Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Correct, Bureaucat. Here was one of Trace21230's most accurate (LOL) pre 2012 election posts.
Correct, 05-06-2012, 12:30 PM [SIZE=5]Trace21230[/SIZE]
Evil GOPer - Kicks Puppies and Makes Kids Cry befriend
Join Date: Jul 2011
6,719 posts, read 2,146,610 times
Reputation: 3275
Quote:
Originally Posted by mig1 Pick your poison: Romney is a political parasite (exactly what our government has become), in addition, he was a 1992 registered dumbocrat and is not likable in the least, hence, he cannot beat Obama, period.
Ron Paul is the lesser of all evils, best option in my view.
Your candidate Barack Obama is going to lose badly in November. Book it.
Ah my internet stalker/loon hits the archives. Why don't you post your 2014 prediction bobby?
Originally Posted by PanapolicRiddle While it worked really well for many years, Republicans are now in trouble because they're still relying on 'Southern Strategy' first brilliantly employed by Nixon. He was politically astute enough to understand that he'd win if he received overwhelming support from the white electorate. At that time, a significant majority of the US was white. This strategy continued to be largely successful until 1992. [Even though Gore and Kerry lost, just barely.]"
You are correct, and without the Blue Wall that the GOP has alienated itself from, step back 30 years, and weak candidates like Gore & Kerry fail to get 100 electoral votes each. Those 2 races are the ones that should have scarred the GOP big time! It is less shocking that Obama won 697 electoral votes than Kerry winning 251! It was a sign of the enormous block of states that find the GOP repugnant for POTUS today, and that is the parties problem. Not those of us honest enough to acknowledge such a problem exists.
This is bad for BOTH parties voters, because in a 2 party system, when one is impotent for POTUS, ANY nominee of the other has an easy time winning.
I missed 2014 by just one Senate seat, and I missed 2012 POTUS by one state (Florida).
I've yet to see you get that close, but I rely on experts like Nate Silver, and real analysis I read before posting!
Do you remember when that same "expert" predicted that Hagan would be re-elected? Or that Orman would win in Kansas, even though he ended up losing by double digits?
When will the left's nauseating worship of Silver end? He is far from infallabile, and even back in 2012 (the one election he was hailed for), the Real Clear Politics average of polls got every state right except Florida, which showed a very thin Romney lead (although the result happened to be a very thin Obama victory).
When will the left's nauseating worship of Silver end? He is far from infallabile, and even back in 2012 (the one election he was hailed for), the Real Clear Politics average of polls got every state right except Florida, which showed a very thin Romney lead (although the result happened to be a very thin Obama victory).
Silver's election forecast was highly accurate for all the national elections of the past six years. In 2012, he only got one thing wrong: an obscure SD senate race for which little polling info was available. For POTUS, his forecasts were dead on. He said (paraphrase), 'For Romney to have won would have meant there was a major structural error in not just a few polls, but the majority. The wasn't very likely.'
Obama's victory wasn't that thin in 2012: He won the popular vote by about 5 million, and the Electoral College by 126. That's a far more decisive victory than when W won in 2000 and 2004.
Do you remember when that same "expert" predicted that Hagan would be re-elected? Or that Orman would win in Kansas, even though he ended up losing by double digits?
When will the left's nauseating worship of Silver end? He is far from infallabile, and even back in 2012 (the one election he was hailed for), the Real Clear Politics average of polls got every state right except Florida, which showed a very thin Romney lead (although the result happened to be a very thin Obama victory).
Obama' "very thin" victory in 2012 was a margin of 3.9 percent. In contrast, the biggest Republican margin in the last 24 years was a 2.5% squeaker by Dubya over Lurch in 2004, where a swing of 100,000 votes in Ohio would have changed the results nationally. In 2004, Bush won 286 electoral votes. if Ohio had flipped, Kerry would have won the election in the electoral college, despite Bush winning the popular vote by 3 million. Bush states in 2004 included Nevada (6 EV and carried twice by Obama by an average of over 9% in the last 2 elections), New Mexico (5 EV and carried by BO by about 12.5% in the last 2 elections) and Virginia (13 EV and carried twice by Obama). Bush's total of electoral votes in 2004 was 286, only 16 over the minimum needed to win. By contrast, in 2012 Obama won about 330 EV or 60 more than the minimum needed to win.
Last edited by Bureaucat; 01-09-2015 at 08:59 AM..
Do you remember when that same "expert" predicted that Hagan would be re-elected? Or that Orman would win in Kansas, even though he ended up losing by double digits?
When will the left's nauseating worship of Silver end? He is far from infallabile, and even back in 2012 (the one election he was hailed for), the Real Clear Politics average of polls got every state right except Florida, which showed a very thin Romney lead (although the result happened to be a very thin Obama victory).
Most people predicted both Orman and Hagan would win. Hagan did lose narrowly.
With that being said, Silver has traditionally been better on Presidential races than Senate ones. He did get a few seats wrong in the Senate in 2010 and 2012 (in those cases he predicted Republican victories in states they lost)
Obama' "very thin" victory in 2012 was a margin of 3.9 percent. In contrast, the biggest Republican margin in the last 24 years was a 2.5% squeaker by Dubya over Lurch in 2004, where a swing of 100,000 votes in Ohio would have changed the results nationally. In 2004, Bush won 286 electoral votes. if Ohio had flipped, Kerry would have won the election in the electoral college, despite Bush winning the popular vote by 3 million. Bush states in 2004 included Nevada (6 EV and carried twice by Obama by an average of over 9% in the last 2 elections), New Mexico (5 EV and carried by BO by about 12.5% in the last 2 elections) and Virginia (13 EV and carried twice by Obama). Bush's total of electoral votes in 2004 was 286, only 16 over the minimum needed to win. By contrast, in 2012 Obama won about 330 EV or 60 more than the minimum needed to win.
I was referring to Obama's very thin victory in Florida; in 2012, he won that state by less than one percent (while I believe the RCP average of polls should Romney with a similar razor thin lead prior to election day in that state). I obviously know that Obama won the national popular vote by about 3.9%, but I wasn't referring to that. The overall context of my post was how Silver was so hyped by the left because he correctly predicted all 50 states in the last presidential election; I was pointing out that this "wonderful sage" Silver simply could have looked at the polls and automatically have been correct in 50 out of his 51 state-by-state predictions (counting DC as a state for our purposes). Romney's less than one percent lead in the Florida polls essentially represented a statistical tie, so I cannot see what made Silver so great for predicting an Obama victory in that state, either.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I remember differently, but I'm not lame enough to save your ignorant posts. 
