There's so much misinformation here it's hard to know where to begin. People are accusing Hillary and her campaign of expressing views sent to them or because they discuss opposition research against other candidates. There's also the question of how much of the content was altered before it was released.
Nate's forecast has always fluctuated based on the available data. He says so himself. The closer we get to the elections the better his data firms up.
There's so much misinformation here it's hard to know where to begin. People are accusing Hillary and her campaign of expressing views sent to them or because they discuss opposition research against other candidates. There's also the question of how much of the content was altered before it was released.
There's just not much to incriminate anyone here.
If this is the best Fox can do with it: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/11/7-...ns-from-wikileaks-release-podesta-emails.html, there would seem to be very little of import.
Don't stop believin'
How profound.
Just sounded as if you needed the encouragement;-(
I still don't. Just my usual distaste for bad information.
Sticking to the subject at hand
"It's only just begun"
Good luck with that.
No "luck" involved,...... WikiLeaks stated intent.
" Just my usual distaste for bad information", I can't help but repeat: "Don't stop believin'"
http://www.salon.com/2016/07/25/shock_poll_na...vers_election_forecast_now_has_trump_winning/
Nate Silver's current site with the live historical graphs seem to be conflicted.
Nate's forecast has always fluctuated based on the available data. He says so himself. The closer we get to the elections the better his data firms up.
This morning it was Hillary 83%
It sounds like we need to prepare ourselves for President Hillary Clinton.
[This comment was removed]