Jeez, this garbage again? That “model” predicts nothing. It is the equivalent of me “predicting” a terrorist attack would happen on 9/11/2001 but making the prediction on 9/12/2001. There is no track record for the “model” those bozos have constructed. They looked at the results of past elections and constructed a set of events to fit the results. There was no prediction or analysis of data before the results were known. It was all done after the fact.
So you dismiss it because the New Republic is liberal, but without examining their argument. Conservatives do this a lot.
The weaknesses of the Boulder model has been examined on this board. I wouldn’t say it has been “Debunked”, merely shown to be dubious.
I would say that Intrade gives him 59% odds of 300+ and gives Romney 15% odds of 300+. But those are pretty thin markets. Nate’s central forecast is currently predicting 308 EV for Obama.
https://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=756110
https://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=756138
With respect, your claims seem pretty butthurt. It’s is if you’re only attuned to tribe, not argument, scrutiny and fighting ignorance.
Well, I must respectfully disagree with that assessment, though this pic of him leaving a press conference about US diplomatic casualties in Libya gives me pause. Only one man in the room was grinning. But no: probably not a lizard alien.
Low probability; his connection to the British royal family is too distant.
Then why does it worry you all so much? Why are there so many responses to my lame little thread. Why does it piss you off
so much?
It doesn’t worry me and where did you get the impression I was pissed off? I’ve been laughing all day at your OP. I’ve asked several times for you to list how you think the Electoral College vote will breakdown because I’m sure it will be amusing.
Um, because lame arguments receive more responses?
Substantively, it’s not a sure thing. 538 says Romney has a 21% chance which is too high for my taste (though I would give Romney better odds than that). There’s a 17% chance of throwing doubles with 2 dice. That’s not unusual. And Romney beats those odds.
I think hedge fund managers should pay the same tax rate as high tech CEOs do. Romney thinks they should be different - he wants hedge fund managers to pay 15% on their wages rather than 35%. I don’t think that’s fair to the chairman of Google, Caterpillar Tractor or our other industry captains. So, no, 20% odds is too high. It’s about justice for CEOs.
Because in the back of your minds, you are worried. You check “polls” every 30 minutes an calculate odds. to reassure yourselves. It is comedy.
I love you guys, but you gonna be lost on Nov 7th. Have a good weekend.
The largest unknown variable is this; will black and latino voters (especially young voters and women) turn out en masse to vote for Obama again in the key swings? I’m less inclined to trust polls this time around given their poor track record predicting non-white turnout.
2 Million more black, 2 million more latino and 600,000 more asians voted in 2008 than in 2004. Overall white votes were essentially the same in '04 and '08.It’s very difficult to know whether or not Obama has been able to retain his non-white voters of 2008, there is no historical precedent to compare to. Logic says that the 2008 spike won’t be replicated, BUT who knows? Some percentage of these non-white voters are now likely voters for sure. Is it 15% or 65%? GOTV efforts will be crucial.
Obama takes this in a landslide if for some reason he can retain or increase his non-white numbers from 2008. If there is a significant decrease, it will be close. If people are apathetic or election day is a bad weather in key swing states, Romney will have the edge. No way though Romney wins in a landslide, he is far too bland and undesirable to motivate significant numbers of less likely voters or 2008 Obama voters who would be willing to swing back to the right.
For what it’s worth, I don’t really see Obama losing.
Yes, facts and/or historical accuracy are things to be cast aside. Let us all go with what we feel in our gut. Thus shall we honor the entire fucking premise of this message board. Well done. When this election is over I hope you don’t mind when this thread gets rubbed in your face like dogshit on the living room carpet because oh my fucking God it will be.
You are conflating two different issues. When progressives are scared of a Romney presidency, they don’t think it is automatically LIKELY, the same way I could give you two dice and hold a gun to your head and tell you “You better not get snake eyes, punk…”
Nectar…necktie…neckturn…nickel…
[You win the thread, BTW. :D]
Good analogy. I’d describe myself as cautiously optimistic but still nervous. After all, Romney…and particularly the SuperPacs supporting him…are amassing huge war chests from very wealthy people who recognize it is a good investment to give millions of dollars in return for billions in tax breaks. And, Romney was quite successful in the primaries with running ads to completely trash his opponents, hence winning even though very few voters seemed to particularly like him.
Klaatu is right. Romney is going to absolutely dominate among middle income voters and run away with the election. I mean, Romney was right when he said middle income is between $200,000 and $250,000, right?
This is becoming obnoxious. Make an argument or don’t, but skip the taunting.
I think that what he said was that middle income goes up to between 200k and 250k. He didn’t say where it starts, just where the end cut-off is. This is actually similar to what Obama claims or at least where he wants to raise the income tax rate.
Given the question Romney was answering, one could argue he believes it starts around $100,000:
Actually, that “and less” makes what he said rather incomprehensible, as one can pretzel almost any meaning out of it depending on one’s preconceptions. My own sense is that his first clause is what he believes and the “and less” was tacked on as CYA, but then, I’m biased against him, having had him for my governor/absentee running-away-from-everything-liberal-in-Massachusetts “governor”.
Wow, I’m convinced.
Ah, yes, the old “You wouldn’t be arguing if you didn’t think I was right” gambit.
I beleive there is a logical flaw in this reasoning. See if you can imagine what it might be.
According to this map, Romney flips exactly one state (Indiana) from 2008. I can feel the Joementum!
‘If you argue with me, then I’m hitting too close to home because you know, but will not admit, that I am right. If you don’t argue with me, then obviously you agree.’