Stat whiz Nate Silver: Donald Trump more likely nominee than Bernie Sanders

[riversedge]

Source: jta.org





News Brief
Stat whiz Nate Silver: Donald Trump more likely nominee than Bernie Sanders
January 5, 2016 4:34pm
Nate Silver speaking onstage at the ABC Leadership Breakfast panel during Advertising Week 2015 AWXII at the Bryant Park Grill in New York, Sept. 28, 2015. (Slaven Vlasic/Getty Images for AWXII)

Nate Silver speaking at the ABC Leadership Breakfast panel in New York City, Sept. 28, 2015. (Slaven Vlasic/Getty Images for AWXII)

(JTA) — Respected statistician Nate Silver said the chance of Jewish Sen. Bernie Sanders winning the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination are close to zero.

Silver, the Jewish editor of the FiveThirtyEight blog who correctly predicted the election results of all 50 states in 2012, told Adweek on Monday that Hillary Clinton should win the Democratic nomination barring “some type of renewed scandal or health problem.”

“I could see Bernie Sanders winning a few states,” Silver said of the Vermont independent. “New Hampshire is still very close. But [Clinton’s] chances have to be in the range of 90 to 95 percent. Trump has more of a chance than Bernie.”



Silver also said that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s chances of winning his party’s nomination are extremely low despite the amount of media coverage he has received.

.......................

Read more: http://www.jta.org/2016/01/05/news-opinion/united-states/nate-silver-donald-trump-has-a-better-chance-of-winning-a-nomination-than-bernie-sanders-does

---

[lunamagica]

1. K&R. Nate knows his stuff, and I trust him to be right (again)

Great news for Hillary!

[trillion]

91. And terrible news for America. But hey, ifyou'e into the TPP and corps running america she's your

gal!

[George II]

2. Thanks for the news, but no big surprise. I suspect Sanders has about the same chance as....

....Lincoln Chafee.

Ooops, he withdrew. In the immortal words of Emily Litella, "never mind!"

[trillion]

92. I don't think so. I think Sanders is actually doing quite well.

The Democratic party would like to pick Hillary because they're bought out. I think enough Democrats know the big difference between Hillary and Sanders though - and want that hope and change to get rid of the Hillary's and go to what Barack promised and didn't fully deliver. We'll get it with Sanders. But not if the majority of Dems are _that_ uneducated about Hillary. It's actually rather sad that any Dems would vote for big business and more war - Hillary.

[slumcamper]

3. (((hugs))) nice try

"...speaking September 28th..."

Since that time we've drawn much closer to the moment of truth. Care to flip a coin?

[riversedge]

5. That line refers to the photo only (((hugs))) nice try

[pnwmom]

6. Hillary's polling has IMPROVED since the debates.

And Nate Silver has repeated his prediction, saying she had a "near lock" on the nomination, just a few weeks ago.

And the OP is based on a statement Silver made 2 DAYS ago, not in September.

So there goes that theory.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanders-can-still-catch-hillary-clinton-in-iowa/

[slumcamper]

11. Fair enough. We win with either candidate.

At the outset, the weight of the balance of this Iowan's principles and caucus heart lies with the economic populist, Bernie. That said, I'm a multi-issue voter and admire much in Hillary. Democrats are blessed with good, strong candidates. Let's win this thing.

[ShrimpPoboy]

51. Solid post

[trillion]

94. We do not win with Hillary. Wallstreet wins and the planet loses.

Climate change loses badly. You have to be kidding if you think we are going to get anything but war and more for wallstreet out of her. Am I the only one who paid attention during the mid 2000's when senator hillary sold out the dems over and over and over and went with the republicans on nearly every single thing? And how about when she tried for 2 years to convince us to to to war with IRAN? I remember that quite well when she was secretary of state. She kept getting interviewed trying to convince us to do it. She took up right where Condoleeza left of.

[Feeling the Bern]

4. Sad isn't it? A babbling, racist, xenophobic, shallow, callous offspring of an orange haired ape

has better chance to be a nominee for president than someone who has a brain and actually works for all the people, rather than the wealthy.

This is a huge indictment on American voters.

