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.
Nate Silver needs a horserace too. Let's not forget that. It wasn't quite so crucial back when he was writing for the Times, but it sure as heck matters now.
He conveniently does not put a 270 EV line on that chart. Some of his charts lately have been...maybe not misleading, but not fully transparent. It appears to me that if you look at his line of "electoral vote curve based on 2012 results," a Democrat could win the electoral college but lose the popular vote. But of course, his dotted trend curve that he drew crosses zero almost exactly at 270. Uh-huh (He does later say that Obama would've won had the popular vote been tied.)
Quote:
And they have, if you conveniently draw the line at 1992 (it doesn’t sound so impressive to instead say Democrats have won five of the 12 elections since 1968)
Right. It doesn't. But they probably haven't had a good streak even going back farther than that. So what? Why stop at 1968? Why not go back even farther? I don't know. To me, what matters is recent history.
Then he uses a ridiculous hypothetical map to talk about a Romney victory. Huh???
Look, the guy drew massive scorn from the right during the 2012 election. He couldn't possibly be correct, they said. It was Romney in a friggin landslide. Oops. Well, this time he wants a bigger audience. What better way to do that than publish an opaque piece like this giving Republicans hope?
Nate Silver needs a horserace too. Let's not forget that. It wasn't quite so crucial back when he was writing for the Times, but it sure as heck matters now.
He conveniently does not put a 270 EV line on that chart. Some of his charts lately have been...maybe not misleading, but not fully transparent. It appears to me that if you look at his line of "electoral vote curve based on 2012 results," a Democrat could win the electoral college but lose the popular vote. But of course, his dotted trend curve that he drew crosses zero almost exactly at 270. Uh-huh (He does later say that Obama would've won had the popular vote been tied.)
Right. It doesn't. But they probably haven't had a good streak even going back farther than that. So what? Why stop at 1968? Why not go back even farther? I don't know. To me, what matters is recent history.
Then he uses a ridiculous hypothetical map to talk about a Romney victory. Huh???
Look, the guy drew massive scorn from the right during the 2012 election. He couldn't possibly be correct, they said. It was Romney in a friggin landslide. Oops. Well, this time he wants a bigger audience. What better way to do that than publish an opaque piece like this giving Republicans hope?
Given the absolute destruction of the laughable Democrat Party in 2014, it seems that the few followers of that pathetic party are the ones who could use a dose of hope.
On second thought, I forget the few remaining sycophants are delusional when it comes to their thoughts of how beloved their party is. Nevermind.
Given the absolute destruction of the laughable Democrat Party in 2014, it seems that the few followers of that pathetic party are the ones who could use a dose of hope.
On second thought, I forget the few remaining sycophants are delusional when it comes to their thoughts of how beloved their party is. Nevermind.
LOL! The Dems got destroyed even worse in 2010. Can you tell me who won in 2012? I wasn't watching.
Rule of thumb: don't use a midterm election to predict a presidential election.
LOL! The Dems got destroyed even worse in 2010. Can you tell me who won in 2012? I wasn't watching.
Rule of thumb: don't use a midterm election to predict a presidential election.
*drops the mic*
Another rule of thumb is to not use an election results of two different people to predict the future election results of two entirely different people that are not even known at this point, especially when victory is usually dependent on personality and not politics.
Will do. In the meantime, please answer my question: who won in 2012, considering the slaughter of the Dems two years prior? Wait, I'll google "President Romney." I'm sure the election results will be among the search hits.
Pretty good article, and its right, this race can be won by a republican. ts going to depend on who.
The Republican Red Wall (established by Reagan) was broken by a brilliant liable Arkansan Bill and helped to establish the Blue Wall. The Republicans must put forth a charismatic candidate that can break the blue Wall currently dominating Presidential Elections. I think Rubio is a possibility.
1968 was a complicated and unique political year- LBJ drops out early, RFK is offed, riots plague American cities all across the continent, the people are still digesting President Johnson's massive "Great Society" expansion of the welfare state, high inflation, the aftermath of the civil rights movement and the height of the counterculture.
Vietnam was just one of many factors that determined the results of the 1968 election, and that year was like no other politically.
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.
(He does later say that Obama would've won had the popular vote been tied.)
