Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Support public financing of elections. When WE write the checks, they'll have listen to us instead of the special interests.Americans have figured it out. Neither party has any intention of ever balancing the budget or solving any other problems. They are beholden to whoever writes the biggest checks to help them keep their seats in the American Politboro.
1st Hillary's numbers suck and are going down not up,and she isn't helping herself at all.She missed her chance last time.
2nd no the repubs might put up a women
No the chances are 20% for ether party,leaning to the repubs to nod a women1st Hillary's numbers suck and are going down not up,and she isn't helping herself at all.She missed her chance last time.
2nd no the repubs might put up a women
That suggests that you think the chances of a woman being top ticket for one of the parties is higher than 80%, since even with a 20% chance, a 1-2 odds are pretty good.
Interesting then. Suppose instead someone offered just a straight $20 bet on whether there will be a top-ticket woman, would you take that?
No the chances are 20% for ether party,leaning to the repubs to nod a women1st Hillary's numbers suck and are going down not up,and she isn't helping herself at all.She missed her chance last time.
2nd no the repubs might put up a women
That suggests that you think the chances of a woman being top ticket for one of the parties is higher than 80%, since even with a 20% chance, a 1-2 odds are pretty good.
Interesting then. Suppose instead someone offered just a straight $20 bet on whether there will be a top-ticket woman, would you take that?
No the chances are 20% for ether party,leaning to the repubs to nod a women1st Hillary's numbers suck and are going down not up,and she isn't helping herself at all.She missed her chance last time.
2nd no the repubs might put up a women
That suggests that you think the chances of a woman being top ticket for one of the parties is higher than 80%, since even with a 20% chance, a 1-2 odds are pretty good.
Interesting then. Suppose instead someone offered just a straight $20 bet on whether there will be a top-ticket woman, would you take that?
No the chances are 20% for ether party,leaning to the repubs to nod a women1st Hillary's numbers suck and are going down not up,and she isn't helping herself at all.She missed her chance last time.
2nd no the repubs might put up a women
That suggests that you think the chances of a woman being top ticket for one of the parties is higher than 80%, since even with a 20% chance, a 1-2 odds are pretty good.
Interesting then. Suppose instead someone offered just a straight $20 bet on whether there will be a top-ticket woman, would you take that?
betting on on which way political winds will blow so far out is risky and generally foolish.No the chances are 20% for ether party,leaning to the repubs to nod a women1st Hillary's numbers suck and are going down not up,and she isn't helping herself at all.She missed her chance last time.
2nd no the repubs might put up a women
That suggests that you think the chances of a woman being top ticket for one of the parties is higher than 80%, since even with a 20% chance, a 1-2 odds are pretty good.
Interesting then. Suppose instead someone offered just a straight $20 bet on whether there will be a top-ticket woman, would you take that?
Interesting. Highly risk averse apparently or you don't really take that 80-20 claim seriously. Ok. Suppose someone offered to make a bet with you that the Democrats will nominate a woman where you get $10 if they don't and you pay $20 if they do, would you take that?
That and your rewards/risk ratio is lopsided,a fools bet.No the chances are 20% for ether party,leaning to the repubs to nod a women1st Hillary's numbers suck and are going down not up,and she isn't helping herself at all.She missed her chance last time.
2nd no the repubs might put up a women
That suggests that you think the chances of a woman being top ticket for one of the parties is higher than 80%, since even with a 20% chance, a 1-2 odds are pretty good.
Interesting then. Suppose instead someone offered just a straight $20 bet on whether there will be a top-ticket woman, would you take that?
One more then I'm curious about. If someone offered to make a bet where you got paid $10 if the Democratic nominee was not Hillary and you paid $20 if it is Hillary, would you take it?
betting on on which way political winds will blow so far out is risky and generally foolish.No the chances are 20% for ether party,leaning to the repubs to nod a women1st Hillary's numbers suck and are going down not up,and she isn't helping herself at all.She missed her chance last time.
2nd no the repubs might put up a women
That suggests that you think the chances of a woman being top ticket for one of the parties is higher than 80%, since even with a 20% chance, a 1-2 odds are pretty good.
