Based on my own experience running for Senate, and Mr. Silver's math, my hypothesis is: With highly focused social media, candidates will soon be able to win primaries for well under $100k.

The near religious commitment of the United States to private for-profit administration of social programs has proved to be an economic disaster. Health insurance and education are not an entitlements. They should be social rights.

With another presidential election cycle and inauguration behind us, it might be worth noting something that may be an indicator of which presidential candidate will actually win -- no matter which party he (or she) -- represents.

America's current predicament is not caused by the depth of our policy challenges but rather the intransigence of extreme elements in one party, exploiting a political system that is poorly suited for effective action absent cooperation between our two parties.

Why was it so difficult to avoid the fiscal cliff? Especially when, in the end, Congress couldn't salvage a grand bargain à la Simpson-Bowles, but instead settled for a quick fix?

Welcome to the seventh annual homage (which sounds so much nicer than "blatant ripoff," don't you think?) to the television show The McLaughlin Group, since they have the most extensive year-end award category list of anyone around.

Nate Silver's numbers tell us where the campaign is at a given moment. And good punditry can tell us how the campaign got there. Even though the statistics maven is riding high now, Nate Silver needs to realize he is only half of the equation.