Now, who's misrepresenting what someone said?

It's a FACT that he didn't think Trump would win the GOP nomination despite the polls showing otherwise. It has nothing to do with whether I agree with him.

"Don't confuse your fixation" with rules with the reality of the exceptions that prove them.

aka: "real life"

You're engaging in the so-and-so-is-a-failure-because-he-isn't-perfect fallacy.

What exceptions have been proven? Last I checked, the election is still six months away.

If the numbers of those polls were reversed, I would be saying exactly the same thing: It's too early to bank on general election polls, particularly when one of the parties has supporters who are convinced that there isn't yet a presumptive nominee.

And it's a fact that Silver says it's too early to start making predictions about the general election. So... how is this even relevant?

No I'm countering your appeal to authority fallacy with the suggestion that Nate Silver isn't that much of an authority on this election.

I'm not the one who initially referenced Nate Silver. I simply quoted him and indicated that his points were similar to mine.

Yes he says it's too early, but what is the evidence? Historical precedence? Turns out at this stage in the general election polls are pretty predictive.

What head-to-head election polls tell us about November

If you believe that to be the case, why are you even bringing Silver into the discussion?

I'm baffled at the logic of your argumentation here, although I do share your concern that we could well end up with a President Trump.

The correlation between polling results gets worse as the time prior to the election increases.

You've also been selective in your use of numbers. Using averages of the last several Trump vs Clinton state polls per Real Clear Politics:

-Clinton leads Trump in Florida: RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - Florida: Trump vs. Clinton

-Clinton leads Trump in Ohio: RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - Ohio: Trump vs. Clinton

-Clinton leads Trump in Pennsylvania: RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Clinton

I realize that you want to hang onto your "Sanders was more electable than Clinton" argument, but that's starting to sound like sour grapes, given the commanding lead that Clinton has in the Democratic primary popular vote tally.

You should also note that I would not use the polling results to conclude that Clinton is sure to win Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. As I noted before, it's too early.

I didn't bring Nate Silver into the discussion. Roadie was using the appeal to authority (Silver) to show that the general election polls don't matter. However, the numbers disagree.

I don't understand why you're baffled. It seems straightforward enough to me.

Silver was introduced into this discussion by sir_eccles (post 7254) and yourself (post 7256).

So, yeh, I'm baffled.

I didn't make an appeal to authority. I quoted a guy who you mentioned.

A guy I said was wrong this time, even though he got it right in 2012. And yes you did. The aim of your post was to show that Silver thinks that general election polls don't matter at this point in the election.

Well, he doesn't.