Thu Nov 29, 2012 9:21 pm
Marc_C wrote:Tony Crocker wrote:It's always speculation what causes last minute swings like this. The best guess for 2012 is Hurricane Sandy,...
You're completely ignoring the near total alienation by Romney and the American Taliban of women, Latinos, African-Americans, and anyone who desires a candidate who actually has positions that s/he maintains and believes in. Sandy may have helped out a bit, but the prime reasons for Romney's resounding defeat are systemic in a party that has traveled so far to the radical right that even Regan could not be their candidate today because he would be considered too leftist. The American majority heard the same failed policies and economic remedies that favor the wealthy the Rethuglicans have been pushing for over a decade and wisely rejected them. Read what Frum, Sullivan, Jindal, Rubio, et al on the right have said about how Mittens went off the rails, and, especially, this piece by Bruce Bartlett in The American Conservative: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/revenge-of-the-reality-based-community
Thu Nov 29, 2012 11:34 pm
Fri Nov 30, 2012 2:11 pm
MarcC wrote:You're completely ignoring the near total alienation by Romney and the American Taliban of women, Latinos, African-Americans, and anyone who desires a candidate who actually has positions that s/he maintains and believes in....
rfarren wrote:It would be foolish and overly simplistic to say: since, Obama won with 53% of the vote, he would hypothetically win the election only 53% of the time.
rfarren wrote:It sounds to me that Tony's friend Harold is allowing emotion and out of date analysis to cloud his judgment (national polls vs. state polls, new available data, etc)....I see that as no different than a retired political consultant speaking from experience from his war chest days, when commenting on modern electioneering.
rfarren wrote:I disagree with Tony strongly as far as Nate Silver is concerned....The proof is in the pudding, just look at Mr. Silver's results in the past 3 elections. His results have only improved with each passing cycle.
Fri Nov 30, 2012 3:28 pm
Tony Crocker wrote:The 2008 and 2012 elections were not that hard to call.
Fri Nov 30, 2012 5:56 pm
Tony Crocker wrote: The Washington Post just ran a piece about an 8th grader who called all 50 states.
Tony Crocker wrote:Part of Harold's historical perspective is that he shares the unease about political polarization. In the close elections of 1960, 1968 and 1976 there were lots of close states, so campaigning was more broad based across the country. One reason Nixon looked like crap in those debates with Kennedy is that he pledged to campaign in all 50 states. When Romney wins 23 states by 9 points or more, it pretty much guarantees those states and their counterparts on the Democratic side will continue to be ignored in future national presidential campaigns.
Sat Dec 01, 2012 1:14 am
rfarren wrote: Mr. Silver figured out that Ohio was polling better than what the national polls should be predicting for Ohio
rfarren wrote:If you look at the polling data it shows that from October 15th till the 29th the election was trending towards Obama.
Sat Dec 01, 2012 1:58 am
Sat Dec 01, 2012 7:43 am
Sat Dec 01, 2012 5:56 pm
Sun Dec 02, 2012 1:51 pm
Tony Crocker wrote:rfarren wrote: Mr. Silver figured out that Ohio was polling better than what the national polls should be predicting for Ohio
Obama won the national vote by 3.42% and won Ohio by 1.9%, so the above statement is wrong any way you look at it. Move every state that 3.42% and Florida, Ohio and Virginia switch to Romney and Obama's electoral margin is 272-266.
Sun Dec 02, 2012 2:11 pm
rfarren wrote:I believe the science of election prediction has moved beyond Harold's understanding of it.
Sun Dec 02, 2012 2:26 pm
Sun Dec 02, 2012 4:27 pm
rfarren wrote:Harold is simply skiing a straight old ski in an era of wider shaped skis.
Mon Dec 03, 2012 4:15 pm
Mon Dec 03, 2012 9:06 pm
berkshireskier wrote:See story below on efforts to deal with the point that I made above - that one candidate winning a large majority of the vote in limited areas - i.e., urban areas - can skew the election results on a geographic basis. It's still amazing to me that you can lose 90% of the country and win the election.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-0 ... votes.html