Hillary Clinton, whose chances of becoming the 45th president have risen from ~35% to ~55%, has probably had the best year in Washington.— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) December 24, 2015
Word salad from: I Said Hillary Clinton had the ‘Worst Year in Washington.’ Here’s Why: "It's possible, of course, that I am biased, dumb or maybe a little bit of both...:
...I picked Clinton... I stand by it.... I had no intent making some sort of statement about her chances of winning.... Her past few months have been quite good.... Strong performance... [in the] first... debate... 11-hour star turn in... Benghazi... turned the narrative of her campaign around. But all of that... in... the 10th month of the year.... Private email... Bernie Sanders... Clinton righted the ship in October and has effectively kept that momentum up heading into 2016. But that doesn't mean that 2015 was a great or even good year.... Yes, of course... Sanders had nowhere to go but up.... And, yes, Clinton had nowhere to go but down.... Regardless of whether Clinton is in strong shape to be the Democratic nominee (she is) or the next president (she's got a slightly better than 50-50 shot)... lasting story of 2015 was how Clinton--or at least her candidacy--was less than we all thought it would be.... Look at Clinton's numbers on the question of whether the words "honest" or "trustworthy" apply to her.... An examination of the entirety of 2015--not just the last two months of the year--suggests that she damaged herself enough to turn a coronation into a contest for the Democratic nomination and to hand Republicans a cudgel...
The only way to make coherent sense of this is if:
- Cilizza thought that HRC's chances a year ago of winning the presidency were significantly more than today's 55%,
- Cilizza thus that Nate Silver was way off when he assessed them back then as 35%, but
- Cilizza does not dare write anything disagreeing with Nate Silver.
However, I don't think we should bend over backwards to try to make coherent sense out of this word-salad.
I don't think it is intended at any level to be any sort of coherent or logical argument.
Cilizza wanted not to inform his readers but to write an "evenhanded" column criticizing Democrats and Republicans easily, with bonus points for trashing Clintons.
He's at the Washington Post.
That's what they do there.