when their pro-trump bias became obvious.

Even before they changed the name from Huffington Post, they were on a sleazy downward trajectory. After Arianna Huffington sold it, the website's commercial interests overtook its journalistic principles. In disgust, I quit reading them and deleted the site from my Favorites.

Their own reporting is sensationalistic as the screaming red headline you point out demonstrates. As an aggregate news source, they pale compared to others. Many of their columnists are either ignorant or vapid.They also seem to have too great an interest in celebrity.

Oh, well. Who really cares what I think, eh? (wink)

Seriously, this isn't what I'm seeing in the polls on TV. It's close in those states sure, but I don't see Trump gaining ground. Does anyone else?

I suspect it's in his financial interest to look for stats and polls suggesting this election is a horse race.

Haele

or accuracy.

Coincidence? ... such that a win by Harris-Walz could be interpreted as so unexpected so as to underscore claims of corrupted results? Tin foil plot or realistic Trump strategy?

I haven't taken them seriously since. Why should I start now?

There has been an abundance of right-wing-leaning polls in Pennsylvania, including those from Trafalgar Group, Patriot Polling, Wick, and InsiderAdvantage, showing Trump in the lead. These polls skew the results in Nate’s model. Interestingly, even these biased polls show Trump winning by only 1 or 2 points, indicating they can't manage to create a significant lead for him.

Is not credible.

He has credibility as roaring trump supporter. He has credibilty as someone who twists data and lies to support his political stands.

He doesnt have it as an indepent unbiased data analyst.

Thank you very much. Less stress for moi.

Makes zero sense, first he says dems have a 20% chance of losing the Presidency, then he says Trump has a 61% chance of winning the Presidency.

equal weight to a shitty poll ranked below 250 over a You Gov poll.

the other figure has to do with just straight probability of win.

But, you are still free to take anything the guy says with a grain or two of salt.

The fact that Nate even thinks Trump has a chance of winning the popular vote shows that he’s nothing but a shill.

The fact that Nate even thinks Trump has a chance of winning the popular vote shows that he’s nothing but a shill.

In his most recent 'polls' and I use that loosely...he used Texas as a swing state in the latest poll. He is a fraud and a righty and should not be posted here.

Do we really live in such a tight bubble here that any deviation from the left is seen as a hands-on operation of the GOP? We're killing the messenger.

These are some of the headlines in HuffPost just today for those who boycott the site:

This Endangered Trump-State Democrat Is Betting On Abortion Rights
Nikki Haley Struggles To Call Trump A 'Good Candidate' Despite Endorsing Him
Trump Holds Press Event Just To Attack Women Who've Accused Him Of Sexual Assault
This Popular Health Care Initiative Could Be On The Chopping Block If Donald Trump Wins
Federal Indictment Reveals It's Remarkably Easy To Fool Right-Wing Media
Trump Fumes Over 'Irrelevant' Dick Cheney In Meltdown After Harris Endorsement
Republicans Are Once Again Questioning Kamala Harris’ Blackness
DNC's Flying Banner Mocks J.D. Vance, Project 2025, Michigan's Rival Over Football Game
Dick Cheney Is Voting For Kamala Harris And X Users Don't Know How They Feel
(As one person put it, "How awful is Donald Trump? Dick Cheney is voting for his opponent who is a female Democrat. That’s how awful he is.&quot
The Complete List Of Past GOP Presidential Ticket Members Who Say They're Voting For Trump. (It's... not very long.)

And...Jaleel White Reveals The 1 Thing That 'Irked' Him About Steve Urkel. ...Because it's still HuffPost.

Nate Silver is damaged goods, he has sold himself to the highest bidder and that happens to be Peter Thiel, so Silver’s credibility is in the toilet. If Huffpost wants to print his crap then it taints everything else they provide. Just the way it is, you lay down with dogs, you wake up with fleas.

will not and shall not be tolerated! Our 'sources' must be kept clean and unsullied ... With no hint of contamination with the evil ones! Sigh. - - - - - - - - - - -

As the poster points out HuffPost puts up a huge amount of 'liberal' content. If that is not sufficient for your tastes (and I'm not a huge fan myself) - that is of course your decision. But labeling them a 'right wing rag' just isn't terribly credible. And similarly - arguing that an article based on Silver's projections, has the effect of nullifying all their remaining content - 'fruit of the poison tree' - is equally trenchant and also lacks credence. In short - overreach, and a real stretch.

And now .. back to regularly scheduled programming ...

Should his thoughts and claims be posted here as legitimate commentary or theories? Part of why this country is so goddamned divided is that people run around spouting “opposing points of view” that are nothing more than propaganda and rightwing talking points. If one points out that these “opposing points of view” ARE propaganda and rightwing talking points, the perpetrators get all butt-hurt and aggrieved that their rights to spread lies and misinformation are being trampled upon.

Again, you lay down with dogs, you wake up with fleas. Huffpo wants to post Silver’s biased and tainted data without any sort of disclaimer that he’s a rightwing shill, they deserve the scorn heaped upon them no matter what “good” articles they post.

have any standing or legitimate place in the marketplace. And that any media or voice that features such - makes them a shill and agent of the enemy.

I think we understand one another here just fine. We just don't happen to agree on the fundamentals.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

But that’s fine, you obviously have lots of time to wade through lies, and propaganda, and misinformation. That’s great and hopefully you’re able to mine some useful insights from it. I prefer not to subject myself to it, no matter how noble it might be to give operating space to people who most certainly do not have anything close to my interests or wellbeing at heart.

I also very rarely look at HuffPost but now find more anti old don coverage on drudge report. Don’t look at it daily but at least once a week and he doesn’t like old don.

I sleep a lot better at nights that way. I try to stick to reading news reports (AP, Reuters, etc.), avoid anything labeled opinion or analysis. I used to read Huffington Post years ago, don't go there now. I avoid TV news for the same reason. I used to be a huge TV news junky, switching among the network coverage in the mornings and tuning in to CNN and MSNBC in the evenings. I pulled the plug on most of that during the later Obama years when it dawned on me that TV "news" had become virtually all opinion packaged as entertainment. I think the day the lightbulb went off was when I tuned into morning news to find out what Obama had said at his State of the Union (missed it live) and all they were talking about was what shoes Michelle Obama wore. For awhile I would tune into MSNBC occasionally, particularly to listen to Rachel, but stopped doing even that a few years ago. I have occasionally turned on TV news when something big was going on, but quickly turned it off when all I saw and heard was talking heads giving opinions on what was happening instead of talking about what was actually happening. Those who regularly watch TV news may not have noticed just how bad it has become. When you don't watch it for a long time and come back, the difference is stark and extremely disturbing. The same goes for printed news. It is getting extremely hard to find a news article that states the facts rather than someone's interpretation of the facts. (Sorry I got long winded on this....)

He's proven himself repeatedly to be a incompetent pollster and should be ignored!

from Democrats, women, young people, and republicans who won't vote for trump.

I am hoping that a sizable number of haley supporters will actually cross over to vote for VP Harris. The Cheney endorsement was not expected by most, and while it probably won't happen, it is very possible that it may move other republicans to vote for Harris.

Every vote will be critical.

Isn't he on the payroll of Peter Thiel?

The problem with his model is he gives equal weight to all polls, and legit polls get completely swamped by an overabundance of conservative-funded right-slanted polls.