This is where I don't get all the Nate Silver-bashing on the part of the mostly-useless pundit class. If you disagree with Silver, fine. If you think that he's partisan, fine. But he's hardly a tremendous outlier when you look at all the betting futures, all of which have Obama at around a 65-70% chance at reelection. Just look at Intrade or Betfair or at any of a number betting sites. The free market -- people putting their money where their mouths are -- is generally agreeing with Silver and is generally disagreeing with the mostly-useless pundit class. Edit: Of course, I'm pretty sure the mostly-useless pundit class knows this already. But hey, gotta fill airtime somehow!
I may be late to this, but The Economist has endorsed Obama: http://www.economist.com/news/leade...sadly-mitt-romney-does-not-fit-bill-which-one
Agreeing that Nate Silver may be right is an inherent rejection of the usefulness of the pundit class. If 7 hours a day discussing "who won the week" and "Romneymentum" is less credible than a guy in his apartment running some statistical models, why listen to the pundits at all? They're attacking Silver the same way that horse carriage drivers attacked cars; they're frightened.
People who compare Silver and Wang to Bill James are right on the money for the same reason. Honestly, I think that the only people who think that the pundit class serves any real usefulness anymore are the pundit themselves and the TV execs who employ them. And in the latter case, it's not because they believe the pundits offer any valuable analysis, but because their bloviating makes for TV that people will watch. You can see this in the betting markets and you can see this in how people are acting. Chris Christie is acting the way he is with the President and putting a knife in Romney's back because he knows the odds at this point. He sure as hell isn't listening to Dick Morris.
FWIW, it's anecdotal, but it seems there's a fair amount of anger in NY by how much attention NJ is getting when there are some totally devastated places here.
Bloomberg didn't want a visit from Obama. Say what you want about the symbolism of these visits, but they do actually have an effect. Although its not a competition, I think the Jersey shore took the absolute worst of it. NY has plenty of damage, and that one neighborhood burning down is pretty awful.
It seems a little short sighted in retrospect - the Rockaways and Long Beach seem pretty crushed - and I'm not sure anywhere has it as bad as that neighborhood - Breezy Point.
Bloomberg asked Obama not to come because of the disruption that the President's arrival would cause. For better or worse, the press follow the president. EDIT: I see it's already addressed above. Seems like Bloomberg should have asked Obama to avoid Manhattan and survey Queens and Staten Island instead.
Just sayn' what? That Bush shouldn't have gone to the site of a terrorist attack? I think that's a little different than a hurricane.
Woooooosh. I'm just sayin' that Bloomberg could have worked out a presidential visit. That was one of the best moments of the Bush presidency, for him and for the country. I think people in NJ were lifted a bit by Obama's visit, and I'm sure it could have been arranged in NY. As TPH mentioned, he didn't have to go to lower Manhattan. He probably could have bounced over on Marine One from NJ without too much hassle.
And I am saying the concentrated destruction of 9/11 was a little different than the widespread destruction of a hurricane.
Right wingers love unskewedpolls.com so I wonder if there will be any backlash if he's wrong. Here's his current projection: http://unskewedpolls.com/unskewed_projection_2012 president_02.cfm
A reminder of what all should know, that the right-wing media are not a collection of people with integrity and principles who have just happen to have a different viewpoint. They are instead whores who will say anything at any time, and hope that the audience is either too biased or too stupid to hold that against them -