thing is, it'd have to be a perfect scenario for Romney. You can spin it any way you want, but he won't win over 300 electoral votes. He might win the election (doubtful) but if he does it's not going to be 300+ ev votes. Again, he'd have to win almost every swing state PLUS have Obama lose some states he's favored in. That just seems to be unlikely.
carter wasn't exactly expected to get 95% of the black vote and a majority of latino. reagan didn't have the burden of a faction of his party being perceived as chauvanistic on 'women's health' issues killing his standing with women. unfortunately for romney those things are offsetting the sluggish economic recovery. obviously if the election was just held with white males it would be 1980.
Who did you predict would win in 2008? Because it seems to me I remember you being pretty confident about McCain pretty ridiculously late in the game. What are the numbers you predict now?
Carter won several Southern states, tho. Reagan wasn't a mainstream republican type at all. Reagan and republicans opposed the ERA. I don't think you're making the case you believe you are.
In 2008, it sure looked to me like there was Bush fatigue (as there was Clinton fatigue in 2000), and Obama drew some downright huge crowds. However, I think if you look back on the polls, McCain was actually ahead until the economy crashed. I also think people underestimated how great Palin was for McCain, when you consider he had 1/8th the money Obama had and she drew really big crowds in her own right. Last election, I wrote in Ron Paul. I'm voting for Gary Johnson this time - I encourage you to do the same.
I'm just mad I said I'd spend $150 of my $200 bet on ToB's favorite charity. Of course, if he wants, we can spend it all on whatever bar/restaurant we meet up at when he pays me my money.
Reagan won 49/50 states in 1984, though. He was running against a guy who promised to raise taxes. Romney won't win that many states, but he'll get over 300 in the EV, and win the popular vote by at least 4 points.
perhaps not - didn't pay that much attention to politics in 1980 at age 16. but still i suspect living in the internet/information age has made perceived right wing chauvanism over abortion a much more influentially contentious issue with women now than the ERA was in 1980. repubs were widely split on that then anyway, so i don't know if it's necessarily a parallel.
Nate Silver has been right more than he's been wrong. Not just on who wins but on which states go which way in Presidential elections. Getting 8 Congressional seats wrong out of 435 is pretty damn good. Of course, I did see an article by a conservative pundit saying Silver can't be relied on because he's gay. I have no idea whether or not he is. The pundit claims he could tell by Silver's appearance, voice, et al that he's gay and apparently only straight dudes can crunch numbers.
What I don't understand is why everyone named Silver is gay. This pollster, the guy replacing Stern, and the Lone Ranger's horse. There were always rumors about him and Tonto, so I'd think Silver was heehawing during the shenanigans.
Some races are completely uncontested, and some are so one-sided that there's nothing to really predict. For example, Nate Silver predicted there was a 100% chance Nancy Pelosi would be re-elected in 2010 - go figure 100%, not 99.9% or something less.
