How I Acted Like a Pundit and Screwed Up on Donald Trump

This claim is tantamount to a schoolyard taunt like, "If you don't fight me, you're a coward." And claiming victory when your opponent wasn't even at school that day to hear the taunt.

At the time of the writing on the article I posted as a rebuttal: Each time both Silver and Diggler predicted results they agreed except for 8 states. When they didn't agree, they had an equal number of correct results (and incorrect results), 4-4. They're effectively tied.

The ones that aren't predicted indicate nothing about Silver's methods other than a lack of sufficient data to put through his models. Which says something to his ethos. He doesn't just make wild stabs in the dark like a typical pundit when he doesn't have the data to back up his prediction.

EDIT: Cleaned up the second paragraph.

EDIT FURTHER: I suppose it's my fault. Chess was the wrong analogy if someone were to pick an analogy. It's played head-to-head, and comparison to people that aren't playing against each other requires more complex analysis. The situation here is two parties participating in an open contest, where everyone can win, everyone can lose, or something in between can occur.

The point still stands. Someone not participating in a given contest doesn't equate to losing. They just aren't competing.

As far as I can read mr. Trump which isn't to say I'm right, I think he's a quite an adroit pragmatic populist who when it becomes necessary will adjust his more extreme positions and bring them in alignment with the average sentiment of the population.

His having been a business person, I don't think he'd take catastrophic action on trade in order to satisfy a vague promise. He may seek to curtail illegal immigration by simply enforcing e-verify for all jobs --that way, you might stay here, but there is no point if you can't get work. At the same time I could imagine a guest worker program, to give people who are willing to comply, an avenue to work here. He may reframe the whole NRA/2nd amendment rights issue to a less polarized one. I think he's not apt to vilify the LGBTQ community as a Cruz would likely do.

Cruz was only about his "base". I think Trump has a good chance to expand beyond his core constituency, disaffected working class and non-ideological conservatives. He has the personality to pull in blue collar blacks as well as blue collar Americans of Latin American descent. He may well alienate undocumented immigrants and people who sympathise with them, but he may risk that, for the time being.

I hear Trump's words and his "Big City boss" approach to governing doesn't appeal to me, and I don't believe is going to be productive. I take it you think he will tack to the populist center, but I have no clue what he'd do on a whole range of issues based just on what he has said. It's like "Hope America Change Again" should be his slogan.

He's boorish when it comes to women and sexuality. His foreign policy statements continue to be a hot mess; he's either feigning ignorance or is actually ignorant on world issues when he shoots from the hip. Demonizing Mexico/Mexicans and China for show, stoking up hate for votes. The "Rafael Cruz may have been part of the JFK assassination" antics was a completely crazy stunt and unnecessary given where the campaigns stood in Indiana. Alluding to his adequate dick size in a presidential debate. And on and on, Trump isn't funny or refreshing to me ...

Domestic policy-wise, yes, there might be some bright spots (like his tax plan). Anywhere he is cagey or ambiguous on his policy statements or has done an about-face, he is a complete enigma (was for late-term abortion and now is for punishing mothers for getting abortions should abortion become illegal.)

BTW, I don't blame you for projecting, a lot of people love the guy and want to see him succeed!