I know you're not literally asking what Madden has it right now, but in case you're wondering: it's 83, which is very much on the low end (tied with Tommy DeVito, Jaren Hall, Brett Rypien and a handful of other fringe roster guys. The lowest of any QB is Nathan Peterman at 78.)
December 14, 2025 at 9:58 PM
I know you're not literally asking what Madden has it right now, but in case you're wondering: it's 83, which is very much on the low end (tied with Tommy DeVito, Jaren Hall, Brett Rypien and a handful of other fringe roster guys. The lowest of any QB is Nathan Peterman at 78.)
But Silver was rewarded handsomely for what was essentially performative rigor. And he bought into his own hype. So when other people point out that he doesn't know what he's talking about, he lashes out. Because he must know what he's talking about - otherwise how could he have gotten 08 right?
December 14, 2025 at 12:47 AM
But Silver was rewarded handsomely for what was essentially performative rigor. And he bought into his own hype. So when other people point out that he doesn't know what he's talking about, he lashes out. Because he must know what he's talking about - otherwise how could he have gotten 08 right?
And if you're the "just look at the polls" guy, and the polls can't really predict the winner...why should anyone care about you? And when he tries his hand at political punditry (like that Eric Adams might be the post-Biden Dem prez nom), Silver has exposed himself as a sub-Cillizza pundit
December 14, 2025 at 12:47 AM
And if you're the "just look at the polls" guy, and the polls can't really predict the winner...why should anyone care about you? And when he tries his hand at political punditry (like that Eric Adams might be the post-Biden Dem prez nom), Silver has exposed himself as a sub-Cillizza pundit
(Even how he said Trump winning was more likely in '16 than most was essentially worthless. It's a one-off test; we don't really know if his ~1/4 chance was actually more accurate than the 1/100 chances other models said, or if we just happened to get the 1/100.)
December 14, 2025 at 12:47 AM
(Even how he said Trump winning was more likely in '16 than most was essentially worthless. It's a one-off test; we don't really know if his ~1/4 chance was actually more accurate than the 1/100 chances other models said, or if we just happened to get the 1/100.)
(This isn’t an endorsement of the reactionary centrist “Democrats need to be more moderate” position. When she got in, Harris was a change candidate in a world where people hate the establishment - like every winner since Watergate except HW and Biden. Then she bearhugged the status quo and lost.)
December 11, 2025 at 7:13 PM
(This isn’t an endorsement of the reactionary centrist “Democrats need to be more moderate” position. When she got in, Harris was a change candidate in a world where people hate the establishment - like every winner since Watergate except HW and Biden. Then she bearhugged the status quo and lost.)
I’m not saying fundamentals don’t matter, but I feel like the arc of the polling shows the Harris campaign blew it. Inflation/immigration/propping up Biden/even Trump getting shot had already happened when she got in…and then she was leading the polls two weeks later.
December 11, 2025 at 7:13 PM
I’m not saying fundamentals don’t matter, but I feel like the arc of the polling shows the Harris campaign blew it. Inflation/immigration/propping up Biden/even Trump getting shot had already happened when she got in…and then she was leading the polls two weeks later.
No, that's a pretty clear "Didn't complete the process of the catch" scenario. If that had happened at the 10-yard line it'd be called an incomplete pass, not a fumble.
December 7, 2025 at 10:26 PM
No, that's a pretty clear "Didn't complete the process of the catch" scenario. If that had happened at the 10-yard line it'd be called an incomplete pass, not a fumble.
The salary isn’t boxing out people who aren’t wealthy, it’s the cost of the campaign that is. Raising cong. pay would draw in people for whom the current pay is too low - by definition richer people than are already running - which would draw more money to campaigns and *further* exclude non-rich
December 3, 2025 at 8:36 PM
The salary isn’t boxing out people who aren’t wealthy, it’s the cost of the campaign that is. Raising cong. pay would draw in people for whom the current pay is too low - by definition richer people than are already running - which would draw more money to campaigns and *further* exclude non-rich