Silver's Halloween treat for Romney

Here's Nate Silver's Halloween treat for Mitt Romney. Really, Mitt, it's no trick:

Obama continues to hold the lead in the vast majority of polls in Iowa, Nevada, Ohio and Wisconsin, the states that represent his path of least resistance toward winning the Electoral College.

I particularly enjoyed this dig at the ponderous punditocracy:

I think describing the race as a "toss-up" reflects an uninformed interpretation of the evidence, but there is surely room to debate how much of a favorite Mr. Obama is.

Silver's concluding clause is only a recognition of reality. Nothing, of course, is ever over until it's over. But for such a broad swath of the commentariat to persist in characterizing the presidential race as close, or a toss-up, or anyone's guess is, at this point, either a deliberate misinterpretation or just plain ignorant.

Comments

[Robert Lipscomb]

Am I to infer from Silver's statement that an uninformed punditry might lead to low-information voters?

[Robert Lipscomb]

Is it fair to posit that British gamblers are better informed about American politics than the Very Serious People comprising our punditry?

http://www.oddschecker.com/specials/politics-and-election/us-presidential-election/winner

[Jon Ponder]

The tighter the race, the better the ratings.

[Turgidson]

According to Joe Scarborough, Nate Silver is a "joke" for suggesting the race is not, in fact, a tossup.

That makes me feel almost as good about Obama's chances as Dick Morris's confident prediction of a Romney landslide.

[You Don't Say]

Nate it taking a lot of undeserved grief from the right and now from the NYT public editor who publicly chastised him for making the bet with Scarborough. It's all pretty despicable.

[Peter G]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the British term for the type of pundit who looks at the evidence and concludes it is irrelevant, a tosser. I'm pretty sure Scarborough is a complete tosser.