I could be mistaken. It might be merely a case of 538 generating publicity for itself, though I doubt that. If it were just a publicity stunt I would expect Nate to use his own methodology to produce a coherent and believable scenario illustrating Paul's outrageous abuse. Instead.. Well I guess I'd better let you all judge for yourselves. I found this article at The Advocate and if you work at Hobby Lobby don't click the link on the job. It's probably NSFW at Chick-Fil-A either. I'm using The Advocate's story because I don't want to give click revenue to a possible publicity stunt, but there is a link to the original article on 538 in The Advocate's article. Nate Silver Points Out NYT Writer's 'Change of Tone' on FiveThirtyEight is a short article, so I don't want to go the 4-para route. Besides, for me the meat of the matter lies here
FiveThirtyEight joined The New York Times August 25, 2010, having operated as an independent blog until that time. Prior to joining the paper, Krugman wrote seven stories about the blog or Silver — four favorable, two neutral, and one unfavorable.
During the blog's relationship with the Times, Krugman referred to the blog or Silver 21 times — 15 favorable references, five neutral, and one unfavorable.
However, since March 17, when FiveThirtyEight relaunched under the ownership of ESPN, Krugman "has mentioned FiveThirtyEight four times in just nine days, all in negative contexts," according to Silver's analysis.
After that juicy red-meat analysis Nate tosses us a bone for contention
..Silver acknowledged that Krugman's shift in his opinion of the site might be attributable to its new writers or expanded coverage areasand stated "it can be easy to extrapolate a spurious trend from a limited number of data points.."
Is it hurt feelings? Is it a bid for blog attention? Is it much ado about nothing? I have no idea. I've reported it; you decide.