Who the hell is Nate Silverman and why should any of us care??!
Ya....nice try...you know who he is and you know how accurate he is.
I know who he is -- but what he does is vastly overrated. Its not hard to pick the electoral college just by eyeballing the polls right before the election. he dresses it up with some fancy math and makes a blog of it (and good for him if he can make a little $$$ of that) but its like the wizzard of oz.
how accurate is he really? some articles gush at how he picked 50 of 51 states (counting DC) last time but so what? So did I. im sure a lot of others got all 50. its not hard to pick about 42-46 of the states; they are not in doubt.
The real key is he missed one and how many were in real doubt? to me if you miss one thats a failure, not a success. right now if you had to pick today id say there are 2 in real doubt -- Iowa and NH, maybe Colorado.
so while he is right that obama is likely to win its really pretty obvious. good for him that he can keep himself busy doing it but he really is much (or at least some) ado about nothing (or not much).
Also, remeber he is a highly partisan Democratic shill and has shown to be highly unethical and deceitful. in 2008 while writing his blog he failed to mention that he was working as an undisclosed consultant for the obama campaign being fed there internal polling data (a campaigns data is generally thought to be the gold standard of polling data) so when he wrote he wasnt writing as just an obama supporter (which he did admit to being) but as an obama advisor -- which is a BIG difference.
Also he subsequently has avoided answering the issue. he says only he has worked as an unpaid advisor to campaigns but of course that is not true here either. he was provided extremely valuable data in return for his services (arguably which you couldnt even put aprice on its so valuable) so he was clearly compensated -- maybe not in cash but with great value nonetheless.
At the end of the day he is just anotehr democratic hack pushing the narrative that obama is winning in hopes of rallying the vote for him (just as the Republican hacks push the romney is surginy / winning narrative); thats all he really is (note that there is NEVER with him truly good news for a Repub. candidate. Even when he acknoweldges something he goes to great length to then discredit its apparent significane. And do you really think hed be affiliated with the new yourk times if he were otherwise? Really?
Raging Ravi is as stoopid as Hagitha.. Quite obvious you don't know what a run on sentence is either but being you're sooo offended that someone insulted a member of your HAG squad, try next time to make a little sense in your retort.. Don't thank me DUMMY, free advice!
