>>>>>
>
>>Bill, again, what I said was that the Obama camp was quite nervous, especially after the first debate and after the Benghazi debacle that led the administration to characterize a planned attack as "spontaneous". They were nervous.
>
>I can't speak for other people, but I was never nervous.
>I followed Nate Silver's 538 column in the NYT.

OK, you weren't nervous. The administration was. That is a fact.

Yes, Silver was quite accurate in the 2012 election. He wasn't nearly as accurate in the 2014 mid-terms.

While nearly everyone acknowledged the Rs had a very good chance to win and Silver himself said the odds were 76.2%, Silver was far less accurate on the margin of victory. He thought the odds of the Rs winning 53 seats was less than 25%. Well, the Rs have 54 seats. That's huge. Silver (like most D pundits) has also downplayed the Senate victory. Well, the margin of victory is bigger than he thinks. The Rs will have a tough time with the Senate next time around - so their margin of victory now translates into a slightly better margin for error next time. Additionally, you've got rumblings now that some Ds might break with the party and give the Rs the necessary veto override (that is, unless the Rs blow another chance and bicker amongst themselves). Watch the Iran situation play out. The administration is likely to suffer some incredible embarrassment.

In looking at Silver's state by state projections, I sense some definite D bias. Sure, call him accurate in 2012. But a non-partisan analysis? Definitely not.

So my personal view - Silver and his writers at 538 play it safe and don't quite "get it".