Interesting then. Suppose instead someone offered just a straight $20 bet on whether there will be a top-ticket woman, would you take that?
Interesting. Highly risk averse apparently or you don't really take that 80-20 claim seriously. Ok. Suppose someone offered to make a bet with you that the Democrats will nominate a woman where you get $10 if they don't and you pay $20 if they do, would you take that?
The 2014 Election Is the Least Important in Years FiveThirtyEight
Yes, the Republicans worst nightmare is back. Nate Silverman calls them the way he sees them. He is a impartial political scientist and leaves partisanship at the door. He predictions are hardly ever wrong. This is a great read!
The 2014 elections turned out as expected. The turnout was historically low. In 2016, with a woman for the first time at the top of a political ticket, you can expect a record turnout. Not so good for the GOP.......
Nate Silverman widely missed the mark in the UK general election, so he is hardly infallible.The 2014 Election Is the Least Important in Years FiveThirtyEight
Yes, the Republicans worst nightmare is back. Nate Silverman calls them the way he sees them. He is a impartial political scientist and leaves partisanship at the door. He predictions are hardly ever wrong. This is a great read!
The 2014 elections turned out as expected. The turnout was historically low. In 2016, with a woman for the first time at the top of a political ticket, you can expect a record turnout. Not so good for the GOP.......
The 2014 US election had the lowest voter turnout in 72 years, and the GOP always does well in low voter turnout elections. Thus, they do their best to suppress turnout.
As for 2016, there is no way it will have a record turnout. It will have a higher turnout than 2014, only because it is a presidential election. But it will probably have the lowest turnout in a presidential year since WWII.
America is sick of both parties. Barely a third of voters voted last time, and I would be very surprised if half vote in 2016. We will have a choice of an utterly corrupt Hillary Clinton or a Republican with his head up his ass.
Americans have figured it out. Neither party has any intention of ever balancing the budget or solving any other problems. They are beholden to whoever writes the biggest checks to help them keep their seats in the American Politboro.
How can you honestly say 2016 will have the "lowest turnout in a presidential election since WWII?" With a woman at the top of the ticket for the first time in US History, the female vote will be huge and the RW loons will be drooling all the way to the polls. As for the UK, everyone drastically miscalculated that election. But Silver know US politics.
That and your rewards/risk ratio is lopsided,a fools bet.No the chances are 20% for ether party,leaning to the repubs to nod a women1st Hillary's numbers suck and are going down not up,and she isn't helping herself at all.She missed her chance last time.
2nd no the repubs might put up a women
That suggests that you think the chances of a woman being top ticket for one of the parties is higher than 80%, since even with a 20% chance, a 1-2 odds are pretty good.
Interesting then. Suppose instead someone offered just a straight $20 bet on whether there will be a top-ticket woman, would you take that?
One more then I'm curious about. If someone offered to make a bet where you got paid $10 if the Democratic nominee was not Hillary and you paid $20 if it is Hillary, would you take it?
No 80/20 this isn't hard and i did say it the 1st time 80/20 20 % chance a women for ether party leaning rightbetting on on which way political winds will blow so far out is risky and generally foolish.No the chances are 20% for ether party,leaning to the repubs to nod a women1st Hillary's numbers suck and are going down not up,and she isn't helping herself at all.She missed her chance last time.
2nd no the repubs might put up a women
That suggests that you think the chances of a woman being top ticket for one of the parties is higher than 80%, since even with a 20% chance, a 1-2 odds are pretty good.
Interesting then. Suppose instead someone offered just a straight $20 bet on whether there will be a top-ticket woman, would you take that?
Interesting. Highly risk averse apparently or you don't really take that 80-20 claim seriously. Ok. Suppose someone offered to make a bet with you that the Democrats will nominate a woman where you get $10 if they don't and you pay $20 if they do, would you take that?
*shrug* you could have said that the first time. But let's be clear here: that means that when you said 80-20, you don't really mean 80-20. You mean something much closer to 50-50 with maybe a slight lean. Because that would fact in the potential for wind blowing in other directions. This is a big part of why I ask people to bet, it does an excellent job reflecting when their claimed certainties aren't really nearly as certain as they say.
