Nate Silver has been taking a lot of unfair shit from wingnuts, and even the publicbusy body editor at the New York Times. It mostly involves people who dislike the conclusions that his statistical method comes up with. Hell, I didn’t like his predictions for 2010 but he was right. I’m pretty sure Nate will be collecting that bet money from a certain MSNBC morning show host; that is, if JoeScarborough is, uh, fair…
On to today’s outlook:
There is only a 19.1% chance of electing our first robot President.
Now if it were the robot fromLost In Space, Obama might be in trouble:
William McKinley always struck me as looking somewhat robot-like, and his voice almost sounds like…a robot’s interpretation of a 19th century patrician accent:
http://www.lib.msu.edu/cs/branches/vvl/presidents/mckinley.html
When I see Romney, I don’t think of that robot. He’s more like Dr. Zachary Smith.
Does Nate Silver need the NY Times more than the NY Times needs Nate Silver?
My answer would be that neither needs the other all that much.
Without Silver, the Times would still be the Times; and if they can Silver, I think we could measure the amount of time it would take him to get a new gig with a stopwatch. So, whatever guys…
Although I don’t trust statistical manipulations that much, I kind of like seeing that since you’ve been headlining his numbers there is a steady downward trend.
JUST MAKE IT SO.