The most under-reported story of these final few days is how fantastic and loyal Bill Clinton has been. In the final 2 weeks of the election he will have done 48 rallies for Obama across all the swing states, 3-4 rallies a day on average.
I'm more inclined to believe Nate's prediction more than that Sam guy. Is he credible?
Nate was only wrong about Indiana in 2008 (his model had McCain winning), and someone said he was only off by about five seats in 2010. So far, his model's been pretty reliable.These numbers are right, right guys? I mean... We're using real math, right? Wang and silver are nothing like unskewed guy, right? Right? =/
Nate was only wrong about Indiana in 2008 (his model had McCain winning), and someone said he was only off by about five seats in 2010. So far, his model's been pretty reliable.
If the election turns out as his model predicts, I wonder if anyone will do a story on it after so many shat on him for one reason or another.
I could see the daily show doing a great piece on it if silver turns out to be dead on.Nate was only wrong about Indiana in 2008 (his model had McCain winning), and someone said he was only off by about five seats in 2010. So far, his model's been pretty reliable.
If the election turns out as his model predicts, I wonder if anyone will do a story on it after so many shat on him for one reason or another.
In 2010, I believe people mostly ignored or tried to focus on the good parts (there's a 15% chance the dems will keep the house! Hope is alive!)I wonder, if Nate is basically right what do liberals do if he shows in 2016 a consistent lead for Rubio or whomever is the GOP nominee. Will liberals go into denial about Silver?
I wonder, if Nate is basically right what do liberals do if he shows in 2016 a consistent lead for Rubio or whomever is the GOP nominee. Will liberals go into denial about Silver?
More than a few will. Look him up on DailyKos and you'll see plenty of diary post that boil down to "gotv is more important than Nate's model, lets do this!" The posts are more to combat complacency but it'a not hard to see that argument being used by multiple old school liberals if Nate showed a dem down. Joe Trippi also made a somewhat condescending comment about his model right before the first debate.I wonder, if Nate is basically right what do liberals do if he shows in 2016 a consistent lead for Rubio or whomever is the GOP nominee. Will liberals go into denial about Silver?
I'm more inclined to believe Nate's prediction more than that Sam guy. Is he credible?
5 minutes agoI'm going to Obama's rally tomorrow in Hollywood Florida. He is going to be there and the doors open at 12:30. What time do you think I should get there?
Tune into next week's Real Time With Bill Maher on HBO to see MSNBC's The Cycle hottie S.E. Cupp shed bitter tears about Romney losing the election while being sexually harassed by host Bill Maher
Meaning he could have been quite wrong about a close election...like 2012Nate undershot the final popular vote by a little over 1% in 2008. Which means Obama got almost 2 million more votes than Nate thought he would.
Meaning he could have been quite wrong about a close election...like 2012
good morning y'all? can anyone provide a nice cup of hopium?
Meaning he could have been quite wrong about a close election...like 2012
@ppppolls
Just started our final Ohio poll and the first respondent picked Romney #PANIC
Is Christie the only viable candidate the Republicans have in 2016? I wonder if Ronmey will run again.
smh, this election isn't close.
Is Christie the only viable candidate the Republicans have in 2016? I wonder if Ronmey will run again.
Yea...in fact we are doomed
Marco Rubio
Chris Christie
Susana Martinez
Rick Santorum
Mitch Daniels
I think will be the top tier candidates in 2016 for GOP.
If Romney loses this cycle, they're going hard right. Santorum everywhere
If Romney loses this cycle, they're going hard right. Santorum everywhere
Is Christie the only viable candidate the Republicans have in 2016? I wonder if Ronmey will run again.
The Republican base thinks Romney is a moderate. If he loses, they're going to blame it on the fact that he was a moderate. It'll take another cycle or two for them to fully realize that they're the problem.
Nate sez that unless the state polls are all wrong, Obama is gonna win
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...olls-must-be-statistically-biased/#more-37099
These numbers are right, right guys? I mean... We're using real math, right? Wang and silver are nothing like unskewed guy, right? Right? =/
The Republican base thinks Romney is a moderate. If he loses, they're going to blame it on the fact that he was a moderate. It'll take another cycle or two for them to fully realize that they're the problem.
The Republican base thinks Romney is a moderate. If he loses, they're going to blame it on the fact that he was a moderate. It'll take another cycle or two for them to fully realize that they're the problem.
A 3.7 at Harvard is probably easier than a 3.7 at most universities if the reports of grade inflation are true. Still a great GPA though.
I think the funniest thing will be watching Santorum fail. He probably thinks his primary run made him the "next in line" guy republicans typically nominate, but 2012 will be full of formidable opponents this time. If Christie rebuilds NJ he will be well poised to win; the state's unemployment rate will certainly lower as construction jobs open up for the repair process. If he was smart he would lose some weight, not just for his health but to show people he can be disciplined.Marco Rubio
Chris Christie
Susana Martinez
Rick Santorum
Mitch Daniels
I think will be the top tier candidates in 2016 for GOP.
Romney isn't anything. Not a moderate, a liberal, nor a conservative.
He's simply the shell of a corporation running for President trying to masquerade as a human being.
For them to realize that they're going to have to moderate to start winning again, they're going to have to nominate a far right nut like Santorum and see them get absolutely destroyed in a general election. If they keep it up by nominating someone like Rubio or Christie, republicans that aren't far right nuts, they will once again think that they weren't conservative enough.
What helped was that Americans rewarded GOP for their far right move in 2010, whatever the reasons for that. Once you get a wave like that, they were not going to be able to move away from it.
For them to realize that they're going to have to moderate to start winning again, they're going to have to nominate a far right nut like Santorum and see them get absolutely destroyed in a general election. If they keep it up by nominating someone like Rubio or Christie, republicans that aren't far right nuts, they will once again think that they weren't conservative enough.