"Either you think the Black vote factors into the equation and are therefore willing to wait..."

[Scurrilous]

32. This Nevada poll for example.

There hasn't been a poll taken for Nevada since January 14th. That one had Biden up 2%. The poll below is the adjusted average poll. Average polls are just that. The average of all polls to date. At 538 there is a catch. 'State polling averages are adjusted based on national trends...' So Nate can adjust the average poll himself. He says in the absence of new polls, but he adjusted the two Carolina polls 4 days after a new one. So he can change the percentages. Based on national trends. Which in this case is the magnificence of Bernie's 2nd place Iowa finish which we know he considers equal to 800 delegates. All the state averages have been adjusted for Iowa. From Florida to California. Every state must adore the Iowa. No one in Nevada is asked if they care about Iowa. It's not important. Nate cares. So he takes a sharpie to Biden's numbers and down they go. And then up goes Bernie. He's now +5.1% in Nevada. Catapults it out to the media and OMG Bernie leads in Nevada. Spread the word. Iowa is godhead.

Iowa caucus influence plus Nate Silver's polls, two "self-fulfilling prophecies to fuck you with" in one. Oh yeah, I read he describes himself thusly "I'd say I am somewhere in between being a libertarian and a liberal."

Link to tweet

commondreams right? *faints*

Nate Silver Is Making This Up as He Goes

'But even as Silver continues to present himself as an analytically rigorous alternative to the entrails-reading punditry of the “Morning Joe” variety, he also has shown an increasing affinity for precisely that brand of unquantifiable storytelling and third-scotch-at-the-hotel-bar pontificating for which his original project was supposed to be a remedy. During a recent round of the never-ending free speech debates, he opined that “false statements of fact” aren’t protected by the First Amendment, eliciting howling derision from the lawyers in the cloud. Just this week, he logged on to complain, after Trump was—entirely predictably, and without polling!—booed by a crowd at a Washington National’s baseball game on the same day he’d announced that the U.S. had supposedly killed the alleged leader of Islamic State, that “many Libs can’t even permit Trump to have *one good day* … after US forces kill perhaps the world’s most wanted terrorist.” (He has since issued a tweet suggesting, unconvincingly, that he was trolling.) It’s a curious stance from a man who claims, among other self-imposed limits and constraints, that his empirical models deliberately seek to ignore those major public events that move—usually briefly—opinions about politics and events. To use Silver’s preferred turn of phrase, isn’t one good day just more “noise?'

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/10/30/nate-silver-making-he-goes

Bernie's one 'good day' in Iowa the exception too.