[neverforget]

19. The jury spoke

On Wed Jan 6, 2016, 12:23 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Sad isn't it? A babbling, racist, xenophobic, shallow, callous offspring of an orange haired ape
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1304770

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Totally inappropriate, comparing a Democratic candidate for our nomination to a "babbling, racist, xenophobic, shallow, callous offspring of an orange haired ape" is WAY over the top. Please, in the name of decency, hide this offensive post!

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Jan 6, 2016, 12:28 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I saw nothing offensive to any Democratic candidate here. Is this alert serious?
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This alerter doesn't comprehend well, I think.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: You're kidding, right? Clearly, Trump is the "babbling, racist, xenophobic, shallow, callous offspring of an orange haired ape."
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: WTF? This is not a serious alert, is it???? Enjoy your 24 hours of not being able to alert, this should go down 0-7

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Feeling the Bern]

22. Apparently, the alerter really hates "Real Time with Bill Maher" because that's who I stole the joke

from in the first place.

[trillion]

97. I can't believe you just got alerted for that. Of course I can't believe dems on this site are so

uniformed about hillary. None of you were here and keeping track of the issues when she and pelosi were in congress? None of you remember her as secretary of state? I'm stunned.

[Feeling the Bern]

99. What are you talking about? My post was about Trump being that. . .where the hell do you get

my comment meaning HRC. Dude. . .not cool!

[trillion]

100. I mis read your post. Very Sorry.

[andrewv1]

7. Well Good....Then We Can See Hillary with a Favorability Rating under 50%

becoming the Nominee.

Then as a result of course, losing the General Election...

Makes a lot of sense to me.

[pnwmom]

9. If Bernie ever gets the media attention he wants, it will come with

plenty of Rethug mudslinging -- and his approval rating will drop, too.

[andrewv1]

12. Yeah Sure, but you are not as easy a target

when you do not come with the baggage of HRC.

[pnwmom]

13. Obama came with no baggage at all, so the Rethugs invented it.

Obama was accused of being a communist sympathizer, remember? And of not being a US citizen.

Bernie is ALREADY a self-described socialist, and he flew to the Soviet Union the day after he got married for what the Rethugs are calling a honeymoon.

By the time the Rethugs get done with him he'll be a spy, trained in Russia and here to overthrow the country.

And Jane has her own issues to deal with, just as Hillary did when she was in the running for First Lady.

[AgingAmerican]

16. Nobody cares what they say

Except Hillary supporters, apparently.

[pnwmom]

18. The only reason Hillary has a lower approval rating is because more mud

has been slung at her.

But all that will change if Bernie becomes the nominee.

[AgingAmerican]

20. Mud schmud

[getagrip_already]

34. you forgot non-believer/godless/atheist.....

finger pointing new york jewish scold.

They have a lot of material, and the commercials will write themselves. The wurlitzer will not be quiet...........

No, none of that bothers me (I'm a non practicing atheist), but it will bother a lot of people. Well, none of it except the finger pointing scold part. That REALLY bugs me for some reason.

[pnwmom]

35. The finger wagging bugs me, too. Imagine

if Bernie were his sister Bernice? Would a woman have been successful with his demeanor?

[CSStrowbridge]

15. You honestly think...

You honestly think the GOP nominee will have a better favorability rating?

[andrewv1]

17. I Hate to Say it, but Yes....

Whether the perception is right or wrong, she is disliked that much & not from just the Rethug base, but also from Independent voters as well;

I don't think she stands a chance in a GE.
Period.

[MFM008]

26. she wont lose

period.

[trillion]

93. She might. I mean whats the difference between her and a Republican? Nada - on big business. The

only reason to vote for her would be the supreme court nominations. She should be in jail. More war, more war and god save the TPP. I though america wanted to get rid of these clowns. Not if the Dems think Hillary is a good idea. And, forget climate change. Hillary only gave lip service. She's telling everyone what they want to hear but some of us actually followed her while she was in congress and she may as well have been a Republican - she sided them and went against the Dems so many times. She's big buisness Hillary - God's gift to wall street.

[vkkv]

8. Stats AND RECORDS are made to be broken - it's CRUNCH time and the American public

and younger generation are ready to go!

- wth Bernie.

What a funny looking "H" that is.. very much like a CORPORATE logo!

