What sets Paul Krugman apart from Nate Silver

[mcablue]

Both support passage of the Senate bill of something similar (I disagree with them). But let's see how much respect each feels for us opponents of health "reform":

1) Silver: If you oppose this bill you are batshit crazy and a "global warming denialist."

2) Krugman (12-25-09): "Unlike the tea partiers and the humbuggers, disappointed progressives have valid complaints. But those complaints don’t add up to a reason to reject the bill. Yes, it’s a hackneyed phrase, but politics is the art of the possible."

Which one is more likely to convince people who want to kill the bill to switch sides and support it?

[Selatius]

1. Hands down, the guy who yells you're a batshit crazy lunatic is more likely to convince you.

Honestly, ridicule and condescension are tools best able to convince a person to join your side. Calling them extremist or "far left" in the pejorative sense also helps a great deal. Try it.

:sarcasm:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. One Is A Nobel Laureate. The Other Guy Is A Stat Junkie

But I'm not getting into the politics of it all.