Next analyst down: Sam Wang promises to eat bug if Trump gets 240 votes in EC

[ApatheticAustrian]

It is totally over. If Trump wins more than 240 electoral votes, I will eat a bug.
https://twitter.com/SamWangPhD/status/788544053059153924

i feel such tweets are becoming a pattern.

[Southern Delegate matthew27]

He should do so on t.v or on youtube in front of the world.

[Ronnie]

These analysts should wait until the conclusion of the 3rd debate before they make these 100 percent predictions.  Who knows?  Maybe Hillary will suddenly begin foaming at the mouth and speaking in tongues tomorrow.

It's far more likely that Trump makes a total ass out of himself, but again, who knows?

[ApatheticAustrian]

i think they are as pissed about the smearing of polls and scientific predictions as most journalists are about trump's attack on their profession.

especially since the numbers behind the topline tend to become even more poisonous for trump......in the most recent fox poll, hillary's favorability values were close to 0.

[user12345]

These analysts should wait until the conclusion of the 3rd debate before they make these 100 percent predictions.  Who knows?  Maybe Hillary will suddenly begin foaming at the mouth and speaking in tongues tomorrow.

It's far more likely that Trump makes a total ass out of himself, but again, who knows?

The speaking in tongues part would get her the Evangelical vote at least.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

Quit making me want to vote for Trump.

[Ogre Mage]

Maybe he can eat the bug that came from the supposedly demon-possessed Hillary Clinton according to some Trump supporters.  Are they waiting for her head to start spinning around as she vomits up demon bile during the debate?

[ursulahx]

These analysts should wait until the conclusion of the 3rd debate before they make these 100 percent predictions. 

To be fair, Sam has been bullish on Clinton's chances for many, many months.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

These analysts should wait until the conclusion of the 3rd debate before they make these 100 percent predictions. 

To be fair, Sam has been bullish on Clinton's chances for many, many months.

Rightly so, this Dem softcockery is really getting irritating. We should be guardedly optimistic, we are not in some binary situation where we're either cocky or terrified.

[Landslide Lyndon]

These analysts should wait until the conclusion of the 3rd debate before they make these 100 percent predictions.  

To be fair, Sam has been bullish on Clinton's chances for many, many months.

Rightly so, this Dem softcockery is really getting irritating. We should be guardedly optimistic, we are not in some binary situation where we're either cocky or terrified.

They are following Paul Begala's motto: there are only two ways to run, scared or unopposed.

[The Other Castro]

I'll change my avatar to blue for a year if Trump breaks 217.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Basically a bet on Florida.  Trump wins FL, he gets to 240.  If he doesn't, he won't.

[HillOfANight]

These analysts should wait until the conclusion of the 3rd debate before they make these 100 percent predictions. 

To be fair, Sam has been bullish on Clinton's chances for many, many months.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/06/why-is-nate-silver-so-afraid-of-sam-wang.html
I only remember Wang for 2014, which he was very wrong on. But finding this article, didn't realize he was spot on in 2012.

[ursulahx]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/06/why-is-nate-silver-so-afraid-of-sam-wang.html
I only remember Wang for 2014, which he was very wrong on. But finding this article, didn't realize he was spot on in 2012.

Sam Wang is my no. 1 data pundit, for several reasons: he is remarkably dispassionate about his research, he doesn't do it for money, he has a dry sense of humour and he admits when he makes mistakes (he has been open about what he got wrong in 2014 and has adjusted his model accordingly). He doesn't do any of the 'special sauce' like rating pollsters because that makes the analysis too subjective. While he is openly a Democratic supporter, he encourages his Republican readers to contribute and volunteer for their party too.

But my main reason for liking him is he constantly acts as an oasis of calmness in the furious, windswept sandstorm that is your average election campaign. He called this race for Clinton months ago (he also called the primaries for Trump before virtually anyone else did), and has pointed out that the race has been relatively stable all the way through. I'd recommend him to all the handwringers and bedwetters who inhabit Atlas (among which I number myself, I should point out).

[BoAtlantis]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/06/why-is-nate-silver-so-afraid-of-sam-wang.html
I only remember Wang for 2014, which he was very wrong on. But finding this article, didn't realize he was spot on in 2012.

Sam Wang is my no. 1 data pundit, for several reasons: he is remarkably dispassionate about his research, he doesn't do it for money, he has a dry sense of humour and he admits when he makes mistakes (he has been open about what he got wrong in 2014 and has adjusted his model accordingly). He doesn't do any of the 'special sauce' like rating pollsters because that makes the analysis too subjective. While he is openly a Democratic supporter, he encourages his Republican readers to contribute and volunteer for their party too.

But my main reason for liking him is he constantly acts as an oasis of calmness in the furious, windswept sandstorm that is your average election campaign. He called this race for Clinton months ago (he also called the primaries for Trump before virtually anyone else did), and has pointed out that the race has been relatively stable all the way through. I'd recommend him to all the handwringers and bedwetters who inhabit Atlas (among which I number myself, I should point out).

What I like about Sam Wang is that he makes his methodology open for viewers, whereas Nate Silver has most of it to himself. Wang's national margin in 2012 was more accurate than Silver's was, if I recall correctly.