A couple interesting points I heard on MSNBC and C-Span last night

- Chris Matthews I believe made an interesting point in favor of Angus King's Senate reform goals. He talked about ideological rankings of the Senate and how a lot of moderates are gone now and it's a lot more starkly conservative and liberal (as are the parties). Not new news by any means. But it's important context for the filibuster. The filibuster is built for an institution with large ideological overlaps and moderates that broker agreements. That's not the modern Senate.

- Someone on C-Span I believe mentioned that Nate Silver's insights about the polls actually, in retrospect, were true in 2004 too. Maybe Nate Silver himself has pointed this out but I started following him relatively late and this is the first I heard of it. In 2004 the Kerry camp was hopeful based on early data because all the polls in all the swing states were so close leading up to the election - all within the margin of error. But if you took the Nate Silver approach of thinking about polls as multiple sampling from the same distribution you realized that the small but consistent lead that Bush had was - while in the margin of error of any given poll - statistically much stronger than pundits gave it credit for. Silver's (relatively obvious, when you think about it) way of looking at the polls is therefore not some crazy untested approach, and the math of 2012 in fact looks a lot like 2004.