Are you making an argument here, or just contradicting the article? The author (who wasn't Silver, by the way, rendering the bulk of this paragraph irrelevant) explained his reasoning in detail, and made a very convincing case. Handwaving it away by calling it "utter nonsense" isn't exactly a compelling counterargument.
Nate Bronze is under the impression that as an attitude, party identification changes a lot. The problem is that is, as I said, utter nonsense. While yes, quite a few people change their party line during election season, the vast majority of people do not. They vote exactly the same way each and every time. Hence, they are a demographic. What matters is whether they show up or not, not necessarily which way they vote.
He also had a record number of votes cast against him. For all we know, there'll be a surge of people who don't normally vote coming out to vote against him.
And you think all of those GOP voters will vote for Clinton? Your best bet is that they don't show up at all.
you're assuming that increased turnout for the primaries will be reflective of the turnout for the general election. How do you know these extra voters for the primaries weren't people who already vote in the general elections?
...primary turnout always predicts the winner. Hence why I mentioned the primary model, a model that predicts the winner based on primary turnouts and has been correct every year for the past century. Though, to be fair, the model was created in 1996 and "backtracks" in order to predict the winners since 1912.
i don't think rushy read any more of that "apology" than the headline. it actually says the opposite of what he's claiming it does.
Oh, really? What part?