I'd agree with that. For the elections, it's hard to rev up the base when someone points to the numbers and says you have a poor chance of winning. Rove has an editorial at the WSJ right now that's their #1 article, about how Romney has good chances to win; it feels similar to how in 2006 he claimed to have "the math" before the Republicans got their drubbing. It's almost like putting out a big name editorial like that is the last "get the base out to vote" attempt before the election, regardless of what the actual odds are. Problem is having someone like Silver running numbers in a clearly explained way that anyone can replicate, with a high measure of past accuracy, serves to debunk the efforts of people like Rove almost by default.
This is an important point. Elections follow similar patterns every cycle, including much bravado. Silver totally disrupts that with data--it's not just the punditry that is angry with him, it's political operatives. He's pulling the curtain back and revealing the "wizard of Oz", so to speak.
If you really want to know which side feels less-than-confident about their chances, the best indicator is "leaks" from campaign insiders that talk about the candidates' future plans. Laying the groundwork early is an irresistible urge for those who think they might be in trouble.
