Nate Silver gives Clinton 23% odds of losing the nomination

[IceSpear]

Wait, he gives Gillibrand, a candidate who has about a -10% chance of running 2% odds, but only gives declared candidate Cruz 1% odds?

I think Nate should stick to objective odds, because he's clearly terrible at subjective ones.

[IceSpear]

Getting sick of the Warren farce

Who else is there?

O'Malley, Biden, Klobuchar, and Gillibrand are all far more likely to be the nominee than Warren, because they're acting like potential candidates looking at a run.

Huh? Klobuchar and Gillibrand have already endorsed Hillary.

[IceSpear]

Getting sick of the Warren farce

Who else is there?

O'Malley, Biden, Klobuchar, and Gillibrand are all far more likely to be the nominee than Warren, because they're acting like potential candidates looking at a run.

Huh? Klobuchar and Gillibrand have already endorsed Hillary.

And that puts them in a very good position to get her endorsement and network if Clinton drops out.

Warren definitely isn't running against Clinton, and she likely isn't running even if Clinton bows out.

Good point. But what makes you think Warren isn't interested even if Hillary drops out? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but it's possible she just doesn't want to enter as a massive underdog against Hillary.

[IceSpear]

Hillary not running is a not plausible thing. Might as well include the Sun Exploding as a percentage odd on this if that's a factor.

I'm assuming "drops out" means she has to suspend her campaign due to health issues or she dies or it's discovered she kept severed heads of children in her basement or something. She's definitely running, of course.

[IceSpear]

Wait, he gives Gillibrand, a candidate who has about a -10% chance of running 2% odds, but only gives declared candidate Cruz 1% odds?

I think Nate should stick to objective odds, because he's clearly terrible at subjective ones.

#I don't like the results, so not believing it.

So you think Gillibrand has a better chance of winning the nomination than Cruz?

So many of you are going to have egg on your face in a year. It's going to be amazing.

[IceSpear]

Wait, he gives Gillibrand, a candidate who has about a -10% chance of running 2% odds, but only gives declared candidate Cruz 1% odds?

I think Nate should stick to objective odds, because he's clearly terrible at subjective ones.

#I don't like the results, so not believing it.

So you think Gillibrand has a better chance of winning the nomination than Cruz?

So many of you are going to have egg on your face in a year. It's going to be amazing.

I've always maintained that Hillary is the clear favorite to win the nomination. But I refuse to rule out her losing it, even with Warren out, unless she is still topping 50% nationally (on RCP) in October.

I'd address this now, but I'll wait a bit. Once Hillary officially declares, I'll be doing a super long effortpost to show how foolish the idea of her losing the nomination is using loads of empirical data (along with a large dose of common sense.) I'm waiting until she declares so it doesn't get flooded with "lol she wont even run" sh**tposts. I don't expect it to convince those permanently stuck in the denial stage of grief, but it will be convenient to refer back to it rather than repeating myself over and over.

Regardless, if you actually listen to them discussing these odds, the discussion around Hillary centers on her not running/dying/having to drop out due to scandal or health issues. Nate's odds are thus absurdly low if that's what the discussion is based around.

[IceSpear]

Wait, he gives Gillibrand, a candidate who has about a -10% chance of running 2% odds, but only gives declared candidate Cruz 1% odds?

I think Nate should stick to objective odds, because he's clearly terrible at subjective ones.

#I don't like the results, so not believing it.

What results? It's subjective. He's giving his personal opinion.

Indeed. If there was a statistical model, there's no way that Hillary would be south of 95%.

Like I said, Nate should stick to objectivity, because he's godawful at subjectivity.