM
Count me among the frequent visitors to 538 during the past election season. It was really the only place which aggregated the polls in a sensible way.
With the huge increase in polling data this year, there was a lot of confusion in which ones to trust, and whose model would hold up.
What Nate did was to make all this very sensible, and for those of us with election-anxiety (and there were many!) this very rational approach was reassuring.
As a doctor, I share Nate's view that the same approach can be done with medicine and medical research reporting. Again, much public anxiety can be alleviated with reason, particularly in the area of infectious diseases and public health concerns.
Posted by dkarl on Wed 12 Nov 2008 at 11:00 AM
Nate had an amazing track record. But this article is off on the popular vote numbers. Its actually Obama 52.6, McCain 46.1.
Seems small, but George W. Bush's 50.7% was consistently rounded up to 51%, and yet Obama's is being rounded down to 52%. Its annoying (although CNN has corrected it).
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/
Posted by JoshA on Wed 12 Nov 2008 at 11:42 AM
@JoshA: Thanks for writing (and you make a good point about rounding). There are slight discrepancies in the popular vote count among various outlets -- partially because of Missouri's outstanding projections. Since CNN rounds its numbers, I'm curious: where are you getting the 52.6/46.1 breakdown?
For the post, I was relying on Nov. 5's popular vote count for the 52.4/46.3 breakdown...but the AP currently has its projection at 52.7 Obama to 46.0 McCain. I'm deferring to that, and have amended the post to reflect the most recent info.
Posted by Megan Garber on Wed 12 Nov 2008 at 07:01 PM
Yeah, Yeah, Yeah...Numbers, statistics, whatever. The real news is that Nate is hot! Super-geek-stud.
Posted by Joe on Wed 12 Nov 2008 at 07:07 PM