Interesting article:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/as-nation-and-parties-change-republicans-are-at-an-electoral-college-disadvantage
That guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about!
I’m assuming sarcasm.
Yep.
I do think the Republican response to the article will be interesting - I’m having a hard time even imagining what they’re going to do.
What they need to do is moderate. Some tax increases, lay off the contraception issue, stop being so anti-science, stop giving a shit about the evil gays. They can stick with their small government themes, but they cannot be so dogmatic about “gov’t bad, taxes bad” “Capitalism good, rich people good” mantra. If they could do that then they would be fine and actually a welcome participant in the national discussion. But they probably won’t because they are being held hostage by religious fanatics.
Deal on immigration reform. Yes that gives Obama a victory too but it eliminates the reason many conservative Hispanics are voting against the GOP. That can move CO and NV to the other side of the tipping point.
Those are incorrect answers to Enginerd’s question. You’re assuming a rational constructive response.
The response will be to trash Nate Silver’s character and to question the validity of the science of statistics.
I fear that all these predictions of future electoral dominance by Democrats rely too much on informed voters voting on the issues.
I think the predictions underestimate how much people vote on their feelings about the candidates.
I suspect all it would take is a smooth-talking, good-looking, charming Republican to turn the tables electorally. Particularly if pitted against one of the awkward, charmless lumps Democrats are sometimes wont to nominate.
So, yeah, these chickens ain’t hatched yet.
What you’re essentially saying, G.O., is that they need to become more like the Dems, and it’s a common theme among winners. It bugged the hell out of me when I heard in 2010 that the Democratic party needed to “abandon tax and spend,” and it rankles me (admittedly less) to hear Dems offer Pubs advice on what they need to do. You’re by no means the only one doing it, and I don’t mean to single you out, but I don’t think it’s helpful to the process. I’d love it if they made the changes you suggest, and I’d consider voting for some of their candidates under that kind of platform. But they’re going to have to make their own changes.
I’m not at all convinced that they’ll take Nate Silver at his word about demographic shifts even now, and I think it’ll take a couple of years before somebody comes to the forefront with both the conservative credentials to be believed and the statistical acumen to be right. I think the party is a lot more likely to (pretend to) moderate their immigration stance than their social conservativism - they can sell that as an attempt to woo the growing socially conservative Hispanic Catholic population. I also think it will backfire in Arizona, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see a nationalist third party send a Representative or two to Washington from the Southwest.
Unless they suffer another big loss, I think the Pubs will write off Tuesday as a combination of a weak candidate, bad timing with Sandy, and the unspoken issue of Mormonism vs. more mainline protestantism. I think they’ll double down on the social conservatives for 2014.
The answer of course, is the Tea Party. They are the greatest force of good - but for the reason opposite of their intent - that has happened to this country in a long time.
The republican party needs to oust the tea party caucus entirely, tell them they will never get any positions on committees and such, and that they aren’t welcome in the party at all.
Then we will have a 3 party system, democrats can move to the left, republicans can become today’s democrats, and the tea party can be an insane fringe group that we all like to poke for fun.
That’s a very good article.
One interesting aspect of it is that Nate Silver consistently said throughout the campaign that it was extremely unlikely that Obama would win with a minority of the popular vote. On this basis, he pitted the national versus state polls and said one or the other were most likely skewed (himself favoring the state polls).
It would appear that based on the actual results he is backing away from that position pretty strongly.
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying, they need to become more like Democrats, because that is the way of the country. They sad fact is that the Democrats are more like the Republicans of 30 years ago. The Republicans do not need to become Democrats but they do need to claim back some of the middle. Moderates in this elections went 56% for Barack Obama, so the Republicans have to do something about that. That segment is not out of reach, it just requires some changes in priorities. Go back to be more like Goldwater Republicans. Goldwater hated religion in politics, he felt gays should be allowed in the military as a Conservative ideal. They can still be Republicans, still fight against entitlements that they deem excessive, they can still argue against taxes in principle, but they cannot be inflexible. They need to stop being beholden to Grover Norquists and the tea party radicals. that is all.
I’ve missed this. What happens to the EC then? And why then?
Do you think they will?
The 2020 census. The House and the EC are both reapportioned every 10 years based on the census, and House district lines are also redrawn. Here’s what changed in 2010.
I do not.
This part was interesting
Which I’m assuming means if you move all the states above colorado 4.5 points to the right, he still carries every state above Colorado and 272 electoral votes. Nice.
In all sincerity, I am somewhat glad the GOP has been taken over by people who are indifferent to and usually openly hostile to concepts like objective reality and science. It makes them easier to beat. Of course that means nothing if they obstruct everything. And having a sane GOP leadership is not all bad.
I personally think the GOP will pretend to moderate itself, but it’ll be obvious beneath the surface nothing has changed.
Don’t forget though that this is a preliminary cut at the data. There are always confounding factors to consider. For example, Pot Legalization on the Ballot Dramatically Increased Youth Turnout. If you don’t take into account such processes, you might over-emphasize Obama’s appeal to the youth vote for example. In other words, most elections won’t have pot on the ballot which will tend to revert Democratic voter turnout towards more typical levels.
More generally after the data is cut for the first time, it takes weeks to improve the analysis by another 20% or so. But in a nation with thin electoral margins, that can make a difference.
Nate Silver isn’t a wizard, and he doesn’t pretend to be. He’s just a lucid writer, with an above average mastery of statistical modeling. He figures that some specialist (or team of specialists) will always be able to eventually beat him in the statistical game, so he needs to keep looking for new niches.
…in three states, at least two of which Obama was going to win anyway. Colorado was close, but with a margin of 3 million votes, I’m not sure that result can be directly attributed to young voters either. Overall, in 2008 18% of the voters were under 30, and in 2012 that rose to 19%. I agree that ballot initiatives are a confound, but I suspect Democrats could get marriage equality initiatives (or ban reversals) on the ballot in a bunch of states if the Supreme Court doesn’t weigh in on that issue soon.
But he was correct. What does he need to back away from?