Nate Silver: Dear Media, Stop Freaking Out About Donald Trump’s Polls

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Webb was supposed to be the anti Hillary. And less than 2 months ago, 538 said Jindal could win Iowa. Joke site.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Also he makes the argument that no candidate like Trump has ever won a major nomination before (true)

That's the thing about politics and other low-observation phenomena: trends are true until they suddenly aren't.

A woman and a non Christian have never won a major party nomination before. Congrats, Democratic nominee Martin O'Malley.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

And the whole Nate Gospelism thing is that he is better than the media - he can tell when they're going to be wrong and goes against them when they're going to be. This year, all he's done is run with the failed media consensus - he said that Bush and Walker would be top contenders for the nomination, they aren't. He continues to say that Trump will fade shortly, even though all evidence points to Trump making it to at least Super Tuesday - Sure, these are things that Atlas ran with for a time, but we're just commoners - Nate, according to his fans, is supposed to be better than that, and he's not.

As I just said in this thread:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=224006.msg4817473#msg4817473

show me where Nate is saying that Trump will fade shortly.  He says he doesn't think that he's going to win the nomination, but explicitly says he's not sure about what stage of the game that's going to happen in, conceding that he could hold on to most/all of his current support into the primaries, and lose the nomination.

As for Bush/Walker...I think you're reading that wrong.  Saying A, B, and C are the strongest contenders for the nomination isn't contradicted when A and B flame out and drop out / fail to win any primaries.  You're not saying that those will be the top three in the end.  You're saying that you think one of them will be the winner, but you don't know which one yet.  The second, third, and fourth place winners in delegates could be candidates X, Y, and Z who you give little chance of winning, and you wouldn't be wrong.  I mean, does anyone dispute that Phil Gramm had a better chance of winning the 1996 GOP nomination than Pat Buchanan?  That's not contradicted by the fact that Buchanan actually won some primaries, while Gramm dropped out after Iowa.  Buchanan never had a real chance at winning the nomination, while Gramm did.

He's been really off. Jindal was supposed to be doing well in Iowa now. Webb was supposed to be the anti-Hillary. And Trump was supposed to immediately crash and burn. H