Yes, I would take that bet.Nate Silverman widely missed the mark in the UK general election, so he is hardly infallible.
The 2014 US election had the lowest voter turnout in 72 years, and the GOP always does well in low voter turnout elections. Thus, they do their best to suppress turnout.
As for 2016, there is no way it will have a record turnout. It will have a higher turnout than 2014, only because it is a presidential election. But it will probably have the lowest turnout in a presidential year since WWII.
America is sick of both parties. Barely a third of voters voted last time, and I would be very surprised if half vote in 2016. We will have a choice of an utterly corrupt Hillary Clinton or a Republican with his head up his ass.
Americans have figured it out. Neither party has any intention of ever balancing the budget or solving any other problems. They are beholden to whoever writes the biggest checks to help them keep their seats in the American Politboro.
Point about the UK general seems accurate. Most of the rest seems off.
I'm curious, 1996 had a voter turnout of 49%. If someone offered to bet you $20 that voter turnout percentage for this election will be at least 49%, would you take it?
So how are you going to pay up when you lose? I stand by 80/20That and your rewards/risk ratio is lopsided,a fools bet.No the chances are 20% for ether party,leaning to the repubs to nod a women1st Hillary's numbers suck and are going down not up,and she isn't helping herself at all.She missed her chance last time.
2nd no the repubs might put up a women
That suggests that you think the chances of a woman being top ticket for one of the parties is higher than 80%, since even with a 20% chance, a 1-2 odds are pretty good.
Interesting then. Suppose instead someone offered just a straight $20 bet on whether there will be a top-ticket woman, would you take that?
One more then I'm curious about. If someone offered to make a bet where you got paid $10 if the Democratic nominee was not Hillary and you paid $20 if it is Hillary, would you take it?
Really? It is consistent with the probabilities you claimed. If you really think there's almost no chance of Hillary winning the nomination, that's a great ratio. But if you wanted, I would be sincerely interested in a purely 20-20 bet on the matter. Are you even confident enough to take that or are your claimed probabilities simply a way for you to shout boo! at candidates you don't like?
Every single one of you people were saying the same thing in 08 how did that work out?Nate Silverman widely missed the mark in the UK general election, so he is hardly infallible.The 2014 Election Is the Least Important in Years FiveThirtyEight
Yes, the Republicans worst nightmare is back. Nate Silverman calls them the way he sees them. He is a impartial political scientist and leaves partisanship at the door. He predictions are hardly ever wrong. This is a great read!
The 2014 elections turned out as expected. The turnout was historically low. In 2016, with a woman for the first time at the top of a political ticket, you can expect a record turnout. Not so good for the GOP.......
The 2014 US election had the lowest voter turnout in 72 years, and the GOP always does well in low voter turnout elections. Thus, they do their best to suppress turnout.
As for 2016, there is no way it will have a record turnout. It will have a higher turnout than 2014, only because it is a presidential election. But it will probably have the lowest turnout in a presidential year since WWII.
America is sick of both parties. Barely a third of voters voted last time, and I would be very surprised if half vote in 2016. We will have a choice of an utterly corrupt Hillary Clinton or a Republican with his head up his ass.
Americans have figured it out. Neither party has any intention of ever balancing the budget or solving any other problems. They are beholden to whoever writes the biggest checks to help them keep their seats in the American Politboro.
How can you honestly say 2016 will have the "lowest turnout in a presidential election since WWII?" With a woman at the top of the ticket for the first time in US History, the female vote will be huge and the RW loons will be drooling all the way to the polls. As for the UK, everyone drastically miscalculated that election. But Silver know US politics.
I say it because the woman at the top of the ticket will be Hillary Clinton.
Lowest turnout in a presidential election since WWII. Book it.
The 2014 Election Is the Least Important in Years FiveThirtyEight
Yes, the Republicans worst nightmare is back. Nate Silverman calls them the way he sees them. He is a impartial political scientist and leaves partisanship at the door. He predictions are hardly ever wrong. This is a great read!
The 2014 elections turned out as expected. The turnout was historically low. In 2016, with a woman for the first time at the top of a political ticket, you can expect a record turnout. Not so good for the GOP.......
