Political Buzz

Talking WA politics.

NOTICE: Political Buzz has moved.

With the launch of our new website, we've moved Political Buzz.
Visit the new section.

What Tuesday really meant–Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com sees less of a pattern

Post by Peter Callaghan / The News Tribune on May 19, 2010 at 1:28 pm with 1 Comment »
May 19, 2010 1:29 pm

This is a pretty good analysis of Tuesday’s primaries because it lacks the breathlessness of other reports.

Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com doesn’t feel the need to stick with the narrative of voter revolt when the facts don’t fit. He comes up with a more-nuanced look at primaries that contained a little for both parties to like…and fear.

Leave a comment Comments → 1
  1. One of the things that drives me crazy about election coverage is the desperate need for punditry to draw broad conclusions about the country from local elections. Each election has its own issues. For example, retaining Murtha’s seat would seem like a good sign for Democrats, but the guy the nominated is more conservative than some Republicans (remember when that was semi-common) so he won. No lesson from that district can be applied in the Washington 3rd but they’ll try their best to pretend it does.

    Paul winning in Kentucky, a rebuke of McConnell? Support for Bunning? Rise of the Tea Party? Or is it as simple as the fact that Greyson was a big Clinton supporter, his family longtime Democrats, and Kentucky Republicans probably didn’t care for that.

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0