[riversedge]

84. An H that

looks corporate. Funny post

[vkkv]

85. Give the "H" a rest - have a look here & TRY not to be offended by what you see, alright? >>>>>>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251974642

Who would pick the BEST Supreme Court Justices? Bernie Or Hill ?

Come on now, be honest!

156 votes, 3 passes | Time left: Unlimited

Bernie Sanders would nominate the best Supreme Court Justices: 136 (87%)

Hillary Clinton would nominate the best Supreme Court Justices: 16 (10%)

Martin O' Malley would nominate the best Supreme Court Justices: 4 (3%)

The Republican Congress , er, kindergartners, would nominate the best Supreme Court Justices, by accident, in between votes to repeal ObamaCare: 0 (0%)

3 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.

[riversedge]

88. oh my my. Living in your bubble of a skewed DU poll. Continue on

[vkkv]

102. Oh my my.. New Hampshire and I share that same "skewed bubble". Stop - and think.

Breaking New Hampshire Poll - Sanders 50%, Clinton 37%, O'Malley 3%

Link to today's Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) live cell and landline telephone poll of 800 likely New Hampshire primary voters sponsored by Fox.

Even more revealing poll question: How would you feel if Clinton/Sanders wins the Democratic presidential nomination?

Very satisfied:

51% - Sanders
37% - Clinton


Somewhat satisfied:

34% - Sanders
31% - Clinton


Not at All satisfied:

8% - Sanders
17% - Clinton


http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251985539

[vkkv]

10. And then there's this...

Bernie Sanders would nominate the best Supreme Court Justices:
118 (87%)
Hillary Clinton would nominate the best Supreme Court Justices:
14 (10%)
Martin O' Malley would nominate the best Supreme Court Justices:
4 (3%)
The Republican Congress , er, kindergartners, would nominate the best Supreme Court Justices, by accident, in between votes to repeal ObamaCare:
0 (0%)
2 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.

I guess Nate doesn't get out much..

[pnwmom]

14. What is that? From a DU poll?

[sheshe2]

21. Link?

[Tarheel_Dem]

24. Don't bother, it's a "DU Poll". Useless.

[sheshe2]

25. Figures.

[vkkv]

104. You were saying?

Breaking New Hampshire Poll - Sanders 50%, Clinton 37%, O'Malley 3%

Link to today's Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) live cell and landline telephone poll of 800 likely New Hampshire primary voters sponsored by Fox.

Even more revealing poll question: How would you feel if Clinton/Sanders wins the Democratic presidential nomination?

Very satisfied:

51% - Sanders
37% - Clinton


Somewhat satisfied:

34% - Sanders
31% - Clinton


Not at All satisfied:

8% - Sanders
17% - Clinton

[Tarheel_Dem]

107. I guess you didn't actually read the o.p., did you? Either that, or your reading comprehension is..

that of the teenage fratboy, I imagined you were from the sexist comments you made earlier. If you actually understood what you read, you'd see that Nate clearly states:

“I could see Bernie Sanders winning a few states,” Silver said of the Vermont independent. “New Hampshire is still very close. But chances have to be in the range of 90 to 95 percent. Trump has more of a chance than Bernie.”

What don't you understand about that? I stand by my earlier assessment......."laughingstock".

[vkkv]

40. LINK TO Bernie Poll at DU - thanks for asking

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251974642

[Tarheel_Dem]

23. You're equating a DU poll with the guy who accurately predicted all 50 states in 2012? I guess...

Repubs aren't the only ones who dismiss science, huh? If you look back in the archives, you'll find "DU polls" where Dennis Kucinich won by 99.999999%. Guess where he is today.....go on, guess.

[BlueMTexpat]

33. And a DU poll where Bernie Sanders

supporters are at least six times as numerous as HRC supporters.

Objective - I don't think.

[Tarheel_Dem]

44. A DU poll might be fun to look at, but like so many things, it has absolutely no value at all.

[BlueMTexpat]

46. Thanks so much, Tarheel_Dem

and also pnwmom for flushing out a couple other posters to add to my ignore list.

You've done me a service.

[Tarheel_Dem]

48. Glad to be of assistance.

[vkkv]

39. I don't remember caring enough to ask you your opinion.

... you're proud to live in N.C. ??? You didn't ACTUALLY MOVE there from somewhere better, did you?

