That’s the Conservative’s response to everything: victory, defeat, too much sugar in their coffee - they just weren’t conservative enough! :rolleyes:
Exactly. The GOP primary electorate is very conservative, and likely to remain so. If Mitt loses, then three or four years hence, they’ll point to the liberalism of his early political career (running to the left of Ted Kennedy on gay rights in 1994, for chrissake) and argue that a True Blue Conservative of the Santorum variety would have won in 2012. All of the (on-target) accusations of flip-flopping and say-anything-to-win against Mitt this year will only strengthen their resolve to nominate a TBC next time.
A pretty good overview of all the U.S. Senate races: http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/26/politics/senate-races/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Eh, just my feeling. And I don’t think Virginia is “clearly” for Romney. I know the polls are razor-thin there. I’ve said for months that Romney has no chance unless he takes all three of Florida, Virginia and Ohio, and I think that still holds. Even if I throw VA to the Romney side of the ledger, he still can’t win without Ohio + help (if my totally unofficial guesses turn out correct).
It’s also just my feeling that Wisconsin is fairly safe for Obama. I just don’t see my neighbors to the northeast turning that state red, even though the polls are basically tied there as well.
This. The Republicans are already past the event horizon, and there is no returning, regardless how any future election (including the one eleven days in the future) turns out.
They are broken, and eventually, they have to go.
Although, to be fair, I’m not really very concerned about whether that causes you any more despair, filmore. Nothing personal, though. 
Now I’m officially having a problem with Silver’s model. He forecasts Obama to win over 50% of the popular vote. But only one poll shows him getting 50%. Okay, maybe he’s figuring some undecideds break for Obama, fair enough.
But he has Romney at 48%. Romney is AVERAGING 48% already. Silver’s model either assumes something will change, or that all undecideds will break for Obama.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
Real Clear Politics doesn’t use all the polls (it ignores any that are commissioned by partisan sources, I believe), Nate does. But I would pay a lot more attention to Nate’s Electoral prediction- there’s more state polls, and state polls are a lot more useful in predicting who will actually win the election.
See posts 1050 and 1051. You’re nothing if not predictable.
It’s a fair question, and a question you should ask if you’re sniff-testing numbers.
I assume what is happening is that the state polls taken in aggregate are showing a slightly better popular showing for Obama than the national polls, and that, taken in aggregate, his model is showing a 50-48 popular vote result. Anybody know better?
**adaher **has probably been told a dozen times that the model looks at both state and national polling to determine the popular and electoral predictions. Looking at the national average and declaring 538’s number to be fraudulent is just silly, stick-your-fingers-in-your-ears thinking. It’s just a prediction, there’s no need to slander it if you disagree with it.
Both sides are fighting for the “we’re winning” message because they hope it leads some fence-sitters to jump on their bandwagon. Nate’s model is going against that message for Romney right now and their only hope at still grabbing that appearance of “winning” is to thrash the guy. Unfortunately for them, his methods are solid and he has the track record to back it up. If they can trash his model, they’re hoping those undecideds will still jump on their wagon. It’s as transparent a strategy as it gets around this time of year.
Silver’s October 25 post contained this:
Battleground or swing states are all that matter. This has been true from day one.
Right on the money. And read the comments, they are great. The only person defending the author is…the author.
God that’s an annoying website; I didn’t stay long enough to read the article.
Warning: pop-up autoplay political videos that can’t be shut off.
That site is wack. Oh my goodness … did you see their electoral map? I haven’t seen that much red since Carrie.
Also, as for Silver, he had an interesting tweet yesterday (Friday).
Odd, isn’t it? After all the hoopla and the debates and the high hopes and the low depressions and all the oodles of money being thrown at all these swing states … none of the states have changed since June. I wouldn’t have thought that.
Okay, so Silver’s model says the national polls are wrong.
Ah, I have Adblock, maybe that makes the difference.
The article is written by Dean Chambers of Unskewed Polls. Most of the article merely describes what Nate Silver does, and that the author disagrees with him, but give no real explanation of WHY Silver is wrong and using wishful thinking and living in a fantasy land. It’s largely silly.
Then there’s this choice quote:
So, Nate talks like a fag, and therefore his shit’s all retarded.
I was just about to post that quote. Holy fuck.
Nope. There’s lots of national polls, and many show Romney ahead, but many others show Obama ahead.
Well, when a man’s man like Dean Chambers calls you out, you know it’s time to butch up those polls.
