Some people just want to vote for the winner, f***tards! I’ll return to this point in a minute, but first, let me address the apparent paradox in the graph above. I typically value Nate Silver’s analysis, and he’s been right more than wrong. But I chuckled when I saw the above because I’m not quite sure how “slightly” squares with 68 percent. I think he is hedging his bets by “saying” one thing in the headline and indicating another in the numbers. By anyone’s standards, 68 percent is more than a slight chance of succeeding. It makes me wonder just how confident he is in his projections. Of course, he addressed the idea of probability more thoroughly after he missed correctly calling the 2016 presidential election, for people were very upset that he “blew” it. He had to reacquaint Americans with the world of statistics, which is a tall order for a country of morons. Nonetheless, technically, he was correct in that no matter the probability split — which he calculated to be a 71 percent chance of Clinton winning — there was still the possibility traitor trump could win. And he did. In other words, it was not a non-zero probability event that Clinton could lose.
Now, returning to my initial statement: Some people just want to vote for the winner. I believe this is the x-factor that many statisticians miss in their forecasting, and it’s related to the idea of the “mighty mo” — mighty momentum. Any pollster will tell you momentum is your friend, and you don’t want to “peak” too early. Yet, I fear Democrats have peaked too early. Unsurprisingly, races are tightening. Oz is gaining on Fetterman per an Emerson College Polling/The Hill survey. According to the most recent Fox News poll, Johnson overtakes Barnes in Wisconsin. Walker is still — incomprehensibly — statistically tied with Warnock in Georgia. There are other races where the Cook Report shifts favorability to Democrats. Yet, the momentum seems to be building in the most critical of Senate races, which gives license for morons to vote for the perceived winner rather than on the quality of candidates or issues. Look, f***tards. Faithful voters will vote for their respective party, but those squishy middle (aka “Independent”) voters who determine the outcome of elections are so uncommitted to issues and parties — as evinced by their inability to pick a political direction of the country and stick with it — that one is led to believe that when push comes to shove and when people secretly pull the lever at the ballot box they lose all sensibilities and vote for those who are perceived to be winning at the time — the politicians gaining (or having just gained) in the polls. No one wants to vote for a loser. It’s really that simple for many, and it may sound absurd that people put their futures in the hands of a political popularity contest rather than elect a suitable official based on reason and well-determined issues. Still, one would be surprised by the level of “logic” people engage when voting. Just ask voters how they select judges on the ballot. Then you will learn to fear people’s voting methodology. Welcome to stupid America! It’s as bad as it sounds.