[Tarheel_Dem]

47. Well, you should have cared enough to ask somebody. Citing a DU poll, in the face of science, has...

made you a complete laughingstock. Since you're in the business of spreading useless information, just for shits & giggles, you'll probably enjoy this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3649440

Have fun strolling down memory lane.

[vkkv]

50. Science? It's all speculation.

So, I guess this is what you guys in N.C. do for "just for shits & giggles" as you wrote.

Not that it matters a whole lot, but it was a poll that I posted, so yes, it was in part for 'entertainment purposes'. Hillary Humpers sure can be a whiney, defensive bunch.

And the link you provided has no interest to me. Not bothering to open... probably some N.C. drooling..

Give it a rest.

[Tarheel_Dem]

52. I love NC. Lots of water here. Y'all have fun rationing out there, m'kay? And "Hillary Humpers",

unlike the GOP, and apparently the BS'ers , prefer science to anecdotes & useless internet straw polls.

[vkkv]

53. Yah yah "useless" polls - when they don't go your way.. got it.

What are you, 11 yrs old?

Lot's of clean rainwater coming these days. The river running through my property is flowing nicely. Will it cure the drought? Unlikely, but hey, at least it's not N.C..
And it is expensive because a lot of people want to live here, so you probably couldn't afford to enjoy all of magnificent mountains, scenery, beaches, museums, beautiful women (with all of their TEETH even, uh-Hyuck!), National and State Parks, skiing and more in California.

Enjoy your "shits and giggles" as you say...

[Tarheel_Dem]

54. "beautiful women (with all of their TEETH even, uh-Hyuck!) " Ugh. Your teenage male fratboy...

hormones are showing. Not hard to see why you support BS. Objectify women much? Talk about "uh-Hyuck"!
Say Hi to the rest of your housemates for me.

[vkkv]

63. What is wrong with you?

[vkkv]

103. You were saying something about a "laughing stock" ?

Breaking New Hampshire Poll - Sanders 50%, Clinton 37%, O'Malley 3%


Link to today's Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) live cell and landline telephone poll of 800 likely New Hampshire primary voters sponsored by Fox.

Even more revealing poll question: How would you feel if Clinton/Sanders wins the Democratic presidential nomination?

Very satisfied:

51% - Sanders
37% - Clinton



Somewhat satisfied:

34% - Sanders
31% - Clinton


Not at All satisfied:

8% - Sanders
17% - Clinton


http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251985539

[Tarheel_Dem]

106. I guess this is your first grownup election, huh? Newsflash: The current President lost NH, and....

so did the President before him. When was the last time NH picked a winner?



So, yup, you're still a laughingstock! How many Presidents have won one single state and become President? Answer: None.




http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

[EX500rider]

75. Yes, N.C., what a hellhole! (lol)

[vkkv]

78. So.. N.C. requires THAT MUCH Photoshop??

That can't be good..







go to:: https://www.google.com/ :::then enter:: california images

No Photoshop required..

[EX500rider]

79. No, it's just that pretty.

Last edited Thu Jan 7, 2016, 09:31 PM - Edit history (1)

NC:


Yes, Calif is stunning!

[vkkv]

80. Something wrong with you? Give it a rest.

JFC!

[EX500rider]

86. "Something wrong with you?"

Says the person who implied all the women in N.C. were toothless....lol What is wrong with you?

[vkkv]

87. Like most generalizations, there is a reason for them.

Why are there so many hillbilly jokes?

But sure, there are PLENTY of hicks with bad teeth in the California Sierra foothills, funny thing is that they all sound like they're from the South!

It's weird.. but true.

[trillion]

101. Yes pretty pictures. Thank you! I'm enjoing them.

[Action_Patrol]

64. They have only been correct

In picking Party winners accurately. Not candidates.

It's good news for us Dems, not necessarily Sanders.

[Action_Patrol]

66. Snark when you're wrong just makes you look foolish.

Tip your hat to fact.

