By HatetheSwamp September 13, 2024 7:39 am Category: Media (0.0 from 0 votes) Rules of the Post Write A New Article How To Post Here Rate this article (5=best, 0=poor)

Let me start off with two words. I support Kammy. I support Kammy.


""The first post-debate polls are in, and they helped Kamala Harris very slightly in our forecast—but we'd caution against reading too much into any of this data just yet," Silver wrote in his Thursday afternoon update of Silver Bulletin, a Substack publication.

Silver's model did give Harris a slight boost to her chances of winning after Tuesday's debate. But as of Thursday, the pollster projects Trump has a 60.6 percent chance of victory, while Harris has 39.2 percent."


That aligns with what pb's finding as he seeks post-debate truth.

Kammy and the ABC moderators' performance was a big wand of cotton candy. Sweet. But, there's nuthin to it.

Trump was not a narcissistic bully in the debate. That was his victory.

Panels of undecideds on several networks said, virtually to the person, that their primary takeaway from the debate was that Kammy didn't say anything substantial. She gave voters no reason to vote for her.

pb predicts that, by one month after the debate, the debate will have hurt Kammy. Groceries will still be expensive. Illegals will still be raping and murdering American voters and their friends and families.

It appears that Trump won't debate again. The genius for Trump is that Kammy will have lost her opportunity to give voters a reason to vote for her.

Still, keep a good thought. Nate Silver gives her a 39% chance of winning.

Cited and related links:

1. newsweek.com

Comments Start Below

by Indy! on September 13, 2024 10:37 am Let's go to the tape... Silver has been criticized for inaccurate predictions. In January 2010, journalist and blogger Colby Cosh criticized Silver's performance during the Massachusetts special Senate election, saying he was "still arguing as late as Thursday afternoon that [Martha] Coakley was the clear favourite; he changed his mind at midnight that evening and acknowledged that Scott Brown had a puncher's chance." (Brown won the election.)[94] Silver's quantitative focus on polling data, without insight from experience in political organizing or journalism, has been a recurring critique from experienced commentators. Huffington Post columnist Geoffrey Dunn described Silver as someone who "has never organized a precinct in his life, much less walked one, pontificating about the dynamics in the electoral processes as if he actually understood them."[95] Considerable criticism during the 2012 elections came from political conservatives, who argued that Silver's election projections were politically biased against Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate for president.[96] For example, Silver was accused of applying a double standard to his treatment of Rasmussen Reports polls, such as a 2010 analysis asserting a statistical bias in its methodology.[97] Josh Jordan wrote in National Review that Silver clearly favored Obama and adjusted the weight he gave polls "based on what [he] think[s] of the pollster and the results and not based on what is actually inside the poll".[98] On MSNBC's Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough stated that Silver's prediction that day of a 73.6% chance of a win for Obama greatly exceeded the confidence of the Obama campaign itself, which Scarborough equated to that of the Romney campaign, both believing "they have a 50.1 percent chance of winning", and calling Silver an "ideologue" and a "joke". Silver responded with the offer of a $1,000 wager (for charity) over the outcome of the election. The New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan, while defending Silver's analysis, characterized the wager as "a bad idea" as it gave the appearance of a partisan motive for Silver, and "inappropriate" for someone perceived as a Times journalist (although Silver was not a member of the newspaper's staff).[99][100] Plenty more on Nate's "abilities" below... en.wikipedia.org by Indy! on September 13, 2024 10:38 am Forgot to bold this... On MSNBC's Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough stated that Silver's prediction that day of a 73.6% chance of a win for Obama greatly exceeded the confidence of the Obama campaign itself... Which is exactly what is happening in your piece, PB - Nate is overvaluing Rasmussen and the other fake polls. by Curt_Anderson on September 13, 2024 11:33 am Nate Silver seems to be a glutton for punishment. Or maybe he figures he'll get more Substack paid subscribers if he makes contrarian predictions. If a bettor were to be dispassionately judging sports teams chances in the championship, they likely would compare the two teams' error levels. If one team was disciplined and relatively mistake-free and the other was undisciplined and mistake-prone (including unforced errors), there wouldn't be much doubt where a smart bettor would place their money. by Indy! on September 13, 2024 11:36 am In the end, Nate "2016" Silver is just another wingnut trying to help Trump get re-elected. That - alone - tells us he's not very bright and should not be trusted. Go To Top

Find old posts & articles

Show Most Recent Articles Articles by category: Politics+ Religion+ Law & Crime Military News Media History Health Sports+ Humor Entertainment Misc.

Report spam & abuse SelectSmart.com home page