In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:
In response to GreginMeffa's comment:Betting on an incubent is quite daring. I've seen 2 lose in half a century. You? Thats 9 to one odds by the way. Good bet, but doesn't pay much
Then why are the whacko wingnuts going out of their way to discredit not only Nate Silver, but every poll that doesn't agree with their opinion?
And that includes wingnuts alternately praising/criticizing some same polls that, depending on the day, either are pro- or anti-Mittens.
There are literrally dozens of wingnut pundits who are not only predicting a Mittens victory but some predict a lopsided blowout.
These are the wingnuts who should be taking Silver up on his bet.
But they won't because it's either all bullshiit posturing for the nose-to-Buttocks crowd to not lose faith or they really don't have the confidence they say they do.
Either way they are disingenuous at best, craven hypocrits at worst.
But what's really ignorant on the part of the wingnuts is that they don't challenge the data directly but just employ the 'Oh he's partisan' bullcrap of lazy thinking ....or some swim deeper into the cesspool of personal attacks and say he's wrong because he's a weak, little girly-man.
That's the kind of crap coming from the wingnuts that is pathetic.
Yea, the left never does that sht.
The Boston Globe had Martha Coakley up by 19 on the weekend before the special election.
Nothing to see there, of course.