From western Illinois university:

The Road to the White House starts at Western Illinois University…
Dr. Rick Hardy and Dr. John Hemingway have been leading Mock Presidential Elections off and on since 1975 (at Iowa, Missouri and Western Illinois University). During that time, students who have participated in these mock elections have chosen the winning party with 100% accuracy and have an astonishing record in selecting presidential winners. The Mock Presidential Election is intended as a civic exercise to encourage students to learn about the electoral process. It is not a scientific experiment! Results are merely the result of a simulated political process and represent a snapshot of students’ thinking at one point in time. It is as simple and as complicated as that.

Source: them (http://wiumpe.com/)

The "astonishing record in selecting presidential winners" is nice but the 100% accuracy is for Party.

[Tarheel_Dem]

77. Thank you. Since he self-deleted, I'm gonna assume you were able to get through to him.

[Action_Patrol]

81. He was very rude with no provocation.

[Tarheel_Dem]

83. He was indeed. I saw where he was coming from, and decided to disengage. n/t

[AZ Progressive]

27. Nate Silver is a political geek, of course he would be for the establishment

I don't think he takes kindly to someone trying to upend the system he loves.

[riversedge]

68. Nate is a professional stat man who based his anaysis on hard scientific data

[brentspeak]

69. What was his "hard scientific data"?

Can you list it for us?

[riversedge]

74. look at his polling data...

[randys1]

76. So now Nate is suspect? wow I am calling out Hillary supporters right now on another

thread where I see some hypocrisy and here I have to do it with Bernie supporters as well.

[Wykillin]

29. The article isn't that specific and it's cherry picking quotes

This article was cherry picking quotes from the original source

In the 2012 presidential election, you correctly predicted all 50 states. When will you feel confident predicting the 2016 results?
The general rule of thumb is that predictions are fairly useless until the nominees are chosen. Maybe if Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio sweeps through Iowa and New Hampshire, and that nomination is effectively decided by March, then maybe by April we'll be ready. If it turns out to take longer than that, which it very easily could, then we might wait longer before launching. The thing people don't realize is that the reason why I get to look smart is because we wait until we are pretty confident. Never mind getting 50 states right—we'd be happy with 47 or 48. Sooner or later it's inevitable that you come up on the wrong side of a 60/40 bet. We put probabilities around things for a reason.

Is there any chance Hillary isn't the Democratic nominee?
I think you would have to have some type of renewed scandal or health problem or something like that. I could see Bernie Sanders winning a few states. New Hampshire is still very close. But her chances have to be in the range of 90 [percent] to 95 percent. Trump has more of a chance than Bernie.

[oberliner]

30. Weird how they refer to Nate Silver as "the Jewish editor" of 538

When he is not actually Jewish.

[Proserpina]

31. Neither is Bernie--if referring to religious practice

There are ethnic Jews and religious Jews, and some overlap.

I think it's time Nate Silver met his limitations.

[oberliner]

32. Nate is neither an ethnic Jew nor a religious Jew

Bernie does identify as Jewish, even though he is not religious.

[Reter]

37. I knew several Silver's

All were Jewish. Isn't it a Jewish last name?

[oberliner]

41. His mother is not Jewish, his father is

So I guess one could say he is "half-Jewish" ethnically.

[elljay]

49. Why did the article mention it at all?

Whether he is halachically Jewish or not, why is it even relevant, other than as an implication that Jews are inherently biased so a disclaimer is necessary? Is the religion/ethnicity/race of other pollsters also disclosed when they make statements?

[oberliner]

57. Good question

I am sure he wouldn't be crazy about being referred to that way.

[NobodyHere]

55. Nate describes himself as half-Jewish

[oberliner]

56. No he doesn't

Here's the quote from which that erroneous notion comes:

He recalls a series of flagpoles in Boystown in Chicago memorializing various gay Americans. "There was one little plaque for Keith Haring, and it was, like, ‘Keith Haring, gay American artist, 1962 to 1981,' or whatever [actually 1958 to 1990], and I was like, Why isn't he just an American artist? I don't want to be Nate Silver, gay statistician, any more than I want to be known as a white, half-Jewish statistician who lives in New York."

http://gawker.com/5969477/sexually-gay-but-ethnically-straight-nate-silver-almost-gets-it-right-again

[NobodyHere]

59. Actually I was thinking of this

http://www.politico.com/story/2012/10/answer-this-nate-silver-082071#ixzz2BYStU5wJ

What is your favorite body part (on yourself) and why? Nose. I’m half Jewish and it strikes a nice Jewish, Gentile balance.

