Nate Silver's Projections For The General Election Are Probably Causing Alarm...

Instapundit: DaTechGuy: Nate Silver's projects Trump beating Hillary

This is not what Team Hillary was expecting post Democrat National Convention. But it is not all that surprising either given Bernie Sanders supporters feeling cheated. That bitterness by Bernie supporters is justified given  without Dirty Debbie's DNC shenanigans and Crooked Hillary's vote rigging, Sanders would have won over Hillary Rotten Clinton in a landslide.  

As DaTechGuy notes in his update, Nate has subsequently revised this from this morning to show a slight lead for Hillary. Not really though. If you add up the electoral votes, it breaks out to 269 for Trump, 269 for Hillary.  In that circumstance doesn't the House of Representatives gets to decide Trump or Hillary?  Under that protocol, the representatives votes by states, one vote per state, so assuming Representatives voted as their states voted (red or blue) Trump would win.  

Can you imagine the shenanigans that would go on if this goes to the House? It would be crazier than Bush Gore.  

This outcome map is definitely in the realm of possible

Instapundit: If you are not nervous about the election, you should be, Cowardly Comey caved a month ago, not that much bounce, Johnson Weld is definitely not libertarian (classic social liberal-fiscal conservative ticket--Merrick Garland and Stephen Breyer are NOT libertarian justices), Jonah Goldberg: My God, She's running as Hillary Clinton!, Don't take polling too much to heart yet

Nate Silver on Donald Trump's Polls Numbers

This is worth a read (both Trump-o-philes and Trump-o-phobes)

Take all of this with a big grain of salt. Nate Silver can definitely be wrong (he underestimated the Democrats' loss in the 2014 midterms), but he was mostly spot on during the 2012 Obama-Romney election (although predicting a one on one is a lot easier than a primary and nomination at this point, but that cuts both ways). Still, the Iowa Caucus is about two months from now...

EBL: Are forces in the GOP trying to block Trump and is the GOP Establishment freaking out about Trump

Instapundit: Pollsters can get it very wrong and why Trump has not flamed out

Wombat: Conservatives 4 Palin: The MSM sure hates Ben Carson

Seven reasons Trump will win

TOM: Corrupt Hustlers

Nate Silver learns what most of us already knew, Paul Krugman is a mendoucheous asshole

Five-Three-Eight Blog responds to Paul Krugman

Using baseball saber metrics:  Paul Krugman has the ethics of Alex Rodriquez and the over rated talent of Bryce Harper.  As a strategic thinker Krugman is Bobby Valentine.

Update:
When two wonks go to war…
The fat cat dude is getting catty…

Nate Silver: Republicans may take Senate in 2014...

Wonder why Democrats are so frantic?  

And Democrats are really are happy that George Zimmerman was acquitted.  Although they have to play it correctly...  Still, nothing like a little race baiting to fire up the Democrat base.

And they do not need Democrats doing this!  

Nate Silver: Winner!

Jonah Goldberg has a good article on the 535 blog and Silver...

Update:

To all of you yelling at me about Nate Silver/538. The RCP averages got 49/50 states right (assuming FL is O's). Nothing special about it.
— NumbersMuncher (@NumbersMuncher) November 8, 2012

True.  But RCP averages are not such an awesome chick magnet like Mr. Silver!

Nate Silver qualifies his bet...

Nate Silver qualifies his bet:  

November 3, 2012, 9:33 AM729 Comments

Nov. 2: For Romney to Win, State Polls Must Be Statistically Biased

By NATE SILVER

President Obama is now better than a 4-in-5 favorite to win the Electoral College, according to the FiveThirtyEight forecast. His chances of winning it increased to 83.7 percent on Friday, his highest figure since the Denver debate and improved from 80.8 percent on Thursday.

State polls statistically biased? 

Update:
Nate is upping his model again.
RSM says the Ali Akbar model is going to show Ohio for Romney.
J Howard has compiled some good polling articles at Protein Wisdom
Ben Domenech:  Obama drowns in undertow

So who is right: Nate Silver or Michael Barone?

Here is Barone's prediction.  So who is right?  We will find out for sure on Tuesday (or early Wednesday). 

Separated at Birth: Nate Silver and...?

So is NYT Nate Silver separated at birth from:  A Gypsy Fortune teller or Moneyball Oakland A's manager and saber-metric proponent Billy Beane?

Nate Silver separated at birth from: 

Billy Beane?

A Gypsy fortune teller?

So is Nate Silver's model a fraud or the real deal?  He did well in 2008 and 2010.  We will find out for sure November 6.  But as Stacy McCain at The Other McCain notes, Nate's numbers are not quite lining up:

Liberals may be stupid, but they’re not so stupid they can’t understand what John Nolte’s headline means:
GALLUP: Romney Up 52-45% Among Early Voters Dude. If Romney’s leading by SEVEN FREAKING POINTS in the early vote — and also leading by six points among voters who tell Gallup they plan to vote on Election Day, Nov. 6 — there is no way that Nate Silver can continue gazing at his Magic Forecasting Model™ and seeing a 72.9% chance of Obama being re-elected. He may continue telling that to his readers, but Nate cannot actually believe that.

Update:

Looks like a draw on early voting!   Nate has that working for him.

The issue is whether Nate is really trying to predict the outcome (whether his model is correct or not in doing so is another issue to be determined) or whether Nate is trying to influence the outcome (which would be unethical).

Dan McLaughlin at Red State has a great article:

We can’t know until Election Day who is right. I stand by my view that Obama is losing independent voters decisively, because the national and state polls both support that thesis. I stand by my view thatRepublican turnout will be up significantly from recent-historic lows in 2008 in the key swing states (Ohio, Wisconsin, Colorado) and nationally, because the post-2008 elections, the party registration data, the early-voting and absentee-ballot numbers, and the Rasmussen and Gallup national party-ID surveys (both of which have solid track records) all point to this conclusion. I stand by my view that no countervailing evidence outside of poll samples shows a similar surge above 2008 levels in Democratic voter turnout, as would be needed to offset Romney’s advantage with independents and increased GOP voter turnout. And I stand by the view that a mechanical reading of polling averages is an inadequate basis to project an event unprecedented in American history: the re-election of a sitting president without a clear-cut victory in the national popular vote.Perhaps, despite the paucity of evidence to the contrary, these assumptions are wrong. But if they are correct, no mathematical model can provide a convincing explanation of how Obama is going to win re-election. He remains toast.

Is Nate Silver's Value at Risk?