> He compared a very lopsided win to a slight loss, and those were equally likely.

I'm not arguing with you, since the one thing I know is that there's no surer way to making a mistake than jumping in confidently on probabilistic issues, especially issues of interpretation rather than of pure mathematics; but I think you must have misspoke, or I must have misunderstood. The quoted sentence says 'extremely probable' (an absolute condition), not 'equally likely' (a relative condition):

> "But no one should be surprised if they only win 19 seats and no one should be surprised if they win 51 seats," Silver added. "Those are both extremely possible, based on how accurate polls are in the real world."

Not "extremely probable" -- it says "extremely possible", which is a malapropism or a new phrase. It's easy to mistake because it has no clear meaning. The comparison, though, does not appear to be D's win vs D's lose, but D's win by more than X vs D's lose, and the latter clearly (imo) suggests D is favored to win.

> Not "extremely probable" -- it says "extremely possible", which is a malapropism or a new phrase. It's easy to mistake because it has no clear meaning.

Indeed, despite quoting it in my response, I made exactly that mistake. Thanks!