[oberliner]

60. He does not appear to be taking that survey seriously

Tell us your favorite joke. The NFL replacement referees.

When’s the last time you used profanity? I would have used profanity in the first question, but this is a family publication.

[NobodyHere]

61. Even so

He describes himself as half-Jewish and I'm going to take his word on the matter. Do you have any links where he describes himself as something else?

[oberliner]

62. The link I provided suggests that he does not wish to be labelled that way

Let alone as a "Jewish statistician" which is the terminology the article in the OP uses.

[Uponthegears]

36. I would like to hear

why anyone thinks this OP is important and/or significant. I am going to assume that Nate is correct. He's a smart guy. His models have withstood the test of time. Let's take as a given that Senator Sanders has less of a chance of winning the Democratic nomination than the current Republican front runner has of winning that party's nomination.

SO WHAT!

Are Secretary of State Clinton's policies superior to Senator Sanders' policies because her nomination is "inevitable?" Would she be a better president than Senator Sanders because her nomination is "inevitable?" Does she speak for the 99% more than Senator Sanders because her nomination is "inevitable?"

With the exception of her supporters' short-lived attempt to parlay Paul Krugman's editorial applauding her plan to address shadow banking (in part because Sanders has yet to introduce his plan to address shadow banking), our Third Way friends seem to eschew discussions of ANY policy difference between Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders. Rather, they favor trying to convince people that such discussions are unnecessary (in other words, it just doesn't matter what Secretary Clinton will do as president) because Secretary Clinton will get the nomination regardless.

Is that arrogance . . . or is it fear?

[oberliner]

42. Why are any posts about polls important or significant?

I mean, I guess they aren't really - they just make for interesting conversation.

[JackRiddler]

43. Violation of LBN forum rules. Also obvious politicking.

[geek tragedy]

45. This is amongst the easier math problems Nate Silver has deigned to address.

The difference isn't in the relative levels of support, it's the relative strength of their competition.

[Oneironaut]

58. Bernie Sanders would not win against Trump.

I like Sanders, but he's unelectable. Our only chance is Hillary. That, or suffer a Trump Presidency.

[CTyankee]

71. I don't see how Nate can foresee what CAN happen once Bernie's message gets bigger

audiences. He's got the winning hand there and it is winning new voters all the time. Everyone is surpised as hell. Even I was, and I've been a Bernie supporter all along.

As long as this is happening, there is no way Bernie doesn't change what Nate is going to have to calculate...he won't be able to ignore it, just because he didn't see it coming...

[riversedge]

73. Well, he best hurry up.... cause

[trillion]

98. Agreed. I think nate is probably wrong on this. A lot of us dems will consider staying home if

hillary gets it. I mean why bother, wall street and war wins in her. I believe we are on dangerous ground with climate change. It we put it in her hands, it's lost. I'll never vote green. I'll just write in Bernie and go home.She's no different than a republican when it comes to policy. I believe I would stay home.

[riversedge]

72. Spot on Nate.

[Gothmog]

82. Nate is correct as to the math

[MrBig]

89. It's funny how people always hate Nate Silver when the stats don't agree with their viewpoint

I'll be honest - I'm voting for Bernie Sanders in the primary. He is more representative of my stance on a number of issues. However, I will happily support and vote for Hillary when she is the nominee.

I think the comparison between the polls in this election to Al Gore/Bill Bradley in the 2000 election is very appropriate. It's possible Bernie wins a state, but even that won't be enough to win the nomination.

[truthisfreedom]

90. I vote Democratic!

[arely staircase]

95. Well that is kinda obvious. NT

[Aerows]

105. No Republican, Independent or Democrat

wants Hillary to be President aside from "If Hillary wins, I get a plum job in the Cabinet

She is an anchor to the Democratic party. We are better than Hillary Clinton as what the Democratic party presents to the general public.

[frizzled]

108. Sounds reasonable, unfortunately. I think Trump can attack Hillary from the Left!

Her Iraq war vote is a pretty tempting target for Mr. Trump.