Nate has been around one election cycle. 2008. He is a solidly blue and Breitbart was red. So you always have to consider that when reading his NY Times column.
I said Obama 275 Romney 263 and will stick to it.
It's one thing to be biased (we all are despite kidding ourselves otherwise), its another if said bias taints your overall work like a dirty diaper left in your house. I always liked George Will for example because even with his open bias, he's not a hack. He has good points, he's intelligent, and he doesn't insult mine when I read him.
Silver to me has always came off solid with his methodology. One must remember his "75% chance of winning" or whatever is based off his simulations where in say 75% of them, they came out as such. He really is one of those baseball stat nerds who came upon a career goldmine for himself with political polls. Good for him. I've never once found such a "dirty diaper" with his work. So far at least. I can't compare him at all with Breibart.
I'm reminded in contrast with Dick Morris, who really I quit listening to in general after the last election when he kept insisting that Tennessee was leaning Obama. (If he meant leaning like being behind by 10-15 points, then yeah it would be "leaning" towards him. LOL)
Remember that book Morris wrote that the 2008 election was going to be between Hillary Clinton and Condi Rice?
Speaking of the NYT, I'm still trying to figure out why my liberal friends think them endorsing Obama actually matters. (Now a New York Post endorsement? Wouldn't matter either, but dammit but it would be entertaining.)
